There are often quoted passages in Science of Survival
in which Hubbard in a veiled way calls for an end to individual human rights unless they support scientology. When I first read that book and the passage quoted in this thread I was caught up in it and agreed with it all. Not only that I was fervent to see that what Hubbard suggested should actually happen.
Here's that passage again:
L. Ron Hubbard wrote:
In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints. And particularly, none below 2.0, chronically or acutely, should be used as witnesses or jurors in courts of law, since their position in regard to ethics is such as to nullify the validity of any testimony they might essay or any verdict they might offer.
Science of Survival
This does not propose that depriving such persons of their civil rights should obtain any longer than is necessary to bring them up the tone scale to a point where their ethics render them fit company for their fellows. This, however, would be a necessary step for any society seeking to raise itself on the tone scale as a social order. A fundamental of law already provides for this step, since sanity, in law, is defined as the ability to tell right from wrong. The rational, and therefore, the ethical state of persons acutely or chronically below the point of 2.0 is such that it is impossible for them to judge right from wrong. Thus, by bringing forward a simple definition not only of right and wrong but of ethics, the existing fundamental can be put into effect, should it happen, by chance, that anyone care whither our social order is drifting. It is simpler to do psychometry on one-hundred and fifty million people than to bury a culture for which we and our fathers have striven these past hundred and seventy-five years.
Hubbard, L. R. (1951). Science of Survival : Prediction of Human Behavior (2007 ed., p. 152). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
is not now promoted to people who are outside scientology. By the time most people involved in scientology get to it they have done their training routines (TRs) and had some auditing. They have been indoctrinated, put into their hypnotic trance states, gone through their love bombing and they have bought into the principles of Keeping Scientology Working
Hubbard leads up to this advocacy of taking away people's rights. He starts off the book with a brief reiteration of what is in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
except that he becomes alarmist about the contagion of aberration and he describes the future of the world without treatment for that aberration in catastrophic terms.
When Hubbard released Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
he had no money making organization based on it. Since there are no definite instructions in that book to do whatever Dianetic therapy is I have to conclude that Hubbard wanted people to come to him looking for that instruction after having read that book. He must have had plans to start a money making organization that gave such instruction.
Science of Survival
is much akin to phase two of bringing a person into a cult. Where Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
mainly deals with personal problems and issues, Science of Survival
moves those problems and issues into the larger milieu of society, countries and the world. In that context Hubbard essentially presents his manifesto.
For a person involved in scientology what is outlined in Science of Survival
is the kind of world they are working so hard and so diligently on bringing into existence. Such a world will have in it all the points J. Swift lists in this thread. Such a world will not be safe for anyone, not even those people who work so hard and so diligently for scientology.