[an error occurred while processing this directive] Warning: This page contains material of a nature which may offend some readers. This site is not affiliated with the Church of Scientology.

The heading for the second chapter seems to imply that "anti-social" and "anti-Scientologist" are one and the same, or at least share a great deal of overlap. This is another thing one must keep in mind when reading Scientology materials or conversing with a Scientologist.

There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which cause about 20% of a race to oppose violently any betterment activity or group.

Such people are known to have anti-social tendencies.

These statements are based upon an anonymous authority; because the source is not named, it is impossible to evaluate the reliability of the data. This fallacy persists throughout the chapter; at no time does Hubbard ever provide the reader with the source of the information upon which he bases his conclusions.

When the legal or political structure of a country becomes such as to favor such personalities in positions of trust, then all the civilizing organizations of the country become suppressed and a barbarism of criminality and economic duress ensues.

Hubbard here fails to define a number of terms: what a "position of trust" is, and what he considers to be "civilizing organizations" and "economic duress".

Economic trends do not derive solely from one source. Many factors must be considered; consumer habits, trade relations with foreign countries, periods of military aggression and dormancy, and many other things. To imply that "economic duress" is caused by anti-social personalities in "positions of trust" could be considered a fallacy of either insignificant cause (the purported cause may contribute to the effect, but is insignificant when compared to other factors), or of complex cause (the effect is caused by a number of things, of which this is only a part).

A similar argument may also be applied to his claims that anti-social personalities in "positions of trust" cause the "barbarism of criminality". I shall not address the issue of "civilizing organizations" here, as he has not defined the term; it is therefore overbroad and difficult to address logically.

Crime and criminal acts are perpetuated by anti-social personalities. Inmates of institutions commonly trace their state back to contact with such personalities.

Hubbard fails to identify what kind of institutions he is talking about. In addition to being a generality (which he states later on is the sign of an anti-social personality), he again fails to provide any source for his data, again making it difficult to lend credence to his argument.

Thus, in the fields of government, police activities and mental health, to name a few, we see that it is important to be able to detect and isolate this personality type so as to protect society and individuals from the destructive consequences attendant upon letting such have free rein to injure others.

As they only comprise 20% of the population and as only 2 1/2% of this 20% are truly dangerous we see that with a very small amount of effort we could considerably better the state of society.

He states earlier that this 20% violently opposes betterment groups and activities, yet he claims that only 2.5 percent of these people are "truly dangerous". What kind of violence did he not consider dangerous, I wonder?

Well known. even stellar examples of such a personality are, of course, Napoleon and Hitler. Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Christie and other famous criminals were well known examples of the anti-social personality. But with such a cast of characters in history we neglect the less stellar examples and do not perceive that such personalities exist in current life, very common, often undetected.

Regardless of how common their existence is, if these personalities do in fact exist undetected, then by that fact it is impossible to either prove or disprove his assertion.

When we trace the cause of a failing business, we will inevitably discover somewhere in its ranks the anti-social personality hard at work.

In families which are breaking up we commonly find one or the other of the persons involved to have such a personality.

Where life has become rough and is failing, a careful review of the area by a trained observer will detect one or more such personalities at work.

Again, all of these assertions can be either fallacies of insignificance or of complex cause; they can also be post hoc fallacies -- for example, the success of failure of a business depends upon a number of factors. Even if an anti-social personality were found within the business, it does not necessarily follow that it was their actions which directly contributed to the business' failure.

As there are 80% of us trying to get along and only 20% trying to prevent us, our lives would be much easier to live were we well informed as to the exact manifestations of such a personality. Thus we could detect it and save ourselves much failure and heartbreak.

Once again, Hubbard fails to identify the source of his statistics, and he continues to speak in generalities. Logically speaking, generalities are not of necessity undesirable, as long as it is understood that there may be certain exceptions to the general rule; I mention it here because Hubbard makes certain statements concerning people who speak in generalities.

It is important then to examine and list the attributes of the anti-social personality. Influencing as it does the daily lives of so many, it well behooves decent people to become better informed on this subject.

Remember to keep these attributes in mind when you read Hubbard's writings -- or those of Andrew Milne, Cory Brennan, and others. You'll be surprised at how many of the attributes are revealed.

ATTRIBUTES

The anti-social personality has the following attributes:

1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities. "They say...", "Everybody thinks...", "Everyone knows..." and such expressions are in continual use, particularly when imparting rumor. When asked "Who is everybody..." it normally turns out to be one source and from this source the anti-social person has manufactured what he or she pretends is the whole opinion of the whole society.

Compare this with the first chapter (The Purpose of Ethics), wherein Hubbard makes a lot of references to all of humankind (Man), "they", and a number of all-encompassing absolutes.

This is natural to them since to them all society is a large hostile generality, against the anti-social in particular.

In fact, he even does it here, while he is talking about other people doing it. He has given no specifics; he's broadly painting an entire class of "anti-social" people with the brush of his own generalities.

There is a further irony in this sentence, given Hubbard's 1982 statement that:

Time and again since 1950 the vested interests which pretend to run the world (for their own appetites and profit) have mounted full-scale attacks. With a running dog press and slavish government agencies the forces of evil have launched their lies and sought, by whatever twisted means, to check and destroy Scientology.

(Aides Indulged His Every Eccentricity And Egotism, by Joel Sappell and Robert W. Welkos, (c) 1990 Los Angeles Times)

2. Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, invalidation and general suppression.

Compare this with what the ars "handlers" post. Andrew Milne attempts to claim that the court decisions in Scientology cases are bad news for critics. Almost all of the handlers (such as Andy, Vera Wallace, Cory Brennan, Woody to name a few) have posted critical and hostile remarks, and have attempted to invalidate critics by posting DA materials on them.

"Gossip" or "harbinger of evil tidings" or "rumor monger" once described such persons.

(...and as far as I know, those terms still do. But I digress.)

It is notable that there is no good news or complimentary remark passed on by such a person.

Note that this absolute pretty much means that there are no anti-social people: if there is no good news or complimentary remark passed on by an anti-social person, then if a person does relate good news or make a complimentary remark, it is a clear indicator that he or she therefore does not possess an anti-social personality.

3. The anti-social personality alters, to worsen, communication when he or she relays a message or news. Good news is stopped and only bad news, often embellished, is passed along.

Such a person also pretends to pass on "bad news" which is in actual fact invented.

Consider Andrew Milne's warping of court decisions when he passes them along to ars, and Hubbard's concept of "acceptable truth". Consider Cory Brennan's claims about the psychiatric death camps, for which she has been so far unable to provide any valid evidence.

4. A characteristic, and one of the sad things about an anti-social personality, is that it does not respond to treatment or reform or psychotherapy.

This part is confusing. Is Hubbard recognizing psychotherapy as a field which can produce valid results?

Regardless, notice how many Scientologists (such as Michael Lomker, to give a recent example) proclaim that psychotherapy did no good for them at all.

5. Surrounding such a personality we find cowed or ill associates or friends who, when not driven actually insane, are yet behaving in a crippled manner in life, failing, not succeeding.

Again, an assertion of "fact" made with neither supporting evidence nor source of data upon which this conclusion was based.

Such people make trouble for others.

When treated or educated, the near associate of the anti-social personality has no stability of gain but promptly relapses or loses his advantages of knowledge, being under the suppressive influence of the other.

More generalities; still no source of information. I'm interested in knowing how someone who associates with an anti-social personality "loses his advantages of knowledge".

Physically treated, such associates commonly do not recover in the expected time but worsen and have poor convalescences.

This is a very interesting assertion: that the mere association with a particular kind of person can adversely affect the healing process. Unfortunately, neither examples nor the source of information upon which this claim was based were provided.

It is quite useless to treat or help or train such persons so long as they remain under the influence of the anti-social connection.

The largest number of insane are insane because of such anti-social connections and do not recover easily for the same reason.

Unjustly we seldom see the anti-social personality actually in an institution. Only his "friends" and family are there.

If the anti-social personality is seldom institutionalized, but his or her associates are, there should logically be no impediment to recovery, as the associates have been isolated from the environment where the "anti-social connection" exists.

6. The anti-social personality habitually selects the wrong target.

If a tire is flat from driving over nails, he or she curses a companion or a non-causative source of the trouble. If the radio next door is too loud, he or she kicks the cat.

If A is the obvious cause, the anti-social personality inevitably blames B, or C or D.

A particularly ironic claim, in light of the progressively added beliefs of Scientology: once one begins "whole track" auditing, responsibility for one's actions devolves onto one's "past lives"; once one reaches the level of OT III, one can blame one's problems on Body Thetans.

I have also been told (but admittedly have not seen actual examples of this) that Hubbard re-issued materials which had been revised to correct errors, and that these errors were described as being caused by suppressive people on lines who had altered them before they were distributed.

7. The anti-social cannot finish a cycle of action.

Such become surrounded with incomplete projects.

Unfortunately, Hubbard wasn't kind enough to explain why this is so, or what relevance it has.

8. Many anti-social persons will freely confess to the most alarming crimes when forced to do so, but will have no faintest sense of responsibility for them.

Note the contradiction here: they freely confess when forced to do so. Furthermore, if the "alarming crimes" to which a person is forced to confess were not actually committed by the person, one would hardly expect that person to feel responsible for them. Notice also that Hubbard doesn't go so far as to state that the anti-social persons actually committed those "most alarming crimes".

Their actions have little or nothing to do with their own volition. Things "just happened".

They have no sense of correct causation and particularly cannot feel any sense of remorse or shame therefore.

If so, then a person who does feel remorse or shame for one's actions, or who accepts responsibility for one's actions, must therefore not be anti-social.

9. The anti-social personality supports only destructive groups and rages against and attacks any constructive or betterment group.

This paragraph, of course, requires that the terms "destructive", "constructive" and "betterment" be defined. If one assumes that Scientology is both constructive and a betterment group, then anyone who is critical of Scientology is by definition anti-social.

10. This type of personality approves only of destructive actions and fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities.

Same objections as in the above paragraph; Hubbard does not define his terms, and bases his argument upon the inherent ambiguity therein. These assertions also depend on the use of prejudicial language for acceptance (obviously, no sane person would fight against constructive or helpful actions or activities).

The artist in particular is often found as a magnet for persons with anti-social personalities who see in his art something which must be destroyed and covertly, "as a friend", proceed to try.

Again, no examples. Judging from this, I would assume that Hubbard took any constructive criticism as an example of an anti-social personality at work.

11. Helping others is an activity which drives the anti-social personality nearly berserk. Activities, however, which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.

Again, prejudicial language and undefined terms; opinions on what is actually "help" differ greatly, especially between Scientologists and their critics.

12. The anti-social personality has a bad sense of property and conceives that the idea that anyone owns anything is a pretense, made up to fool people. Nothing is ever really owned.

Did this "attribute" come from Hubbard's legendary hatred of Communists?

THE BASIC REASON

The basic reason the anti-social personality behaves as he or she does lies in a hidden terror of others.

To such a person, every other being is an enemy, an enemy to be covertly or overtly destroyed.

Read Hubbard's "CONFIDENTIAL" policy letter of 2 December 1969 (INTELLIGENCE ACTIONS / COVERT INTELLIGENCE / DATA COLLECTION), which outlines a number of strategies for fighting the war against Scientology's enemies. (Another such document, available on this site, is Guardian Order 121669.)

The fixation is that survival itself depends on "keeping others down" or "keeping people ignorant".

Notice that the non-Scientologist public, not to mention lower-level Scientologists, are kept ignorant of the contents of the upper levels of Scientology.

If anyone were to promise to make others stronger or brighter, the anti-social personality suffers the utmost agony of personal danger.

They reason that if they are in this much trouble with people around them weak or stupid, they would perish should anyone become strong or bright.

This appears to have a direct relevance to the standard response whenever someone begins to reveal the truth about the Church of Scientology.

Such a person has no trust to a point of terror. This is usually masked and unrevealed.

When such a personality goes insane the world is full of Martians or the FBI and each person met is really a Martian or FBI agent.

To quote from a piece called "What Your Donations Buy", by L. Ron Hubbard, printed in a Scientology publication called "Information on Taxes and Your Donations":

Since 1950, so-called "mental health" groups have fought to discredit and decrease the power of Dianetics and Scientology.

For 19 years, using their press control, government stooges and puppets, these psychiatric front groups have conducted a continuous suppressive covert operation against us.

Compare also his assertions of IRS persecution and his Invader Fleets.

But the bulk of such people exhibit no outward signs of insanity. They appear quite rational. They can be very convincing.

However, the list given above consists of things which such a personality cannot detect in himself or herself.

I wonder if Hubbard ever noticed that he demonstrated many of the above "attributes"?

This is so true that if you thought you found yourself in one of the above, you most certainly are not anti-social. Self-criticism is a luxury the anti-social cannot afford. They must be RIGHT because they are in continual danger in their own estimation.

Notice that he does not say "almost certainly", he says "most certainly". (I suppose this means that a person who is surrounded by as many unfinished projects as I am, and is aware of the backlog, has nothing to worry about...)

If you proved one WRONG, you might even send him or her into a severe illness.

This would be an interesting experiment; however, notice that Hubbard says you might send the person into an illness, not that you will. Unlike other assertions that Hubbard has made (such as the clam "experiment" that he suggests to the reader in "History of Man), he at least leaves himself an escape route in this sentence, should anyone attempt to show how patently absurd his assertion is.

Only the sane, well-balanced person tries to correct his conduct.

Again, he uses prejudicial language in order to coerce agreement from his reader.

RELIEF

If you were to weed out of your past by proper search and discovery those anti-social persons you have known and if you then disconnected, you might experience great relief.

Similarly, if society were to recognize this personality type as a sick being, as they now isolate people with smallpox, both social and economic recoveries could occur.

Again, he uses "might" and "could" in these sentences, insulating himself from being proven wrong.

Things are not likely to get much better so long as 20% of the population is permitted to dominate and injure the lives and enterprise of the remaining 80%.

Once again, he provides neither source nor example for his statistics, but asks the reader to simply accept his figures.

As a majority rule is the political manner of the day, so should majority sanity express itself in our daily lives without the interference and destruction of the socially unwell.

The pity of it is, they will not permit themselves to be helped and would not respond to treatment if help were attempted.

Again, Hubbard fails to define what he means by "help", nor does he provide, anywhere in the book, any suggestion on how one would help one of these anti-social personalities.

An understanding and ability to recognize such personalities could bring a major change in society and our lives.

"Could". Then again, it might not; Hubbard does not bother to tell us what kind of changes might be produced by this "understanding and ability", nor does he provide any of the reasoning behind his assertion.

That ends the analysis of the second chapter. Responses are welcome (indeed, desired) from critics, Free Zoners and Scientologists alike, but I'd ask that any responses be made in ARS so that everyone can benefit from reading them.