Unless you're crouched in a cave somewhere under the ice caps of the North Pole, you can hardly avoid being asked to join, donate to, endorse or believe in some group or other. Today there seem to be more groups, clubs, fraternities, lodges, associations, sects and societies than ever before—or do they just make more noise? Anyway, they go all the way from the Stone Skipping and Geplunking Club of Mackinac Island, Michigan, to the aggressive evangelists known as "Jesus Freaks" from California.

Few of us have the problem of a wealthy bachelor I heard of recently. He wanted to will his money to a deserving cause; but he was unable to select one with confidence. Still, it's understandable if we're in some dilemma as to which groups most deserve our time, money and efforts.

We live in a culture that is changing with dizzying speed. More than ever we need guidelines to determine which of our constantly shifting values are healthy and honest and which ones are potentially suicidal to mankind. Thinking based on worn-out platitudes and wild guesswork belongs to the Stone Age of human understanding. We need reliable rocket-age judgment to evaluate both old causes and new movements at their inception.

With this ambitious thought in mind, I worked out a five-point check (based on the tone scale) that should help you decide the worth of almost any group except possibly the neighborhood coffee-klatch:

1. What is the purpose of the group?
2. How does the group intend to accomplish the purpose?
3. What kind of leadership does it have?
4. What are its actual activities?
5. What are its past accomplishments?

Group purposes vary greatly in scope. Some clubs exist for the interest, improvement or amusement of the individual members only (bridge clubs, square dance clubs, etc). Others gather for the improvement of familes or romantic relationships (PTA, child study groups, La Leche Club—and there are even sexually oriented teams that unite for various unusual activities that I'm not going to discuss here in front of the children). Other organizations exist for the benefit of a whole profession or group of people (unions, guilds, professional associations, ethnic groups, woman's lib, gay lib, charities, government departments, political parties, civic associations and many more). Some groups unite to preserve or advance mankind (planned parenthood, medical research, etc..). Others have a common interest in plant and animal life (conservationists, SPCA, Audubon). Some are trying to hold the whole planet together before it self-destructs (peace groups, environmentalists, United Nations). Others are exploring or explaining the unknown (flying saucer clubs, astrology, psychic and spiritual groups). Lastly we find groups that unite for the understanding and enhancement of man's spiritual existence and his relationship to the entire universe (churches and religious philosophies).

A high-tone group with largest scope would be interested in the survival of man and the whole universe—both physically and spiritually. While an upscale person might join that stone skipping club just. for the fun of it, he will also belong to groups of larger scope.
 

This question helps us unmask Mortimer Murkey, the glib 1.1 who heads up the Society for the Aid and Betterment of Downtrodden Derelicts. On close examination, we find that the derelicts are still downtrodden; but Mortimer is driving a Ferrari and living in a twenty-room mansion—with no (other) visible means of income.
 

Last year the U.A.W. called an untimely strike which nearly crippled the faltering U.S. economy. They won a base pay of twelve thousand dollars a year for their members; but a few months later they were pleading with management for help in handling two mounting problems: alcoholism and drug use—now considered to be the highest causes for absenteeism on the assembly line. It is no surprise that a greater number of workers are sinking into Apathy when they keep receiving more and more pay for doing less. There is no opportunity to improve one's individual sense of worth if his paycheck increases while his contribution does not.
 

I'm not going to attempt any extensive analysis of groups here; but perhaps some comments on the more popular ones will make it easier for you to use the five-point test to make your own evaluations.
 

At the other extreme, one of the most successful drug programs in the world was organized several years ago in the Arizona State Prison. Called Narconon, the program was started by a three-time loser with a nineteen-year history of heroin addiction. Using training drills (devised by L. Ron Hubbard) as well as group study of religious and philosophical material written by Ron Hubbard, the program produces more than an 80% cure of hard drug addiction. Rehabilitation efforts based on physical or mental cures alone seldom achieve more than ten or fifteen percent cure.

Now used in several prison systems (for other inmates as well as drug addicts), Narconon, addressing both the spiritual and mental health of the individual, continues to produce enthused, well-oriented citizens who return to society with upscale purposes. Since the group contains only volunteers, there is obviously an agreement as to the purpose, and the results confirm the validity of the solution and the leadership.
 

The purpose was certainly valid: women should have equal recognition and opportunity. No upscale person will argue with that. However, the 1.5 leaders—loud, crude, militant and threatening—frequently reached a level of madness that is out of place in any sane negotiations. I objected to the sick "hate men" undertone as well as the implication that a woman must sacrifice charm and grace to earn an equal paycheck.

While the earlier feminists were shouting their loudest, a lady in California wrote a hook which started another movement advocating a more "feminine" role in which the woman is helpless, screams at spiders, becomes a fragile dependent and uses tears, pouts, and whines to let her man know that she is a woman.

Help!

Surely there's a solution someplace between the cigar-smoking, raging gut feminist and the moth who flutters helplessly between Grief and Fear. There is. The upscale woman.

Today many top-tone men and women are taking up the cause and working (with much less noise) to level out the imbalances in both home and work situations.

Before we can drop our mop pails entirely, however, we must quit blaming men for the whole thing. After all, we females have done our share of deceiving, conniving and playing downscale games.

The period of natural feminine outrage has won us a few (grudging) brownie points to be sure; but it is now the responsibility of every woman to be as ethical and high-tone as possible to justify the respect she wants.

Meanwhile, I hope the chronic Anger types don't go too far and ruin everything, because when all the noise is over, I'll still be willing to bake a batch of cookies once in awhile—in exchange for the luxury of having members of the more muscular sex keep on slaying my dragons, changing my flat tires and lending me a nice, firm shoulder to lean on now and then.

It was never all that bad.
 

Their solution is to bring public acceptance down to their level where we would condone their promiscuity and perversions (not to mention their propensity for spreading venereal diseases). They do not propose that society help them come upscale where a man is content to be a man and a woman enjoys being feminine (without being all hung up over the whole thing).

In Science of Survival, L. Ron Hubbard said: " . . . man is relatively monogamous. . . it is non-survival not to have a well ordered system for the creation and upbringing of children by families."
I listened to a pair of Gay Liberationists who were guest speakers before a social club. The end product of their movement, they said, would be total sexual freedom for everybody. They advocated "smashing" (their word, not mine) the roles of the family structure. Their objection to the stereotyped roles (dominant man, submissive woman) contains some element of truth; but when asked what would replace the family structure, one of them merely waved a hand airily and replied that it would work out "somehow."

A member of the audience asked how they accounted for the fact that most straights considered homosexual activities repugnant. One of the gays promptly replied: "People only react to homosexuality because they are afraid of discovering it in themselves." (Does this mean that when you are repulsed by seeing a dog eat garbage you really want to eat garbage yourself?) This was a neat (and covert) method of silencing all possible protests from anyone who has all of his hormones in the right place.

To analyze the social value of such a group, you need only observe that there are no high-tone homosexuals.

Tolerance for nationality, race, religious beliefs etc.. is an inherent characteristic of a high-tone society. Tolerance for a decadent condition, however, contains an apathetic acceptance of the condition as irreversible.Certainly homosexuals should not be abused or ridiculed. But a society bent on survival must recognize any aberration as such and seek to raise people out of the low emotion that produces it.
 

The president of the American Psychological Association recently called for the development and worldwide use of drugs to help prevent the powerful from exploiting the powerless. He said that human survival has become a moral problem and that biochemical intervention may be the best method for overcoming "the animalistic, barbaric and primitive propensities in man . . . We can no longer afford to rely solely upon the traditional, prescientific attempts to contain human cruelty and destructiveness."

Let's hope that he was merely trying to provoke some constructive action, because if this mind-boggling statement represents the final product of the field of psychology, perhaps this profession should be placed to rest in history books along with the other primitive remedies (like bloodletting) that didn't quite make it.
 

Behind the scenes of organized violence we may find the cunning 1.1 or 1.2 at work. Recently a newspaper columnist reported seeing some secret films of campus riots. The films revealed that the hardcore militants who shouted the loudest for blood, quietly pulled back when the violence actually erupted. As professional agitators, they were quite adept at ducking out on the turmoil they stirred up, thus avoiding arrest and prominence.

The main thing to remember in choosing your group is that it falls on the tone scale somewhere because of its purpose, its solution, its leader, its activities and its final product.

Now that you have all that, you can be gung-ho where it counts.