• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Suppressive Person Defense League

  • About SPDL
    • Legal and Disclaimer
  • Key documents: Suppressive Person Doctrine
  • Extremist Material
  • Fair Game Evidence
  • Writings
  • Glossary
You are here: Home / Archives for Ethics

Ethics

July 18, 1966 by clerk Leave a Comment

Transcript: Conference with The Guardian, LRH Aide, LRH Communicator, Legal WW, Guardian Communicator and the Head of Intelligence Branch 5, Office of LRH

18th July 19661

CONFERENCE with The Guardian, LRH Aide, LRH Communicator, Legal WW, Guardian Communicator and the Head of Intelligence Branch 5, Office of LRH

This action has to do with the recent adventure and the current suits on the London Daily Mail; has to do with the Newspaper Proprietors Group or whatever you call that activity and is very short and sweet.

I just reviewed this situation with the Guardian and I find out as follows:  That a criminal act has occurred and that the publications of materials copyrighted and classified materials have been published in this newspaper belonging to this particular group. Now this makes not a civil suit — this is a criminal act and I just thought about this and it seemed to me to be relatively simple to classify the subject and to label the head of the Newspaper Proprietors Group as accessory to crime.

Now exactly what that crime would be is at least receiving stolen goods. Now I’m perfectly prepared to put in a claim to the police that on my return certain classified papers were missing and pursuant to that that these classified papers — which were NOT for public issue and which were para-Scientology and did not represent Scientology and so forth, had been filched and that they were accepted and purchased apparently by these proprietors and that they have published them in first one and then another of their newspapers showing that there is association between those two papers and they are purchasing stolen goods and making use of them for their own profit.

In addition to that, that they sought to bar out the principal witness and plaintiff — not necessarily plaintiff, but an interested party to the libel suit against them, without whom they
thought they might succeed in defending that libel suit.

In view of the fact that their libel has caused a fantastic amount of damage to date in terms of financial recompense and is attempting to build a false image of a man and an activity and an organization, their expenses on this could be considered to be relatively high. So therefore they did undertake to send Young husband to Rhodesia to get me imprisoned or shot and then if that failed, denied re-entry into the United Kingdom and then vilified and discredited so that the testimony would not count in this suit.

And this is sub justice and it is not intimidation of witnesses — it is the intent to kill one. And that is a criminal offense and Sir William Carr and Cecil King are, at the very least, accessories if not one directors of these crimes. And this is a criminal matter and therefore of great interest to us. Now I think it should be explored on that basis and we do what we can on that basis, and see where we get. Okay?

Now there is one other action here. There is exchange of policy — I have found this to be the case in carrying out investigations of noisome and slanderous remarks — they are very often invented, as one knows, but they come quite commonly from criminal sources.

Now that was the first datum I had on this subject in 1954 — I found out in counting noses that the people who had done the most — twenty-one people — who had done the most to damage Dianetics had criminal records and seventeen of them I verified. I just got tired at seventeen and said this is too many. Now this was very interesting, because subsequent history of these people is also very interesting.

They all came a cropper with fantastic spectacularity before they got through. So I never worried about splinter groups and haven’t since. You notice this thing called “the Prophets” or something like that — well that’s just typical of the splinter group.

You notice we don’t hear anything of this Watson – “Amprinistics” or whatever he was, we don’t hear anything of him any more and so on. I don’t worry about splinter groups. What I worry about is entheta — and this is a change of policy.

Something I’ve just discovered. That in view of the fact that they have criminal backgrounds or in view of the fact that investigation will reveal this, our investigation should therefore go forward on the discovery of crime.

In a case of entheta or enturbulation, that we should go forward on this matter to the discovery of a crime as a first action. That we should act on this crime, not use it as blackmail or make some illegal use of it, but just as a public body and reform organization act on this crime, and then when it is acted upon — then we sue. This is about as malicious and vicious perhaps as one could get but then you are suing a discredited source and this would become hallmarked after a while.

They’d say, “The Scientologists must have done that because first he was jailed and then he was sued.” And so that you could lead to an expectancy that if somebody was very ambitious in spreading malicious gossip and rumour against Scientology or its principles, that they would be investigated with an effort to discover a criminal act; that the organization would then act to have them incarcerated and at that time, when they are discredited in this line, they would then be sued for libel and slander.

Now I have had to step up the bargaining of Ethics on the public front — that is to say the duress that we apply because we obviously aren’t applying quite enough pressure to cause the people’s banks to behave while we get on with our job.

Now with Ethics lines you see, you’ve got to apply just enough restraint — you don’t ever apply too much restraint — and you don’t apply too little: you’ve got to apply enough restraint.
Well obviously we have Ethics and we are putting it in a public front — we aren’t putting it in with enough velocity. Now, if we expect to get technology in in the world we must then, first, get in Ethics.

Now Ethics springs up as enturbulence against Scientology — when Ethics comes up with enturbulence against Scientology it makes it impossible for us to get on with the job.

Now this is regardless of any operation which comes up, OT Base or any operation of this kind. It’s obvious to me, after my study of four months, that we will have to get in Ethics on a broad social level before we can ever get in technology because these people are just too crazy and it’s like trying to help a wounded buffalo out of a wallow and that is not the same activity.

We say to this fellow, “You’ve got a lot of worries,” and “You have a lot of family trouble,” and that sort of thing.

“Well, we can make you more clever and if you were a bit more clever you could handle your problems.”

And we say this and instantly we get gored. So it’s a case in point.

So this, I’m officially telling you that this is the new policy; it’s on a broad social basis. We concentrate on getting in Ethics and then we follow that up with tech. And that is the policy. And then where possible — where we have discovered a great deal of entheta coming back at us, then we intend to get this handled by investigating it back to a criminal act by the person.

A criminal act is disassociated from the entheta of course but that’s what they are trying to defend or something and we get that and then we put on the pressure publicly to have that person prosecuted for that particular act and then when they have been prosecuted — or are being prosecuted — or are just beautifully discredited at that particular moment, then we serve them with a summons [?] law and order, assault and battery or whatever they did is not of interest to us except to discredit them and then we serve that with a suit for libel or slander.

That seems to me to be a fairly good work-out of it. Now I’ve been cheek by jowl by the water in the wog world all on my [lonesome]. No barricades, no barriers of anything, and I’ll tell you with this much velocity — how I lasted for four months I will never know — I will never know [?] these people were scared stiff of me, they were scared stiff to do anything else and I probably would have gotten away with it all the way if it hadn’t been for this action here in England. But this is obvious to me that Peter Younghusband came down and now this despatch in the hands of Mrs. Draper of the Salisbury Office in which he reports to me the telephone call of Peter Younghusband and my reply to her to stall him off, tell him to come in next Thursday. Now here — this was a waiting action; he was calling me up in beautiful timing to find out if it had happened to me yet, to get the comment, you see. And this was the rumour line and this caught me before the other — before the actual service of this letter. This letter was just nothing you see; it actually refuses to extend my visa beyond its first extension; it had already been extended once.

And the consequences of that are rather fabulous, but in view of the fact that their action denied me the profit of about a quarter of a million pounds worth of deals and jeopardized some fifty thousand pounds worth of assets and brought damage and widespread dismay so as to destroy another quarter of a million pounds worth of good will, which had been built up during that period. I would say that that is not an actionable thing in Civil Court — I would say it is a criminal act, but more important, that is actionable in a Civil Court but the reason it was done comes under the heading of crime.

So my whole proposal here is that we explore and I leave it to you from here on because I’ve got an Organization to get back together again so all I’m doing is winding up my cycle of action on this and you’ve had press to handle, you’ve got public presence to handle, you are now going into Worldwide Ethics — you know we’ll do it here before we move it into anything like OT Base or something like that.

But unless we get Ethics in very broadly, we won’t ever get technology in on this planet. And all I’m doing is ending this cycle of action and giving you my views — or, if you wish to so consider them, orders and instructions with regard to this.

Now I do not say that you can in actual fact implement this act but you can try and you can explore it with some enthusiasm to see if you can’t possibly do this because, if we can pull this trick off, then I see that without any OT machine guns hanging in mid air firing madly, we might be able to get Ethics in, you see, on a planetary basis.

Now we must go in on a gradient so we’ll take it from where we sit at this moment with the primary principles and more forward on this with some success. I wish to point out to you that the world is in sufficiently bad ethics condition as to make not only Scientology but civilization in peril.

It is a very, very sorry situation whereby you have the United States now encroaching on and treading upon the toes of an atomically armed nation, China. You have Russia about ready to turn around and back up China, even though it’s an enemy. You have at this time three forces involved in Africa. You have the Empire — the old Empire — forces from England. You have the resistive white supremacy population and you have the Communist interests which are going to prevent any reasonable solution if they possibly can until war can occur.

And then when war has occurred, then they will take their chances of getting into power. But if they can just lock the situation up — lock it up good until finally it bursts into flames, then they feel they might have a chance of taking over.

Now the reason they want southern Africa is very obvious–its fantastic quantities of wide-open productive land on which enormous quantities of food can be raised; tremendous labour supply in the Bantu, the Mashombe, the Matabele, these people are very hard-working people and under proper direction are quite productive.

The place has not even been tapped with regard to gold and there is probably oil there, the greatest world supply of chrome — there’s a mountain five miles long with is a sold chrome-owner. There’s all these various things. Now, Brazzaville — up in that area — there’s tungsten and they’ve already made a bite on that end of it.

But here’s this fantastic, wealthy, relatively empty land — perhaps the last great empty land then, and here is this perfectly valid labour supply — the African, who at this time is not being well utilized at all; he’s not being utilized really. I know we think he’s enslaved and is in chains and is working like mad. The fact of the matter is he’s sitting rather hopelessly out on the Reserve wishing somebody would put him to work because he hasn’t got enough to eat and he hasn’t the implements or capital with which to develop his tribal lands and he’s in bad shape. So, and also he’s sort of been blocked out of society, he’s not been permitted to participate with the white society. Now all of this adds up to just this — here’s a very large, wealthy land and, just to give you some background here.

All right, holding this up is just one person who has got this thing tied up in a nut — the person who prevents a settlement with England is Jacky Harman, Minister of Information, Tourism and Immigration. Nothing that has struck me — because it naturally would strike me — now he will neither clear up the security — the insecurity inside the Rhodesian government nor act to alleveiate the British situation, but he fears anybody who is anti-Communist.

All a man has to be is anti-Communist and Jacky fires him. Now this has gone to three stubborn anti-Communist personalities — Ivor Benson, a fellow named Haaker and Nigel Bruce Hankey. These three chaps are very, very good, and are experts on this subject and Harman has fired them.

Now in addition to that, he operates with very poisonous influence upon the Prime Minister and the society itself is utterly controlled by his super-secret police which are entirely different to the normal internal police forces and they just stockade anybody at the drop of a hat, he does anything. He is a Goebbels and a Hess all tied up into one nut — there’s one Suppressive and he’s sitting in the middle of the Rhodesian situation, breaking England’s heart, causing fantastic trouble overseas — there he sits.

Now if Mr. Jacky Harman put himself in stockade, I assure you that the entire situation would be solved.

We used to say “Well, its the White Supremacy people of Southern Africa who are stopping it all.” I think if you counted noses in South Africa and Rhodesia — I think if you counted those noses, I think you would find out that you were probably only dealing with a dozen people in all — or less!

I know that in Rhodesia, the Rhodesian Front, is just dying to settle with England, so are the Africans, so are the Asiatics, so are the Coloureds — these people all want to settle and Ian Smith no longer represents, don’t you see, the will of the people.

So here is an Ethics situation which comes down to an individual. Now I don’t know what we need in order to resolve these situations but we needn’t go out on a far flung world front in order to find trouble because we’ve got trouble we can experiment with already.

But I think that Ethics should not introvert onto Scientologists quite so much as it is doing. I think it should extrovert out into society against people who are really non-Scientologists, who are actively harming Scientology — those are the thoughts I have had in regard to this and whether they bear up in long practice or not we have yet to see, but I have had four months here of cheek by jowl observation of the wog world and I find out that they’re not very smart; that they tell very, very weird tales; that they are extremely suspicious, and in absence of factual information they make it up.

They are very information-happy, and I have an instance where the Number Two — probably Viet Nam is Number One, but probably Number Two international situation today I have now found the guy who has got it blocked into a situation that will not resolve — one man, one man! And everyone thinks it’s Smith, you see, they think it’s the Rhodesian Front. They’ve made this mistake so that’s inadequate –let me point this out — inadequate investigation.

There may be somebody had to be in there inside, cheek by jowl with these people to find out this datum and maybe that insight isn’t given to the normal intelligence operative of England or America’s CIA or something like that, but they depend to a marked degree upon the newspaper reporters who themselves are creating a situation in order to serve other masters or write news about it or something like that.

But anyway, I didn’t want to make a speech about it — just pointing out to you that Ethics situations hang up on individuals and the less we generalize, the more [we] particularize, the
better we are. So there’s always a preliminary investigation as to who is it — now we’ve somewhat taken this in that we’ve found out that there were only two directors of the newspaper syndicate but we in actual fact don’t know which one of those to is the Suppressive — it’s not necessarily true that they are both Suppressive. But nevertheless we will move in that direction.

Now we know that they’ve committed a criminal act because they confess to it by using the material.

So what my contribution to this is — my streak of genius on the matter — is the accessories to receiving stolen goods at least and then if there is some way we can make that stick in some fashion and get them under the gun for that, then we follow right in behind with a civil suit on our libel slander. Then perhaps — and I don’t know of any reason why you can’t follow a criminal suit with a civil suit, I think it’s rather common, istn’t it?

Legal: Yes…..

All right.

Look — now we’ll explore this — probably you’ll have a lot of considering — perfectly all right with me if you hire a seemingly huge […] of barristers or something of the sort — this we couldn’t care less about — understand? Don’t feel that you’re going it alone on this basis, but unless we plough forward on a programme, we will continue to be in some sort of trouble, so let’s test this programme out. Let’s see if we can’t unravel this thing in that way and let’s pilot our way through this thing without any magical occurrences. Okay?

All right — now are there any questions?

Guardian: Well, it’s not a question but I just was thinking that you were saying there that maybe one Suppressive and I would think that would be Cecil King.

Very possibly.

Because it was his newspaper that paid [?] to steal material down here and it is his relative that owned the Daily Mail, so there you’ve got two factors that say that Cecil King might be the one.

Oh — you’ll have to tie it up — I don’t even know the position if where a Company can be sued for a criminal act.

Legal: Yes…

Well this might wrap it up, you see. I think he’s thinking right now in terms of the company.

Any other questions?

Legal: [ ]

Well, if you action needs any further investigation, you should instruct your investigators to do so. Now, I don’t know what your investigators have at this particular time on psychiatry but they in actual fact should find a psychiatrist who had made libelous utterances against Dianetics or Scientology or against me and they should find the crime of which he is guilty — they should get him arrested, just one. They should promptly get him arrested for this and they we should sue him.

Now we can make that a pilot project on the lines and this would tend to [cover?] the general situation.

Now when we first came out with this plan of investigation and so forth, we ran into a liability. I want to point that out. That if we did not carry it forward ambitiously and successfully, it would backfire. Well, it’s backfired so therefore we haven’t carried forward ambitiously enough. We’ve not exerted sufficient pressure.

Now the purpose of Ethics is to exert enough pressure to make the exterior duress slightly greater than the interior duress of obeying the bank. And that is the whole secret of discipline. And they commonly over-discipline.  It’s very, very interesting that any trouble they have with the Africans in Rhodesia has been that they’re disciplining them but they have relatively few internal pressures to overcome so the external pressure is against somebody who is perfectly willing. And that’s what’s causing the trouble.

For instance, my boy Jamble — he smokes dacca, he gambles and he drinks, mostly native beer, and so forth. Now although I’ve seen him a little bit reeling or his eyes describing slight circles when he fixed them, I have never seen at any moment — oh yes, and I’ve suddenly seen him get eloquent — under a bit of native beer after he’d been out in the afternoon — not one single one of these acts got in the road of him doing his job.

So I used to tell him “Yes, I know Jamble — you’re a good boy even though you do drink and smoke dacca and gamble — that has nothing to do with me, you’re still a good boy.”

And you know he came way up tone arm. I noticed he drank less and I think he stopped smoking dacca entirely. But he didn’t stop gambling, because Master used to give him a pound to go out to the race track with and lose.

Now these boys were all willing, but they’re over-disciplined.

Now the Scientologist, not to make a comparison but the Scientologist is perfectly willing and is at this time by Ethics being over-disciplined, so we are over-disciplining the Scientologist and under-disciplining society and we should reverse that — reverse that very definitely. If anything, under discipline the Scientologist and over-discipline the society.

Now in that direction you’d still win but in the direction we are going we won’t. If you under-discipline a society and over-discipline Scientologists, why, we’ve had it. As a Scientologist
normally is very, very willing.

We’ve got to upgrade the idea of what is a Suppressive, as Suppressives really are nuts. They are really damaging, Suppressives and so forth.You only need a few heads on a pike.

Well, I didn’t want this to be a lecture — this is a conference. Any questions?

Guardian-Comm: I have one more: this guy that came over from England to Rhodesia that instigated having you taken out. What was his name?

Peter Younghusband. London Daily Mail.

Guardian-Comm: Oh, I see.

He has a brother, oddly enough, in Rhodesia — so he was the logical choice.

Guardian-Comm: The Daily Mail, then was the source of his coming to …

Oh yes, and it’s obviously [?]. Now he went to Harman and he told Harman a bunch of lies. And Harman avidly, because I was not for the Communists, accepted these lies and stampeded the Prime Minister with them, who then re-uttered them to a Committee of the Rhodesian Front that knew they were lies, that succeeded in discrediting both Harman and the Prime Minister in the face of their own political party and this will have fantastic repercussions.

Although we are playing around the basis that it was political — it was actually an effort on the part of the group to get off the hook because we can throw some damage at them. But this has been my thinking on it, that’s all.

Anything else? All right.

Oh, these are just verbal instructions. I have made a tape, so that you can review it in case of argument. I won’t bother to review unless there’s an argument because I think it’s all pretty
obvious and I wish to tell you that I’m off that line now, don’t you see — I’m definitely offline.

I was snapped off it rather interestingly — Bonwick took me a tour of the branch and what he’d been doing last night and I snapped straight to Saint Hill totally and frankly it’s been like digging in the mud to dictate out the reports and the letters and finish off this other cycle of action because I’m frankly no longer very interested in it.

I’m interested in right now the Organization; I want to see if it’s functioning all right and I’m going around picking things that are quite obvious and we picked up two or three like, like HCO is full of unanswered despatches — the last Division in the place that should be full uf unanswered despatches. But I understand you just transferred the HCO Area Sec, but now I suddenly spot that this new HCO Area Sec hadn’t had time enough — in fact hasn’t had time enough to let that many papers accumulate, so your new ES Comm/HCO should of course go to the Org Exec Sec or the Org Executive Course straight away and should specialize in the policies of HCO because he didn’t read somewhere along the line that HCO’s communications organization and as particles travel with rapidity and he’s Clear so he will pick it up in an awful hurry.

And next action I found the usual — that Letter Registrar didn’t know that she should look for things she could query and get into real communication with the person so that she would get a proper response. I think I’ve spotted also that they are not stuffing information bits –. For instance, right now I would be stuffing Clear Sec EDs into their outgoing Letter Reg mail. Then the guy’d read it. Any current Clear Sec ED, you see: Clear no. 19 — I’d just stick this in, completely noncommittally. That’s an under-sell.

I’d do something like this but it’s interesting that Joan McNocher doesn’t know how to do this, because she was a specialist on it in Jo’burg — she really carried on a – stuffed into those letters like mad, so it may be being done, but probably the wrong stuff is being stuffed.

We have a new book and also we really do need a book that is a very plain basic public-level book, which explains everything — it’s much harder to write though than any other book that you might think of.

I discovered a new gadget that I might tell you about just in passing, to close you off on another note, entirely non-sequitur.

Somebody has been critical of Scientology, you see. You take a copy of  Problems of Work out of your pocket and say, “Here, here’s a book on Scientology. Read that and find out if there’s anything in there to be critical about. Well, go ahead — find something to object to.”

And the guy’s supposed to be looking for something to object to, and of course he starts reading and doesn’t find anything to object to, and he gets interested and it washes it away and that’s a trick — gimmick, but that is also a cousin to getting Ethics in, in general.

Now Ethics WW will undoubtedly be gotten in from OT Base but apparently we’re involved in a problem right this minute and so I think we should get on with it.

Okay, thank you very much for coming in.

Notes

  1. Document studied on Confidential GO Intelligence Course. PDF format. To generate the text, I used SPDL’s hard copy of the transcript and the digital version at http://www.solitarytrees.net/cowen/go/conf1807/c180766a.htm.  I also added some formatting for ease of reading and made other minor edits. ↩

Filed Under: SP Doctrine Tagged With: discipline, Ethics, getting in Ethics, Guardian, London Daily Mail, Rhodesia, Russia, Suppressive Person, war

July 18, 1966 by clerk

Transcript: Conference with The Guardian (Broad Social Policy Re: “Getting in Ethics” )

Excerpted from Conference with The Guardian, LRH Aide, LRH Communicator, Legal WW, Guardian Communicator and the Head of Intelligence Branch 5, Office of LRH (July 18, 1966)

Something I’ve just discovered. That in view of the fact that they have criminal backgrounds or in view of the fact that investigation will reveal this, our investigation should therefore go forward on the discovery of crime.

In a case of entheta1 or enturbulation, that we should go forward on this matter to the discovery of a crime as a first action. That we should act on this crime, not use it as blackmail or make some illegal use of it, but just as a public body and reform organization act on this crime, and then when it is acted upon — then we sue. This is about as malicious and vicious perhaps as one could get but then you are suing a discredited source and this would become hallmarked after a while.

They’d say, “The Scientologists must have done that because first he was jailed and then he was sued.”

And so that you could lead to an expectancy that if somebody was very ambitious in spreading malicious gossip and rumour against Scientology or its principles, that they would be investigated with an effort to discover a criminal act; that the organization would then act to have them incarcerated and at that time, when they are discredited in this line, they would then be sued for libel and slander.

Now I have had to step up the bargaining of Ethics on the public front — that is to say the duress that we apply because we obviously aren’t applying quite enough pressure to cause the people’s banks to behave while we get on with our job.

Now with Ethics lines you see, you’ve got to apply just enough restraint — you don’t ever apply too much restraint — and you don’t apply too little: you’ve got to apply enough restraint.
Well obviously we have Ethics and we are putting it in a public front — we aren’t putting it in with enough velocity. Now, if we expect to get technology in in the world we must then, first, get in Ethics.

Now Ethics springs up as enturbulence against Scientology — when Ethics comes up with enturbulence against Scientology it makes it impossible for us to get on with the job.

Now this is regardless of any operation which comes up, OT Base or any operation of this kind. It’s obvious to me, after my study of four months, that we will have to get in Ethics on a broad social level before we can ever get in technology because these people are just too crazy and it’s like trying to help a wounded buffalo out of a wallow and that is not the same activity.

We say to this fellow, “You’ve got a lot of worries,” and “You have a lot of family trouble,” and that sort of thing.

“Well, we can make you more clever and if you were a bit more clever you could handle your problems.”

And we say this and instantly we get gored. So it’s a case in point.

So this, I’m officially telling you that this is the new policy; it’s on a broad social basis. We concentrate on getting in Ethics and then we follow that up with tech. And that is the policy. And then where possible — where we have discovered a great deal of entheta coming back at us, then we intend to get this handled by investigating it back to a criminal act by the person.

A criminal act is disassociated from the entheta of course but that’s what they are trying to defend or something and we get that and then we put on the pressure publicly to have that person prosecuted for that particular act and then when they have been prosecuted — or are being prosecuted — or are just beautifully discredited at that particular moment, then we serve them with a summons [?] law and order, assault and battery or whatever they did is not of interest to us except to discredit them and then we serve that with a suit for libel or slander.

Notes

  1. Definition: Entheta ↩

Filed Under: Extremism in Scientology Basics, Extremist Directives Tagged With: crime, duress, enemy, Ethics, investigation

March 6, 1966 by clerk Leave a Comment

HCOPL: Rewards and Penalties How To Handle Personnel and Ethics Matters

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 MARCH 19661

Issue I

REWARDS AND PENALTIES

HOW TO HANDLE PERSONNEL AND ETHICS MATTERS

The whole decay of Western government is explained in this seemingly obvious law:

WHEN YOU REWARD DOWN STATISTICS AND PENALIZE UP STATISTICS YOU GET DOWN STATISTICS.

If you reward nonproduction you get nonproduction.

When you penalize production you get nonproduction.

The welfare state can be defined as that state which rewards nonproduction at the expense of production. Let us not then be surprised that we all turn up at last slaves in a starved society.

Russia cannot even feed herself but depends on conquest to eke out an existence—and don’t think they don’t strip the conquered! They have to.

Oddly enough one of the best ways to detect a suppressive person is that he or she stamps on up statistics and condones or rewards down statistics. It makes an SP very happy for everyone to starve to death, for the good worker to be shattered and the bad worker patted on the back.

Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not Western governments (or welfare states) became at last suppressives. For they used the law used by suppressives:

If you reward nonproduction you get nonproduction.

Although all this is very obvious to us, it seems to have been unknown, overlooked or ignored by twentieth-century governments.

In the conduct of our own affairs in all matters of rewards and penalties we pay sharp heed to the basic laws as above and use this policy:

We award production and up statistics and penalize nonproduction and down statistics. Always.

Also we do it all by statistics—not rumor or personality or who knows who.

And we make sure everyone has a statistic of some sort.

We promote by statistic only.

We penalize down statistics only.

The whole of government as government was only a small bit of a real organization-it was an ethics function plus a tax function plus a disbursement function. This is about 3/100ths of an organization. A twentieth-century government was just these three functions gone mad. Yet they made the whole population wear the hat of government.

We must learn and profit from what they did wrong. And what they mainly did wrong was reward the down statistic and penalize the up statistic.

The hard worker-earner was heavily taxed and the money was used to support the indigent. This was not humanitarian. It was only given “humanitarian” reasons.

The robbed person was investigated exclusively, rarely the robber.

The head of government who got into the most debt became a hero.

War rulers were deified and peacetime rulers forgotten no matter how many wars they prevented.

Thus went ancient Greece, Rome, France, the British Empire and the US. This was the decline and fall of every great civilization on this planet: They eventually rewarded the down statistic and penalized the up statistic. That’s all that caused their decline. They came at last into the hands of suppressives and had no technology to detect them or escape their inevitable disasters.

Thus, when you think of uprocessing Joe to make a good D of P out of him and get him over his mistakes,” forget it. That rewards a down statistic. Instead, find an auditor with an up statistic, reward it with processing and make him the D of P.

Never promote a down statistic or demote an up statistic.

Never even hold a hearing on someone with an up statistic. Never accept an ethics chit on one-just stamp it “Sorry, Up Statistic” and send it back.

But someone with a steadily down statistic, investigate. Accept and convert any ethics chit to a hearing. Look for an early replacement.

Gruesomely, in my experience I have only seldom raised a chronically down statistic with orders or persuasion or new plans. I have only raised them with changes of personnel.

So don’t even consider someone with a steadily down statistic as part of the team. Investigate, yes. Try, yes. But if it stays down, don’t fool about. The person is drawing pay and position and privilege for not doing his job and that’s too much reward even there.

Don’t get reasonable about down statistics. They are down because they are down. If someone were on the post, they would be up. And act on that basis.

Any duress leveled by Ethics should be reserved for down statistics.

Even Section 5 investigates social areas of down statistic. Psychiatry’s cures are zero. The negative statistic of more insane is all that is “up.” So investigate and hang.

If we reverse the conduct of declining governments and businesses, we will of course grow. And that makes for coffee and cakes, promotion, higher pay, better working quarters and tools for all those who earned them. And who else should have them?

If you do it any other way, everyone starves. We are peculiar in believing there is a virtue in prosperity.

You cannot give more to the indigent than the society produces. When the society, by penalizing production, at last produces very little and yet has to feed very many, revolutions, confusion, political unrest and dark ages ensue.

In a very prosperous society where production is amply rewarded, there is always more left over than is needed. I well recall in prosperous farm communities that charity was ample and people didn’t die in the ditch. That only happens where production is already low and commodity or commerce already scarce (scarcity of commercial means of distribution is also a factor in depressions).

The cause of the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s in the US and England has never been pointed out by welfare “statesmen.” The cause was income tax and government interference with companies and, all during the 1800s, a gradual rise of nationalism and size of governments and their budgets, and no commercial development to distribute goods to the common people, catering to royal governments or only a leisure class still being the focus of production.

Income tax so penalized management, making it unrewarded, and company law so hampered financing that it ceased to be really worthwhile to run companies and management quit. In Russia management went into politics in desperation. Kings were always decreeing the commoner couldn’t have this or that (it put the commoner’s statistic up!) and not until 1930 did anyone really begin to sell to the people with heavy advertising. It was Madison Avenue, radio, TV and Bing Crosby not the Gre-e-eat Roosevelt who got the US out of the depression. England, not permitting wide radio coverage, never has come out of it and her empire is dust. England still too firmly held the “aristocratic” tradition that the commoner mustn’t possess to truly use her population as a market.

But the reason they let it go this way and the reason the Great Depression occurred and the reason for the decline of the West is this one simple truth:

If you reward nonproduction you get it.

It is not humanitarian to let a whole population go to pieces just because a few refuse to work. And some people just won’t. And when work no longer has reward none will.

It is far more humane to have enough so everyone can eat.

So specialize in production and everybody wins. Reward it.

There is nothing really wrong with socialism helping the needy. Sometimes it is vital. But the reasons for that are more or less over. It is a temporary solution, easily overdone and like communism is simply old-fashioned today. If carried to extremes like drinking coffee or absinthe or even eating, it becomes quite uncomfortable and oppressive. And today socialism and communism have been carried far too far and now only oppress up statistics and reward down ones.

__________

By the way, the natural law in this PL is the reason Scientology goes poorly when credit is extended by orgs and when auditors won’t charge properly. With credit and no charge we are rewarding down statistics with attention and betterment as much as we reward up statistics in the society. A preclear who can work and produces as a member of society deserves, of course, priority. He naturally is the one who can pay. When we give the one who can’t pay just as much attention, we are rewarding a down social statistic with Scientology and of course we don’t expand because we don’t expand the ability of the able. In proof, the most expensive thing you can do is process the insane and these have the lowest statistic in the society.

The more you help those in the society with low statistics, the more tangled affairs will get. The orgs require fantastic attention to keep them there at all when we reward low society statistics with training and processing. The worker pays his way. He has a high statistic. So give him the best in training and processing-not competition with people who don’t work and don’t have any money.

Always give the best service to the person in society who does his job. By not extending credit you tend to guarantee the best service to those with the best statistics and so everyone wins again. None are owed processing or training. We are not an Earthwide amends project.

No good worker owes his work. That’s slavery.

We don’t owe because we do better. One would owe only if one did worse.

Not everyone realizes how socialism penalizes an up statistic. Take health taxes. If an average man adds up what he pays the government he will find his visits to medicos are very expensive. The one who benefits is only the chronically ill, whose way is paid by the healthy. “So the chronically ill (down statistic) are rewarded with care paid for by penalties on the healthy (up statistic).

In income tax, the more a worker makes the more hours of his workweek are taxed away from him. Eventually he is no longer working for his reward. He is working for no pay. If he got up to 50 pounds a week the proportion of his pay (penalty) might go as high as half. Therefore people tend to refuse higher pay (up statistics), it has a penalty that is too great. On the other hand a totally indigent nonworking person is paid well just to loaf. The up statistic person cannot hire any small services to help his own prosperity as he is already paying it via the government to somebody who doesn’t work.

Socialisms pay people not to grow crops no matter how many are starving.

Get it?

So the law holds.

Charity is charity. It benefits the donor, giving him a sense of superiority and status. It is a liability to the receiver but he accepts it as he must and vows (if he has any pride) to cease being poor and get to work.

Charity cannot be enforced by law and arrest for then it is extortion and not charity.

And get no idea that I beat any drum for capitalism. That too is old-old-old hat.

Capitalism is the economics of living by nonproduction. It by exact definition is the economics of living off interest from loans. Which is an extreme of rewarding nonproduction.

Imperialism and colonialism are also bad as they exist by enslaving the population of less strong countries like Russia does, and that too is getting a reward for nonproduction like they did in Victorian England from all the colonies.

Parasitism is parasitism. Whether high or low it is unlovely.

All these isms are almost equally nutty and their inheritors, if not their originators, were all of a stamp—suppressive.

All I beat the drum for is that the working worker deserves a break and the working manager deserves his pay and the successful company deserves the fruits of its success.

Only when success is bought by enslavement or rewards are given to bums or thieves will you find me objecting.

This is a new look. It is an honest look.

Reward the up statistic and damn the down and we’ll all make out.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

Notes

  1. Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩

Filed Under: Uncategorised Tagged With: Ethics, How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course, out-ethics

May 18, 1965 by clerk Leave a Comment

Lecture: Organization and Ethics

Hubbard. (1965, 18 May). Organization and Ethics. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course,  (SHSBC-424). Lecture conducted from East Grinstead, Sussex. .mp3 |transcript

Filed Under: Uncategorised Tagged With: Ethics

May 27, 1960 by clerk Leave a Comment

HCOB: Dear Scientologist:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1960
Issue II

BPI
MA (not a lead article but a 2nd place)

Dear Scientologist:

For a long ten years I have had to wear many hats. Amongst them is an Ethics hat by which I have had to protect, often with small support, the good name and standards of conduct of Dianetics and Scientology.

To say the least the hat and necessary actions of counter-attack and defense have been distasteful to me. And in this regard, I humbly ask your help.

We have the answers today as to the why of “squirrels”. We know the reason for their overts against Dianetics and Scientology. Technically, with overt-withhold and the phenomena of help we not only understand them but can straighten out their insecurity and hates to their own benefit.

Could you help me in this? It must be evident by now after ten long years that if there were any twist or untruth, betrayal or insincerity intended by me or organizational people, we long since would have passed away. The rumors that are put out by unbalanced people achieve only harder work for me and for good people everywhere.

In ten consistent years you should have proof enough that I’ll stay at my post and do my job and overcome barriers, technical or administrative, organizational and field, somehow.

I dislike punishments and quarrels and entheta as much as any of you. Sometimes I haven’t handled these things well, but I have tried to do my job as best I could here on a muddy earth.

Today nothing can destroy us or our works. I have no fear for our future and I know what we can do. Available to your hands is the technology necessary to handle rumor mongers, unethical persons and enturbulators. You can help me by handling them and getting them to good auditors, preferably an HGC, and preventing them from upsetting others and our task. Winning is so easy now, success is in our very grasp.

What failure do you think I feel when I am asked to cancel a certificate? With all the wealth of truth before him, someone avails himself or herself of no part of it and with a glass of water held in hand, dies of thirst.

Yet some of this burden lies with you. When an auditor forgets his personal auditing, and audits without being clear, why does the field permit him to crack up? Why haven’t his friends and associates thought enough of him to force him to get processing from a reliable source? Why do they wait for him, overworked already, to emerge from the tangle of some emotional crisis utterly unstrung and hating everything, before they offer processing?

Clearing the executives, the auditors, the people of Scientology is your job now.

When you hear somebody “going bad”, running away and raving against us all, don’t harbor him and sympathize—you’ll kill him. Make him go to the nearest HGC or an auditor with altitude over him and get his overts off and his ability to help increased.

There are thousands of auditors across the world. Few of them are clear. Once or twice a year amongst all these one of them turns upon us. Rumors fly. People wonder.

Eyebrows raise. Why? In a few years they’ll be clear. We’ve just begun the project. Right now they are not. Instead of standing around blinking, wondering even believing such wild tales, why aren’t you being effective? The person doing bad and untrue things needs assistance. The least you can do is drive or force him to an HGC where supervised auditing (and not patty-cake) will straighten the person out and make life bright again.

My lines are heavy. My days are long. To these should we also add my Ethics hat?

A breakthrough has happened here in 1960’s spring bigger even than O/W. We’re clearing people fast in HGCs. It just began to happen. But it isn’t happening to auditors in the field yet and it won’t for quite some while. Meanwhile must I go on and act to minimize the damage being done by people not only not yet clear but heavily caved in?

You could help me by pressing these people in toward auditing, by understanding the why of their rumors and hates and getting them processed. And you can help by insisting that “names” in Scientology get processed regularly by competent auditors in an HGC (not by some “friend” who’ll patty-cake) until they’re really cleared. I myself have had scores of hours of processing since last fall. If I could be clearer than I am, what’s that make the case of other Scientologists?

You could lighten my lines, and my heart, if you’d share this burden even a little bit. Hold the field together until they are all clear.

Now, certain you will help in this and let me get on to wider work, I wish to celebrate the occasion of HGCs, using new technology, beginning to make clears again, by announcing the complete and unqualified restoration of all certificates and awards ever cancelled since 1950. They’re all in force again. Let’s get on with our job.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder1

Hubbard, L. R. (1960, 27 May). Dear Scientologist: (Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin). The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. V, pp. 397-398). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

  1. This document is listed on SPD 139 30 May 1986 PTS/SP Checksheet, G31. ↩

Filed Under: Uncategorised Tagged With: Ethics, squirrels

  • « Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4

Primary Sidebar

Scientology's "Suppressive Person" mask

Transcript: The SP Doctrine on Trial

Footer

Recent Posts

  • News: Scientology Cult Shut Down Over Shady Land-Grabbing Black Ops in Moscow
  • Book: Dianetics The Modern Science Of Mental Health: Chapter 1 (excerpt)
  • Chart: The Bridge To Total Freedom
  • Extremism
  • Ad: The Cause of Suppression

Tags

black propaganda chaos merchant criminals David Miscavige dead agent enemy Ethics evil purposes Fair game FDA FPRD Gerry Armstrong Glossary GO Intelligence Course government HFPRDA How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course HSSC illness intelligence Interrogation L. Ron Hubbard legal Mary Sue Hubbard NCG OSA overts overts and withholds personnel requirements PR psychiatrists psychiatry psychosis PTS Rehabilitation Project Force rock slammers roller coaster RPF Russia scapegoating Scientology security Sea Org security checks SP Doctrine Suppressive Person

Archives

Copyright © 2019 · Executive Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in