SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS AND SUPPRESSION

SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS AND SUPPRESSION

Page last updated: Sep 17, 2020 @ 8:48 pm

This page is a work in progress, but most of the content is there. It may just be perfected over time.

Note that references on the subject of Scientology ethics and “suppression” are presented in the next segment SCIENTOLOGY POLICIES ON ETHICS AND SUPPRESSION. If you are not familiar with Scientology ethics, you should look over that section first.

 

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS

Setting up Analytical Perspectives

 

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY vs TOTALITARIAN COLLECTIVISM

Definitions:

TOTALITARIAN: of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian, dictatorial [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]

AUTOCRATIC: Tending to impose one’s will on others in an insistent or arrogant manner; domineering. See Synonyms at dictatorial. [The American Heritage Dictionary]

COLLECTIVISM: The world “collectivism” usually refers to a certain socioeconomic, political ideology such as communism, but in this analysis it is used to describe a cultural situation where certain ways of thinking, attitude and behavior are dictated and enforced by group members onto each other through collective agreements in disregard or in opposition to individual’s freedom for self-determination.

In essence, the practice of Scientology comes down to two people choosing to sit in front of each other and engage in various communication processes and exercises, which also includes formation of groups and organizations to make that exercise a possibility. Such activity is already “protected” within the framework of a free and civil society adopted by most of the Western and Westernized world that embraces and legally protects the principles of Individual Liberty, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to Peaceful Assembly and the Right to Self-Defense, as well as embracing a more general concept of Self-Determination.

Being an educated American who fought in World War 2 against a totalitarian, extremist movement of Nazi Germany and then seeing Cold War unfold in opposition to the spread of another totalitarian, extremist movement of Communism, Ron Hubbard should have been very well aware of the principles embraced and defended by the West against the very dangerous political movements trying gain power in the world and in the process claiming the lives of million through persecutions, executions, forced labor camps, and war.

Yet, instead of seeing the real danger to the continual existence of a free society and advocating for its principles, Ron Hubbard turned around and advocated AGAINST the principles of “Individual Liberty” and “democracy” and set up a Scientology organization in the format of a totalitarian State hostile to individual rights and freedoms that employed the exact same tactics of conformity enforcement with persecution and suppression of any “deviation” or alternative to his totalitarian system of control.

Much can be said about Ron Hubbard’s ideas within the subject of Dianetics and Scientology through the 1950’s, but what does become very clear, in view of a detailed study, is that there was a MAJOR SHIFT that occurred in Ron Hubbard’s attitude and philosophy starting some time around 1959 when he began to introduce authoritarian methods and philosophy in stark contrast and even opposition to his own ideas in years prior. This eventually culminated in the creation of a totalitarian, extremist organization that aimed to deprive individuals of their rights and freedoms which were guaranteed by the societal construct (culture and government) of the United States of America and the rest of the Western world embracing American principles of a “free world.”

Notice that most of the policies and “logic” regarding “suppression” came out in mid to late 1960’s. This is following right after Ron Hubbard introduced major changes into Scientology theory and practice in early 1960’s to make forced confessionals, with an embedded subversion of critical thinking, virtually the corner stone of Scientology practice moving forward. This change is covered at great length on page Overts and Withholds.

 

LINGUISTIC ABSTRACTION vs REALITY

Notice that Ron Hubbard uses a lot of LINGUISTIC ABSTRACTIONS to weave his web of psychological manipulation around the minds of his followers: disparaging statements, criticism, natter, entheta, enturbulation, antagonism, counter-intention, suppression…

WHAT EXACTLY is something thinking, saying or doing with respect to SPECIFIC ideas, methods, principles, policies, events, actions, or social interactions within the sphere of reality that can be grouped under the heading of “Scientology?” Any manifestation of thought, speech or action by someone else – can it not be addressed with respect, understanding, logical argumentation and professionalism – as opposed to psychotic vilification, aggression, and cutting of communication? This is of course apart from addressing outright violence and criminal actions which in any civilized society would be handled in the usual way by police and other law enforcement agencies anyway.

 

SCIENTOLOGY SCIENCE vs SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS

References {CONSIDERATIONS, AGREEMENT AND REALITY}:

BOOK (1951): Science of Survival, Book I [Chapter 15 “COLUMN M Reality (Agreement)] 

As has been said in earlier chapters of this book, the quality known as reality exists, so far as we know, mainly because we agree that it exists.

For our purposes, the lowest common denominator of reality could be called, then, agreement. If you and I both agree that we are gazing at an automobile, then that automobile has reality for us. If another person comes forward and says that it is not an automobile but a barrel of olives, then you and are apt to suppose him crazy. Majority opinion rules, where reality is concerned. Those who do not agree with the majority are commonly pronounced insane, or are exiled, and thus we have a sort of continuous natural selection which gives us a social order that has agreed upon certain definite realities. Anyone who seeks to alter those realities in any way is attacked, unless the strength and force of his reason are such that they carry into the minds of men a new reality on which those men can agree.

 

BOOK (1951): Handbook for Preclears: The Second Act

Reality itself could be considered that on which Man agrees to be real.

 

[08 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort”
Lecture: Axiom and Effort Processing

There was an Axiom in the First Book. You couldn’t have called it an Axiom, it was an observation. It said a person couldn’t be aberrated unless he agreed to it. You remember that? Well, this self-determinism is his agreement with it; that’s all there is to it.

 

BOOK (1955): The Creation of Human Ability: A Summary of Scientology

Scientology concludes and demonstrates certain truths. These truths might be considered to be the highest common denominators of existence itself.

The following summary of these truths has the aspect of precision observations rather than philosophic hazardings. When treated as precision observations, many results occur. When regarded as philosophic opinions, only more philosophy results. Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time. By this it is meant that an idea or opinion is, fundamentally, superior to space, energy, and time, or organizations of form, since it is conceived that space, energy, and time are themselves broadly agreed-upon considerations. That so many minds agree brings about Reality in the form of space, energy, and time. These mechanics, then, of space, energy, and time are the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life.

The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual’s freedom to alter his considerations of spacer energy, time, and forms of life and his roles in it. If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe, and barriers of his own creation. Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself, or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual.

The goal of processing is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and ability of his own considerations (postulates).

A Scientologist is one who understands life. His technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life.

The technical information of the Scientologist includes the following, which are a list of usable or self-evident truths as revised from the earlier Logics and Axioms.

1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

2. THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.

3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

. . .

26. REALITY IS THE AGREED-UPON APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE.

. . .

44. THETA (THE STATIC) HAS NO LOCATION IN MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, OR TIME. IT IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATION.

 

BOOK (1955): The Creation of Human Ability: SOP 8-C: THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT

There is no question here of whether space, energy or objects are real. Things are as real as one is certain of their reality. Reality is, here on Earth, agreement as to what is. This does not prevent barriers, or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. For one makes, by a process of continuous automatic duplication, all that one perceives. So much for theory — in application this theory obtains results of considerable magnitude in changing beingness.

*SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure.

 

BOOK (1955): Dianetics 55! [Chapter IV Accent On Ability]

1. COMMUNICATION is the interchange of ideas or particles between two points. More precisely, the definition of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention and Attention and a duplication at Effect of what emanates from Cause.

2. REALITY is the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved between Cause and Effect. That which is real is real simply because it is agreed upon, and for no other reason.

3. AFFINITY is the relative distance and similarity of the two ends of a communication line. Affinity has in it a mass connotation. The word itself implies that the greatest affinity there could be would be the occupation of the same space, and this, by experiment, has become demonstrated. Where things do not occupy the same space their affinity is delineated by the relative distance and the degree of duplication.

 

BOOK (1951): Handbook for Preclears: The Twelfth Act

AGREEMENT: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO AGREE BUT DIDN’T WANT TO. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED OTHERS TO AGREE. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM AGREEING. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED OTHERS FROM AGREEING. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE GLAD TO AGREE.

COMMUNICATION: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO COMMUNICATE. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM COMMUNICATING. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED OTHERS TO COMMUNICATE. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED OTHERS FROM COMMUNICATING. TIMES WHEN YOU WANTED TO COMMUNICATE.

AFFINITY: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO LIKE SOMEBODY. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM LIKING SOMEBODY. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED ANOTHER TO LIKE YOU. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED ANOTHER FROM LIKING YOU. TIMES WHEN YOU DECIDED YOU LIKED SOMEBODY.

 

THE BIG QUESTION #1:

Ron Hubbard described the principle of AGREED UPON CONSIDERATIONS resulting in a shared (experience of) reality in relationship to the actual physical universe (MEST) – the principle that can obviously be questioned in terms of whether the actual existence of the physical universe in itself is a product of considerations [see page REALITY and ARC] – but can’t this logic be successfully applied to just thoughts, attitudes and perceptions – the mental rather than the physical phenomena?

Why should anyone be FORCED TO AGREE that criticism, disagreement, or alternative assertions should quality as “suppression” that needs to be somehow dealt with by handling (reforming), attacking into submission, or disconnecting from the individual? How about an idea that it is “just an opinion” that can be considered, argued with, agreed or disagreed with, or just left as is? Why should anyone be forced to agree that simply someone expressing their viewpoint, regardless of what it may be, can qualify as a form of “suppression” – instead of being looked as just someone’s viewpoint that can be considered or simply ignored?

If according to Ron Hubbard’s own assertions in the “science of Scientology,” REALITY is brought forth or manifested through AGREED UPON CONSIDERATIONS, then why did he formulate and force a WEB OF CONSIDERATIONS on all Scientologists that there is such a thing as “suppression” and “suppressive persons and groups” out there with an intention to undermine Scientology? With such an enforcement in place with the use of unchangeable organization policy and “Scientology ethics,” it would guarantee (according to Scientology’s tenets regarding reality) that the phenomenon of “suppression” would manifest and continue to persevere into perpetuity – since all Scientologists are continually forced to subscribe to and reinforce such considerations through the use of “Scientology ethics.”

HAVE SCIENTOLOGISTS BEEN TRYING TO RESOLVE A PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN CREATION? – the problem called “suppression” (or any other problem that Ron Hubbard had mocked up for them like “critical thoughts”). In other words – Scientologists trying to resolve a problem that they themselves continue to postulate into being. [Also, see page: PROBLEMS AND PERCEPTION under “Imagined Problems.”]

And if, according to “Scientology science,” every individual is a THETAN – a complete cause onto oneself with the power of consideration to make things real or unreal within one’s own space of awareness and experience – then it would seem that, according to this principle of “Scientology science,” all that would be required to “handle suppression” is to simply stop mocking it up. [undo / release / discharge mockups related to “suppression”] Or in other words, duplicate through it within one’s own space of consciousness [which Hubbard called “one’s own universe”].

Why did Ron Hubbard cancel Creative Processing [see Creative Processing Undone] which exercised individual’s ability to produce and handle any consideration at will, to mock (create) or unmock any experience, and instead he formulated and enforced a web of considerations that set up Scientologists as some kind of “victims of oppression” fighting for “freedom” effectively turning Scientologists into some sort of “victim revolutionaries” who would effectively work against the Western ideals and culture?

And yet there is more!

 

References {SELF-DETERMINISM AND RESPONSIBILITY}:

BOOK (1951): Advanced Procedure and Axioms: An Analysis of Self-Determinism

The goal of the auditor with his pre-clear is not the release of a psychosomatic, not the improvement of appearance, not greater efficiency or better interpersonal relations. These are incidental. The goal of the auditor with the pre-clear is the rehabilitation of the pre-clear’s self-determinism.

In order to understand this goal, let us examine some data and have a thorough understanding of what self-determinism is. Before Dianetics there were vague pushes in that direction but the state itself lacked definition and definitely had no bridge built to it.

Self-determinism is that state of being wherein the individual can or cannot be controlled by his environment according to his own choice. In that state the individual has self-confidence in his control of the material universe and the organisms within it along every dynamic. He is confident about any and all abilities or talents he may possess. He is confident in his interpersonal relationships. He reasons but does not need to react.

 

BOOK (1951): Advanced Procedure and Axioms: Responsibility

DEFINITION: Responsibility is the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics.

There is no compromise with FULL RESPONSIBILITY. It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions on every dynamic and in every sphere as one’s own.

[comment: It seems that Hubbard forgot to include responsibility for “thoughts” in the book, but he discusses Thoughts and Counter-Thoughts in lectures related to this book.]

 

[19 NOVEMBER 1951] Thought, Emotion, and Effort: Cause and Effect

It’s very amusing. As a matter of fact, almost anybody can sit down and refuse to take the responsibility for something, just specifically, and feel a counter-effort. Did you ever see a medium sit down and get slapped by spirits? Did you ever see that? Well now, that’s the easiest one of them all. She will, too! She said, “Spirits exist and this exists and that exists, and I’m going to sit here quietly in a trance and … Of course, you have to be careful how you do it because there are evil spirits and they will sometimes come around and cuff you.” And she knows this out of her own experience, but, believe me, it’s a convincer. So she’ll sit down there quietly and she’ll relax and relax, not taking the responsibility for these counter-efforts, and she’ll all of a sudden get one.

Now, I have never heard one of these things audible, except when the medium slapped her hands behind her back like that. But I have seen a medium come up with a black eye on this. All she had – what she was doing, actually, is she had failed to take responsibility for her little brother – a punch that gave her a black eye and so she got the black eye back again. I mean, it’s very simple.

These counter-efforts exist and are effective on you to the exact degree that you don’t take responsibility for them.

. . .

It is not the amount of physical pain in a person’s life, or sorrow or loss or anything else – it simply breaks down his ability to handle his own theta facsimiles, his ability to handle his own memories. When he can’t handle a certain memory, why, he’s in tough way: it’ll start handling him, and this is pretty grim.

 

[17 DECEMBER 1951] Thought, Emotion, and Effort: Counter-Effort, Counter-Emotion and Counter-Thought

Now, actually, you know there’s such a thing as an engram, so we’re just neglecting the thing because we’ve found faster ways to snap the case out of its top. But you take an engram, all it is, in the world, is counter-thought and counter-emotion impressed against the individual when he is inert and unable to put forth an effort to resist them.

 

THE BIG QUESTION #2:

So if TAKING FULL RESPONSIBILITY for something – assuming oneself to be a creator of some observed (or experienced) manifestation in reality – leads one to a state of freedom and ability, then why did, in his later work, Ron Hubbard delineate selected human manifestations as “suppression” and persons expressing them as “suppressive persons” and then forced Scientologists NOT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY over these realities?

According to the principles above, wouldn’t such enforced conditioning result in Scientologists actually experiencing (and somehow becoming afflicted or effected by) all the various counter thoughts, emotions and efforts associated with “suppression” and/or associated with some individual or group considered to be “suppressive?”

 

References:

BOOK: (1952) Scientology 8-8008: Responsibility

The responsibility level of the preclear depends upon his willingness or unwillingness to handle energy. That preclear who is protesting against energy in any direction is abandoning responsibility in greater or lesser degree.

 

[02 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: Locks, Secondaries, Engrams – How to Handle Them

Now, with the First Book forward, we were trying to bring around and we succeeded in actually bringing a person up to the responsibility for the moments when he was unaware. We ran them out and brought them back into being. And whenever we ran one out and brought it back into being, we made him responsible for that section of his life and it ceased to have a heavy command value on him. Because anything for which a person is not responsible can effect — make an effect of that person. Any time he’s not responsible for something, it can affect him.

Well, so you see now what we’re talking about — we’re talking about engrams — it comes around to an engram. An engram is a moment of pain and unconsciousness by old definition. Let’s redefine it.

An engram is a period of no responsibility. An engram is a period where the individual has abandoned control of and ownership of space, energy and objects. An engram is a period where the individual has abandoned space, energy and objects.

Now, if you put that definition down, it becomes much more understandable when we start to define space, energy and objects and find out what they are in terms of experience. But you can see that right now as you connect that up.

Now, to run an engram — running an engram is a method of Standard Operating Procedure 1950 or 1951. It is a method of making the individual reassume control of a period where he has abandoned control of space, energy and objects. You make him reassume control of, by going through it again and running through it again and demonstrating to him that he had a better control of it than he supposed. And so you run it and you run it and you run it.

 

[02 DECEMBER 1952] The Philadelphia Doctorate Course: A Thetan Creates by Postulates – Q2

Now, that which a person can create cannot have any great effect upon him. Anything that a person can create, change or destroy doesn’t have any large value to him.

 

[03 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: The Track of the Thetan/GE-Space/Time

Now, a fellow is — we’ll cover responsibility very heavily, but when a fellow won’t take responsibility for an energy, he becomes an effect of it.

 

[11 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: Chart of Attitudes: Rising Scale Processing

Now, what then is your level that is an attainable level for freedom? It would have to be a level which is so high that every man could reason and be responsible in his own right for his own acts and also for the acts of others.

 

[13 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: Goal: Rehabilitation of Thetan, Case Step I

One has to be able to command energy in order to perceive. …

Lack of perception equals lack of force – force simply composed of energy and objects. To rehabilitate perception, rehabilitate the preclear’s ability to handle force. …

Energy: inability to handle energy would mean inability to perceive. Inability to perceive would be the inability to handle energy.

 

HANDLING ENERGY -> BEING ABLE TO PERCEIVE.

NO DUPLICATION – NO AWARENESS – NO CLEAR VIEW OR UNDERSTANDING (OF SOME TARGET MANIFESTATION IN REALITY).

SO, ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTOLOGY SCIENCE, IF SCIENTOLOGISTS DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHATEVER MANIFESTATIONS THEY CONSIDER TO BE “SUPPRESSION,” THEY WOULD ACTUALLY NOT BE ABLE TO CLEARLY PERCEIVE THOSE MANIFESTATIONS AND WOULD BECOME EFFECT OF THEM.

Did Ron Hubbard cancel Creative Processing so that he could then “reformat” Scientology to enforce certain (self-defeating) considerations onto Scientologists? Why would he do that? It’s like he became a subversive influence in his own movement. Why would he try to prevent people from practicing or developing Scientology outside of oppressive control by the management structure that he had setup?

 

References:

BOOK (1955): The Creation of Human Ability: A Summary of Scientology

11. THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD:

(a) As-is-ness IS THE CONDITION OF IMMEDIATE CREATION WITHOUT PERSISTENCE, AND IS THE CONDITION OF EXISTENCE WHICH EXISTS AT THE MOMENT OF CREATION AND THE MOMENT OF DESTRUCTION, AND IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN SURVIVAL.

(b) Alter-is-ness IS THE CONSIDERATION WHICH INTRODUCES CHANGE, AND THEREFORE TIME AND PERSISTENCE INTO AN As-is-ness TO OBTAIN PERSISTENCY.

(c) Is-ness IS AN APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONTINUOUS ALTERATION OF AN As-is-ness. THIS IS CALLED, WHEN AGREED UPON, REALITY.

(d) Not-is-ness IS THE EFFORT TO HANDLE Is-ness BY REDUCING ITS CONDITION THROUGH THE USE OF FORCE. IT IS AN APPARENCY AND CANNOT ENTIRELY VANQUISH AN Is-ness.

. . .

27. AN ACTUALITY CAN EXIST FOR ONE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT WHEN IT IS AGREED WITH BY OTHERS IT CAN THEN BE SAID TO BE A REALITY.

The anatomy of Reality is contained in Is-ness, which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. Is-ness is an apparency, it is not an Actuality. The Actuality is As-isness altered so as to obtain a persistency. Unreality is the consequence and apparency of the practice of Not-is-ness.

 

BOOK (1952): Scientology 8-8008 [chapter: Universes]

A universe is defined as a “whole system of created things.” There could be, and are, many universes, and there could be many kinds of universes: we are for our purposes here interested in two particular universes. The first of these is the MEST universe, that agreed upon reality of matter, energy, space and time which we use as anchor points and through which we communicate. The other is our personal universe which is no less a matter of energy and space.

. . .

One’s own universe is amenable to instantaneous creation and destruction, by himself and without argument. He can create space and bring it into a “permanent status.” He can create and combine forms in that space and cause those forms to go into motion and he can make that motion continuously automatic or he can regulate it sporadically or he can regulate it totally, and all by postulate. One’s envisionment of one’s own universe is intensely clear. The reality of one’s own universe is sharper and brighter, if anything, than his reality on the MEST universe. We call one’s attitude towards his own universe “actuality,” and his attitude towards the MEST universe, since it is based upon agreement, “reality.”

 

BOOK (1952): Scientology 8-8008 [chapter: Behaviour of Universes]

It could be said, then, that the difference between the microcosm (one’s own universe) and the macrocosm (the MEST universe) is the difference between commanding it and agreeing about it. One’s own universe is what he would construct for a universe without the opposition or the confusion of other viewpoints. The MEST universe is that upon which one agrees in order to continue in association with other viewpoints. This may very well be the sole difference between these two universes. . . .

When an individual’s ability to create his own universe is rehabilitated it will be found, strangely enough, that his ability to handle the MEST universe has been rehabilitated.

 

BOOK (1952): Scientology 8-8008 [chapter: Creative Processing]

In truth, all sensation which he believes to come from these masses of illusory energy known as the MEST universe, are first implanted through agreement upon what he is to perceive and then perceived again by himself, with the step hidden that he has extended his own sensation to be felt and perceived by himself. He is fully convinced that the MEST universe itself has sensation which it can deliver to him, whereas all the MEST universe has is an enforced agreement which though of no substance, yet by a gradient scale came to be an illusion which seems very masterful to a preclear.

 

SENSATIONS is a form of experience created by the mind in response to CONTACT with something or in response to registering some change or event. It is a basic step in the mechanism of forming awareness and perception of some given existence, occurrence or manifestation.

In other words, it may not be correct to use Ron Hubbard’s assertions in relation to the physical reality which has objective existence – that the experience of the physical reality is somehow completely self-generated – but this general logic can be very successfully applied to PSYCHOSOMATIC CONDITIONS that may be brought into being, or that may seem real due to a conviction on part of the individual experiencing them. Here is an example application in relation to “suppression”:

PROCESS: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS SUPPRESSIVE?
                   DECIDE THAT IT IS NO LONGER SUPPRESSIVE.

 

[23 JULY 1954] The Phoenix Lectures: The Four Conditions of Existence, Part II

An individual couldn’t possibly get into trouble with As-isness, except if you consider losing everything trouble. But it would be things that he was losing which he either didn’t want or had just postulated into existence. In other words, As-isness is an exact duplication or an exact creation. All As-isness is doing is merely accepting the responsibility for having created it and anybody can accept the responsibility for anything. That’s all As-isness is when it operates as a perfect duplicate.

Now, what’s this full responsibility? Full responsibility merely says this: “I created it.” When you ask somebody to make a perfect duplicate of it, he’s going through the mechanics of creating it. Therefore, it disappears. He knows, unless he throws some other-determinism in on the thing – in other words, practices some Alter-ism on its creator – that it’s not going to exist at all.

 

[23 JULY 1954] The Phoenix Lectures: The Four Conditions of Existence, Part III

Now, the funny part of it is that if you made it and you know you made it, you can always say, “It doesn’t exist now.” By saying what? By saying “I made it.” As-isness, see? You accept the responsibility for having created it and you get a “Not-isness.”

So there are really two conditions of “Not-isness”: there’s just vanishment or the other one, which is what we mean, which is an Isness which somebody is trying to postulate out of existence by simply saying “It isn’t.

A Not-isness in our terminology would be this specialized case of an individual trying to banish something without taking responsibility for creating it. Definite, positive and precise definition: trying to vanish something without taking the responsibility for creating it. And the only result of doing this is to make it all unreal, to make it forgotten, to make it back of the black screen, to make it transparent, to make it dull down, to give it over to a machine, to wear glasses-anything that you could possibly do to get a dim-down of an Isness. And that is done by saying-just this, just this precise operation, no other operation: “I didn’t make it. It isn’t.” See? “I didn’t do it, so it doesn’t exist.”

 

THE BIG QUESTION #3:

Isn’t cutting communication (disconnection) a form of NOT-ISNESS – trying to make something go away by just shutting down one’s awareness and pretending it doesn’t exist? The same can be said about trying to apply force to suppress something, such as criticism, as opposed to taking responsibility for its creation.

[23 JULY 1954] The Phoenix Lectures: The Four Conditions of Existence, Part IV

However, it works this way: If somebody else, other than yourself, made a mass of energy, all you would have to do would be to come along and fish around for its approximate moment of creation and duplicate it and it would then disappear.

In other words, according to Scientology science, it is PROACTIVELY REPRODUCING some given reality manifestation within one’s space of consciousness is what makes it “discharge” or disappear – AS-ISNESS, not trying to somehow fight or avoid it which is NOT-ISNESS.

 

Reference:

[19 MAY 1952] The Route to Infinity Lectures: Outline of Technique 80

How do you not discover – how do you not discover – a secret of existence? Well, the best way not to discover it is to back up from it and sit still. If you are going up toward infinity, for heaven’s sakes, examine infinity. Infinity would consist of everything, wouldn’t it, just at first glance and first analysis. And so that would mean sweeping action, it would mean sweeping decision, it would be “to be.” But in order to be you have to have willingness to be and as you go up the line – all angels have two faces: one white, one black – you have to be willing to destroy as well as willing to create. “To be” is everything and therefore as you go up the line, you have to be willing to risk, to dare.

 

APPLICATION OF SCIENTOLOGY SCIENCE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF “SUPPRESSION”:

PROCESS: DUPLICATE INTENTION TO DESTROY.

– substitute “destroy” with other items: stop, inhibit, harm, undermine, deceive, abuse, subvert, suppress… etc. Can also say “harmful intention.”

PROCESS: HOW CAN YOU HARM THE CHURCH?

– substitute “harm” with any of the above; can also substitute “the Church” with any other envisioned target of suppression.

Also see: Alternative and Corrective Processes for Scientologists.

 

Ron Hubbard employing “reverse Scientology” by effectively PROHIBITING CONSIDERATIONS of harm toward Scientology, thus ensuring that Scientologists will always remain victimized in a state below responsibility on the subject of harm.

HCOB 12 SEPTEMBER 1962 SECURITY CHECKS AGAIN

 

References:

BOOK (1952) Scientology 8-8008: Creation and Destruction

An individual will not be responsible for that on which he will not use force. The definition of responsibility is entirely within this boundary. That person will not be responsible in that sphere where he cannot tolerate force, and if one discovers in an individual where he will not use force, he will find where that individual will also refuse to be responsible.

 

[13 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: Goal: Rehabilitation of Thetan, Case Step I

Responsibility is the experience manifestation of taking on command of energy. That’s all. Responsibility is force. Willingness to be, use and have. Utilize and own energy and objects sitting in space – that’s responsibility. What is responsibility? It’s the willingness to handle force. If you get a person who is not even vaguely willing to handle force, you’ve also got a person who is not capable of responsibility.

If you get a manager who is afraid to hurt somebody – in other words, use force on somebody – you got a lousy manager. And that’s the end of it. A fighting ship might have an awful lot of men on it who just hated the hell out of its captain – might hate his guts from the word go – and follow him to their deaths. Why? He used force. A person using force isn’t trying to be liked. He goes way upscale to get liked, not way downscale into MEST to be liked. Entirely different thing. Responsibility and force are the same thing. Perception and force are the same thing.

Energy: inability to handle energy would mean inability to perceive. Inability to perceive would be the inability to handle energy.

 

So by preventing Scientologists from even considering the use of force toward Scientology itself, Ron Hubbard, according to his own principles under Scientology science, guaranteed that Scientologists will end up in a state of “no responsibility” with respect to Scientology itself and will have poor perception and understanding of it. Combine prohibition against considering “overts” toward Scientology with prohibition over “critical” thoughts and speech – and you will end up with a state of complete oblivion. You will get people that will just follow instructions without any idea of what exactly they are being involved in because, having been deprived of some basic faculties (to direct force and form thoughts of one’s choosing), they will literally not be able to see the complete picture of what Scientology is – the good, the bad and the ugly.

Why would Ron Hubbard want to reduce his followers to such a low condition? Did he somehow forget the principles that he taught, but how could that be? – Just trying to understand where Ron Hubbard was going with his “Ethics” and organizational construct through the filter of his own ideas communicated within Scientology science through the 1950’s.

 


 

SCIENTOLOGY POLICIES ON ETHICS AND SUPPRESSION

“Scientology” is whatever Ron Hubbard wrote and said it was which was never subject to question to begin with. So by “attack on Scientology” what is really meant is an attack on Ron Hubbard’s ideas and directives, or persons, groups and organizations upholding them.

Judging from the policies that Ron Hubbard produced, the underlying objective of “Scientology ethics” evidently is:

TO ENSURE TOTAL CONFORMITY AND COMPLIANCE
WITH RON HUBBARD’S IDEAS AND DIRECTIONS
(which includes elimination of any criticism, opposition or alternative).

Yes! There are a lot of conflicting areas within the volumes of material that Ron Hubbard had produced especially in materials between the 1950’s and 1960’s, but since criticism and disagreement is not allowed inside Scientology groups and organizations, it is not possible for even practicing Scientologists to fully explore and comprehend these conflicts within Ron Hubbard’s ideas throughout time. Scientologists are conditioned to follow instructions, as they are given. When people first come into Scientology, they become exposed to the 1950’s materials and methods – like basic books and lectures, Dianetic auditing, communication drills, and some creative processes during introductory Life Repair auditing – all often yielding miraculous and beneficial results getting a person into a state of firm conviction that Scientology is a good thing. Once the person is “in,” they are indoctrinated into Scientology “ethics” as part of the package. And it is all intertwined together.

The analysis presented on this and other pages is a results of years of effort to isolate and produce detailed, independent analysis of the different aspects of Scientology to then be able to evaluate different parts of Scientology in terms of each other, and in terms of knowledge outside of Scientology.

 

Alternatively, it can be stated that the purpose of the “ethics” that Ron Hubbard had designed is:

TO NEGATIVELY LABEL, VILIFY AND SUPPRESS ANYONE WITH A CRITICAL OR ANTAGONISTIC DISPOSITION TOWARD SCIENTOLOGY, OR ANYONE WHO TRIES TO INTRODUCE CHANGES OR OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE, OR EVEN ANYONE THAT SIMPLY WANTS TO PRACTICE SCIENTOLOGY OUTSIDE OF RON HUBBARD’S AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL EXTENDED THROUGH HIS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.

 

The underlying objective of Scientology “ethics” is openly and clearly stated in
HCOPL 18 JUNE 1968: ETHICS [color]

The Purpose of Ethics is

TO REMOVE COUNTER INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.

And having accomplished that the purpose becomes

TO REMOVE OTHER INTENTIONNESS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.

Thus progress can be made by all.

The person who enters on Scn groups to then sell other-answer is of course an enemy.

 

HCOPL 11 MAY 1965 ETHICS OFFICER HAT [color]

The purpose of the Ethics Officer is “To help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done.”

The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with Ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing Ethics Codes.

 

HCOPL 27 OCTOBER 1964 POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY AND POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES [color]

Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity exist for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble.

These persons can be grouped under “Potential Trouble Sources”. They include

(a) Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.

To summarize potential trouble sources, the policy in general is to cut communication as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are.

 

HCOPL 30 DECEMBER 1965 PTS AUDITING AND ROUTING [color]

A PTS CANNOT BE AUDITED OR TRAINED UNTIL THE PTS SITUATION IS HANDLED.

 

HCOPL 07 MARCH 1965 CERTIFICATE CANCELLATION [color]

Cancellation of Certificates and Awards is done only for the reasons announced – departure from Scientology to set up some splinter group, or setting up a splinter group, or merely announcing a departure from Scientology (but not by reason of leaving an org, a location or situation or death), or for committing one or more Suppressive Acts (see HCO Pol Ltr of 1 March 1965).

Enrolment in or employment by, or direct knowing assistance to, a group antagonistic to Scientology or seeking to suppress Scientology, or enrolment in a group following some other divergent path after Certification in Scientology brings about a cancellation of Certificates, earned or honorary, and all classifications and other awards of whatever kind.

Certificate cancellation is only done for the above reasons, or committing Suppressive Acts (see HCO Pol Ltr 7 March 1965, Issue I).

Repeating the substance of it, departures from Scientology result from continuing overts which stall case gains; the action of departure is met by cancellation of all certificates, classifications and awards; the offense of departure from Scientology falls outside Committees of Evidence and amnesties.

 

HCOPL 23 MAY 1960 CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES [color]

anyone who holds a certificate who helps a person whose certificates have been cancelled can have the same penalty.

 

HCOPL 29 OCTOBER 1965 ETHICS AUTHORITY SECTION OFFICE OF LRH [color]

The actual declaration of Suppressive Persons or groups, no matter who signs the order. Cancellation of certificates may not be done by any other than LRH as that is the issuing authority for all certificates.

 

HCOPL 23 DECEMBER 1965 SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGIST, THE FAIR GAME LAW [color]

Suppressive Acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.

Such Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology Organizations; public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened; . . . writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press; testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public; continued membership in a divergent group; continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts; being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons; organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology; organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else; calling meetings of staffs or field auditors or the public to deliver Scientology into the hands of unauthorized persons or [persons] who will suppress it or alter it or who have no reputation for following standard lines and procedures; . . .

Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings and so place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being.

The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.Such persons are in the same category as those whose certificates have been cancelled, and persons whose certificates, classifications and awards have been cancelled are also in this category.

. . .

A Scientologist connected by familial or other ties to a person who is guilty of Suppressive Acts is known as a Potential Trouble Source or Trouble Source. . . .

Therefore this Policy Letter extends to suppressive non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends. So long as a wife or husband, father or mother or other family connection, who is attempting to suppress the Scientology spouse or child, or hostile group remains continuingly acknowledged or in communication with the Scientology spouse or child or member, then that Scientologist or preclear comes under the family or adherent clause and may not be processed or further trained until he or she has taken appropriate action to cease to be a Potential Trouble Source.

The validity of this policy is borne out by the fact that the US government raids and other troubles were instigated by wives, husbands or parents who were actively suppressing a Scientologist, or Scientology. The suppressed Scientologist did not act in good time to avert the trouble by handling the antagonistic family member as a suppressive source or disconnect fully.

Disconnection from a family member or cessation of adherence to a Suppressive Person or Group is done by the Potential Trouble Source publicly publishing the fact, as in the legal notices of “ The Auditor” and public announcements and taking any required civil action such as disavowal, separation or divorce and thereafter cutting all further communication and disassociating from the person or group.

. . .

Any HCO Secretary may receive evidences of disconnection or disavowal or separation or divorce and, on finding them to be bona fide, may publicly announce them on a public board and legal notices in “The Auditor”.

 

Ron Hubbard’s deceptive answers to an interviewer who asked very clear and logical questions:

Video source: “The Shrinking World of L. Ron Hubbard” by World in Action / aired August 1968.
Complete video: LINK

Evidently, Ron Hubbard himself was the “lunatic fringe” exploiting the subject and victimizing people with it. Talking about projection!

FAIR GAME: “A legitimate object of attack, pursuit, or mockery. The analogy, of course, is to hunting, and the term has been used figuratively since the early nineteenth century.” [link] The declaration of “fair game” in hunting means that it is legal to haunt a given animal. “Game” in this sense means “animals under pursuit or taken in hunting[link].

Institutional SUPPRESSION OF CRITICISM and DESTRUCTION OF CRITICS is exactly what Ron Hubbard was trying to achieve. Evidentially, this extended to allowing for outright murder which is restrained by the fact that it is illegal and subject to criminal prosecution within the framework of free and civil society based on the principles of Individual Liberty, Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech, as well as a Right to Self-Defense.

R2-45: is a reference to shooting a person to death. 45 stands for .45 caliber. “Exteriorization” is a term in Scientology that means separation of individual’s spirit (or consciousness) from the body. The process R2-45 is indicated in Hubbard’s book The Creation of Human Ability in line with numerous other processes within Scientology’s spiritual practice. It appears to be a joke in that book, but when combined with such organizational policies and directives, it is no longer a laughing matter.

HCOPL 02 APRIL 1965 ADMINISTRATION OUTSIDE SCIENTOLOGY [color]

Never fail to use Scientology Admin or Justice to handle the individuals in the society beyond our edges. Sounds adventurous. Well, it is! But effective, too.

 

Movie EQUILIBRIUM [link] provides a rough analogy of the kind of reality that society could come to if (pseudoscientific and religious) Scientology order took over a government with access to more forceful means of “removing counter intentions from the environment.”

 

Governments often battled Scientology for the very reason of such extremist policies and viewpoints – so Ron Hubbard considered governments and their law enforcement to be “suppressive.”

HCOPL 07 DECEMBER 1969 THE DESIGN OF ETHICS [color]

It is very easy for a staff member and even an Ethics Officer to completely misunderstand Ethics and its functions. In a society run by SPs and controlled by incompetent police the citizen almost engramically identifies any justice action or symbol with oppression.

HCOPL 27 MARCH 1965 THE JUSTICE OF SCIENTOLOGY ITS USE AND PURPOSE [color]

A Scientologist who fails to use Scientology technology and its adminis­trative and justice procedures on the world around him will continue to be too enturbulated to do his job.

That sounds extreme to anyone.

But if you look it over, you will find that the “power” of the “Society” and “State” is pretended and is made from an effort to be powerful where they actually lack power. Our situation is quite the reverse. Ours is the power of truth and we are capable of power as a group, having power as individuals due to processing and power of wisdom due to superior technology.

Therefore when we grant too much beingness to their “power” we are granting validity to a falsehood and so it recoils on us.

So therefore we must use Scientology tech, Admin and Justice in all our affairs. No matter how mad it sounds, we only fail when we don’t.

HCOPL 05 APRIL 1965 SCIENTOLOGY MAKES A SAFE ENVIRONMENT | HCOPL 12 APRIL 1965 JUSTICE [color]

We’re working to provide a safe environment for Scientology and Scientologists in Orgs everywhere.

The dangerous environment of the wog world, of injustice, sudden dismissals, war, atomic bombs, will only persist and trouble us if we fail to spread our safe environment across the world.

The purpose of justice is to clear the organization and environment.

Evidentially, Ron Hubbard’s view of “safe environment” is an environment of COLLECTIVE CONFORMITY where there is no disagreement, no opposition and no alternative thinking.

 

Scientology movement by the very design of its “ethics system” collects information on everyone that Scientologists communicate with: their views, statements, and attitude toward Scientology. Everything is logged, names are taken and lists are compiled with evaluation as to the potential threat to Scientology from persons, groups and organizations that may have never even set foot inside a Scientology organization.

HCOPL 14 OCTOBER 1965 POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE ROUTING [color]

 

HCOPL 15 SEPTEMBER 1968 SEA ORG [color]

As of this date the Sea Org only will be conducting Ethics Missions.

The word MISSION may now be used to designate only a Sea Org official Mission. It has unlimited Ethics Powers. Their members are called “Missionaires” .

 

HCOPL 20 JUNE 1968 ETHICS OFFICERS [color]

By recent experience and tests in the Sea Org it requires a ratio of one Ethics Officer for every 20 people being handled in or by an org. This at first glance is incredible. But by actual test this got in tech and Admin in an area for the first time.

 

HCOPL 19 JUNE 1968 ETHICS TRAINING [color]

The Ethics Officer I/С [I/C means “In Charge”] breaks in a new Ethics Officer by having him do leg work. He goes throughout the Org checking points that must be decided from incoming admin. He makes investigations. He acts with the Ethics Officer hearing all people who come to the desk.

Ethics Officers should realize that they deal mainly in entheta; they listen to it and when it runs down put in Ethics.

An Ethics Officer should be fearless and relentlessly devoted to his task. His or her job deals in harsh realities. Do not be reasonable, Ever.

We are putting Ethics in on a planet. Each day someone else agrees.

 

HCOPL 07 DECEMBER 1969 THE ETHICS OFFICER HIS CHARACTER [color]

SUPPRESSIVE REASONABLENESS

The greatest enemy of the E/O [Ethics Officer] is the reasonable person. There are no good reasons for any outness except

(a) Natural catastrophes (such as earthquakes, lightning, etc)

(b) Suppressive persons

(c) Persons who are PTS to suppressive persons.

When an exec starts to explain the “reasons” for low stats instead of working to get high stats he is being reasonable.

Yes of course – there is never any problem with the actual ideas and directives from the big boss, L. Ron Hubbard. It all “works” without question, and when something doesn’t work, it is ONLY due to the reasons that he provided.

 

HCOPL 21 MARCH 1970 FIELD ETHICS [color]

It has come to attention that at least one org was not prospering because it was being suppressed by its own field.

One or more SPs operating in its neighbourhood were active in making the Ethics Officer and the Execs wrong and enturbulating staff.

 

HCOPL 17 MARCH 1965 FAIR GAME LAW [color]

The reason a democracy or any wide open group caves in lies in its extending its privileges of membership to those who seek to destroy it.

The idiocy of doing so is plain. When a person announces he is no longer part of a group, he has rejected the group. He has also rejected its codes and rules. Of course he has also rejected the protection to which he was entitled as a group member.

If a group member rejects the group, he rejects everything about the group and no further question about that. Certainly there is no question in his or her mind of salvaging or helping the group. Why should the group then seek to extend its protection over him unless it wants to defy its first right: that of survival.

So, in Scientology, anyone who rejects Scientology also rejects, knowingly or unknowingly, the protection and benefits of Scientology and the companionship of Scientologists. If the person never was a member of the group or if the person had been a member of it, the result is the same.

Scientologists deserve protection from psychotics and criminals, from suppressive persons and covert or overt acts. Scientology protection is getting more and more real and within a year or two will be quite adequate for anyone.

Students or pcs who seek to resign or leave courses or sessions and refuse to return despite normal efforts, become suppressive of that course or organization and cease to have the rights of its protection or assistance. If they can be brought to recant after causing public commotion the procedure given in HCO Pol Ltr Mar. 7 1965 Issue II A to E is applicable.

Where a staff member or executive publicly resigns in protest or with intent to suppress HCO may act at once with steps A to E, HCO Pol Ltr Mar. 7, 1965 Issue II.

 

HCOPL 05 APRIL 1965 HANDLING THE SUPPRESSIVE PERSON THE BASIS OF INSANITY [color]

The suppressive person (whom we’ve called a Merchant of Fear or Chaos Merchant and which we can now technically call the suppressive person) can’t stand the idea of Scientology. If people became better, the suppressive person would have lost. The suppressive person answers this by attacking covertly or overtly Scientology. This thing is, he thinks, his mortal enemy since it undoes his (or her) “good work” in putting people down where they should be.

There are three “operations” such a case seeks to engage upon regarding Scientology: (a) to disperse it, (b) to try to crush it and (c) to pretend it didn’t exist.

Dispersal would consist of several things such as attributing its source to others and altering its processes or structure.

 

HCOPL 05 OCTOBER 1966 STUDENTS TERMINATING LEAVE OF ABSENCE BLOWN STUDENTS [color]

HCOPL 31 MAY 1965 NOISE SESSION INTERRUPTION [color]

HCOPL 08 MARCH 1966 HIGH CRIME [color]

HCOPL 04 AUGUST 1966 INVALIDATION OF CLEARS [color]

HCOPL 18 OCTOBER 1967 POLICY AND HCOB ALTERATIONS [color]

HCOPL 22 NOVEMBER 1967 OUT TECH [color]

HCOPL 22 FEBRUARY 1968 ETHICS AND ADMIN SLOW ADMIN [color]

HCOPL 29 JUNE 1968 ENROLLMENT IN SUPPRESSIVE GROUPS [color]

 

HCOPL 21 OCTOBER 1968 CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME | HCOPL 15 NOVEMBER 1968 CANCELLATION OF DISCONNECTION [color]

Cancellation of using the term “fair game” and disconnection “as a condition” literally changed nothing since all the other policies and directives remained in place. These “cancellations” were just for PR.

 

HCOPL 02 JUNE 1965 WRITING OF AN ETHICS ORDER [color]

 

HCOPL 07 JUNE 1965 ENTHETA LETTERS AND THE DEAD FILE [color]

AN ENTHETA LETTER = is a letter containing insult, discourtesy, chop or nastiness about an org, its personnel, Scientology or the principal figures in Scientology. En = Enturbulated; theta = Greek for thought or life. An Entheta Letter’s nastiness is aimed at the org, its personnel, Scientology or the principal figures of Scientology. It is different from an Ethics Report (below). It is routed only as given in this Policy Letter.

The bulk of the public is quite decent. They are polite and appreciative. The bulk of our results are excellent and the 80% majority is pleased with us. That 80% must be served.

The 20% who are mad dogs also have a place to go—the Ethics Section. It is important not to let them into the Admin flow lines. It is important to box them into Ethics. Otherwise they mess up the flow badly.

. . . Therefore it is illegal as can be to handle Entheta Letters or Ethics Reports in any other way than to and by Ethics.

Ethics Files shall include a DEAD FILE.

This File includes all persons who write nasty or choppy letters to an org or its personnel.

Rather than go to the trouble of issuing a Suppressive Person order or even investigating we assign writers of choppy letters to the DEAD FILE. When their area is enturbulated and we want to locate a suppressive we can always consult our DEAD FILE for possible candidates and then investigate and issue an order.

The DEAD FILE is by sections of the Area or the World, and alphabetical in those sections.

The actual action is simply to cut comm. You can always let entheta lines drop.

Ethics does not even bother to read the letter or examine the folder on receiving a DEAD FILE folder or letter.

SUCH LETTERS MUST NOT BE CIRCULATED ON THE LINES OTHER THAN AS ABOVE.

All Suppressive Persons and Groups are filed in the DEAD FILE but with the Ethics Order. The Ethics Order is stamped with the ENTHETA stamp as above but with the additional stamp Suppressive.

A Potential Trouble Source order is not given the Entheta DEAD FILE routing unless the person refuses to disconnect or handle.

. . . Therefore all SPs, PTS, and entheta letters all wind up in the DEAD FILE.

This cuts their comm and still keeps track of them.

How does a person ever get out of the Dead File?

One could somehow discover without our help he or she was in the Dead File (we never inform them). If so he or she could take it up with the Ethics Officer. But the probable outcome may just be more Dead File.

 

More general:

HCOPL 07 MARCH 1965 OFFENSES & PENALTIES [color]

 

Ron Hubbard was pretty open about the fact that he was inventing identity labels for the purpose of organizational management.

HCOPL 27 JULY 1968 A TIGER [color]

A TIGER is a pretended staff member who has been repeatedly associated with goofed departments, sections, projects, operations and inspections and one who actually has caused such to occur. He is a person who is a continual out-ethics person. He has failed to get ethics in on himself and he is in a group of people, as a TIGER would be, DANGEROUS.

So this label is now brought officially into being. It can be assigned only by COMM EV and serves to warn Executives to keep such a person off Exec posts.

Here are two other good examples:

HCOB 22 MARCH 1967 ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED BEINGS [color]

HCOB 25 AUGUST 1960 NEW DEFINITION OF PSYCHOSIS

That person who obsessively fights an organization that gives him clean instructions to help him is, of course, insane.

 

Note that Ron Hubbard, in his usual devious way, argued for the use of forced Scientology interrogations (“confessionals”) in society at large. In this same bulletin he also takes an openly hostile stance toward the principle of “individual rights,” “freedom” and the right to silence.

HCOB 08 FEBRUARY 1960 HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS TOO

When you know the technology of the mind you know that it is a mistake to use “individual rights” and “freedom” as arguments to protect those who would only destroy.

Individual rights were not originated to protect criminals but to bring freedom to honest men. Into this area of protection then dived those who needed “freedom” and “individual liberty” to cover their own questionable activities.

Freedom is for honest people. No man who is not himself honest can be free—he is in his own trap. When his own deeds cannot be disclosed then he is a prisoner; he must withhold himself from his fellows and he is a slave to his own conscience. Freedom must be deserved before there is any freedom possible.

There is only one way out for a dishonest person—facing up to his responsibilities in the society and putting himself back into communication with his fellow man, his family, the world at large. By seeking to invoke his “individual rights” to protect himself from an examination of his deeds, he reduces just that much the future of individual liberty, for he himself is not free. Yet he infects others who are honest by using their rights to freedom to protect himself.

Uneasy lies the head that wears a guilty conscience.

And it will lie no more easily by seeking to protect misdeeds by pleas of “freedom means that you must never look at me”.

The right of a person to survive is directly related to his honesty.Freedom for man does not mean freedom to injure man. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to harm by lies.

Man cannot be free while there are those amongst him who are slaves to their own terrors.

To preserve that freedom one must not permit men to hide their evil intentions under the protection of that freedom. To be free a man must be honest with himself and with his fellows.

If a man uses his own honesty to protect the unmasking of dishonesty, then that man is an enemy of his own freedom.

We can stand in the sun only so long as we don’t let the deeds of others bring the darkness.

Freedom is for honest men. Individual liberty exists only for those who have the ability to be free.

Today in Scientology we know the gaoler—the person himself. And we can restore the right to stand in the sun by eradicating the evil men do to themselves.

So do not say that the investigation of a person or the past is a step forward to slavery. For in Scientology such a step is the first step toward freeing a man from the guilt of self.

The least free person is the person who cannot reveal his own acts and who protests the revelation of the improper acts of others. On such people will be built a future political slavery where we all have numbers—and our guilt—unless we act.

 

Note, that Scientology “confessionals” is not only about interrogating a person on the subject of their actions, but it also includes an idea that one’s “critical thoughts” stem from one’s “overts and withholds.” So this part of “Scientology ethics” is used to effectively subvert and inhibit critical reasoning.

Here is Ron Hubbard giving an example of how to use this aspect of Scientology confessionals with respect to himself as a target of someone’s criticism.

[30 DECEMBER 1961] Clean Hands Congress: Auditing Perfection and Classes of Auditors (selection-1)

Or “Have you ever done anything to Ron? Very good. Have you ever done anything to Ron? Oh, oh, there? What’s that? What’s that? Have you ever done anything to Ron, and so on? Oh, you thought an unkind thought about Ron. Oh, da-da-da, da-da-da, an unkind thought, a critical thought, and so forth. All right. That’s very good. And you thought about this other person that said . . . There. That other person said that they had once heard—well, that’s fine, you have thought this unkind thought. Very good. What have you done to him?” [question asked with great emphasis]

“Oh, well, you needn’t ask me like that. That is pretty mean. That’s pretty mean. I just thought this unkind thought and so forth. And anybody’s entitled to their opinion. It’s a democracy after all, so forth. It’s not some kind of a fascism the way you people think it is, so forth.”

You say, “All right. All right. But what did you do to him? All right. If you’re thinking unkind thoughts about him, you must have done something to him. Now what did you done?”

It’s the only reason the question exists in the Form 3 Joburg. “Have you ever thought any critical thought about____ ?” must always be followed, “Good. You have? Fine! Well, what have you done?” Because he who thinketh critical thoughteth abouteth hath done, brother, hath done.

All of this is very important. You can’t sit there—you know that a person could actually go on seven or eight hours getting off their critical thoughts. Do you know that?

They can go on and on and on and on and on. Critical thoughts, critical thoughts, critical thoughts, critical thoughts and I thought this, and I thought that, and I thought that. You don’t have to listen to any of that. Why not end it up in thirty seconds, not five hours.

Say, “What did you do?”

You’ll find out every time if they had critical thoughts, they’ve done something. It’s interesting, isn’t it?

They’re going around with this terrific load of blame, blame, blame, blame, blame, blame, blame. “This fellow’s no good because I shot at him once.” That’s logic. That’s logic, Earth, 1961. “He’s no good and he’s a rat because I once wrecked his car.” Make sense? No, it doesn’t make sense, but who does? . . .

*Form 3 Joburg: HCOPL 7 APRIL 1961 JOHANNESBURG SECURITY CHECK [color]

 

 

MORE CONTENT MAY BE ADDED TO THIS PAGE…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *