SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS AND SUPPRESSION
Page last updated:
“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.
SCIENTOLOGY POLICIES ON ETHICS AND SUPPRESSION
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.
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 TOTAL 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]
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.
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…