By Lana Mitchell

Does the following sound familiar?

A parishioner is hauled into Ethics as they will not agree to signing a billion year contract with the Sea Org, and then put onto security checks (at their expense) in the middle of their NED program.

A preclear is forced to do lower conditions and to pay  monetary “amends” to the Church for acts admitted to in a confessional.

A student late for course by 10 minutes as he was caught in a traffic jam, is kept in Ethics for several hours until he signs a document that he will NEVER be late for course again, or he will receive justice.

A pre-OT on SOLO NOTs is only permitted to remain on the level if they return to Flag every six months for several intensives worth of sec checking (at premium Flag rates), even if there is no sign of any misdoing or out-ethics or out-tech.

A Sea Org member is sent to an RPF program of 5 plus years for kissing another Sea Org member when not married.

An Int base staff member is hauled into Ethics and ordered to divorce their spouse of several decades as their partner is deemed out-ethics, or is currently “in bad” with COB RTC.

Persons (vast numbers of) are declared Suppressive Persons with no recourse to justice, no review of statistics, and these days, not even given a written issue with details of what they supposedly have done that resulted in the declare – and 3P is then used with family and friends to force disconnection from those declared.

I don’t know about you – but no matter how many times I restudy the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, the volumes of technical bulletins, or the administrative management series – I have yet to find any LRH policy, tech or lecture that states that the above actions are standard Ethics.

In fact – what I do find is:

 “…the sole purpose of Ethics is to get in technology.” HCO PL 20 August 1965 Issue I, GENERAL AMNESTY

and

"Now the Scientologist, not to make a comparison but the Scientologist is perfectly willing and is at this time by Ethics being over-disciplined, so we are over-disciplining the Scientologist and under-disciplining society and we should reverse that — reverse that very definitely. If anything, under-discipline the Scientologist and over-discipline the society. Now in that direction you'd still win but in the direction we are going we won't. If you under-discipline a society and over-discipline Scientologists, why, we've had it. As a Scientologist normally is very, very willing. We've got to upgrade the idea of what is a Suppressive, as Suppressives really are nuts." – LRH 18 July 1966

and

 “An Ethics Officer uses ethics to protect ethics upstats and to keep the stats up and to smoke out crimes that push people and stats down. …

“The E/O is making the environment safe so that production can occur and service can be given. He is making it unsafe for those who by neglect or continual errors or suppression push stats down and get good staff members to leave.”  HCO PL 7 December 1969 Issue I, ETHICS, THE DESIGN OF

And

“The purpose of Ethics is:

“TO REMOVE COUNTER-INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT. And having accomplished that, the purpose becomes TO REMOVE OTHER-INTENTIONEDNESS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.” HCO PL 18 June 1968 ETHICS

Corp Scientology has taken LRH’s basic tool for dealing with PTSes and SPs (who cause havoc on org lines and rollercoaster/do not make stable gains), and is using it wholesale to attack, harm, suppress, blackmail and extort Scientologists of goodwill.  This is classic corruption and subversion of the tech of Ethics. And there is only one source and reason for this:

“AT THE ROOT OF EVERY BAD CONDITION WILL BE FOUND A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON. Locate your potential trouble sources by locating passers of rumors, etc. The locate the suppressive and shoot. Calm reigns. Tech is in. And that’s all one means to accomplish. “ HCO PL 16 May 1965 INDICATORS OF ORGS

I find it fascinating that the ONE organization in Scientology that is responsible for rooting out subversion, corruption and infiltration to prevent this VERY situation from having occurred -- is RTC.

And who is the head of RTC?

David Miscavige.  And who is single-handledly bypassing, micro-managing and removing/declaring anyone who gets in his way?

Need I say more?

Comments   

 

# steve spargo 2013-03-18 21:28

Well, that covers some of the essentials. But I'm sure there is a lot more to be said about this area.

I was only thinking about this yesterday. The question was about how you help someone who is having some ethics problems and have a need to sort something out. How do you help them without bypassing and taking over their life?

I decided that as an absolute starter, an "Ethics Officer" is not the way I'd do it. I might have an Ethics Consultant who could sign off that the public knew what he was doing with the ethics tech. But the person doing the Ethics handling is the one who gets to say whether he is happy with his own formula or not.

We'll have to think it through carefully. At least the Church has been of some help in this regard. We now know an awful lot of wrong ways to do it.

 

 

# Lana M 2013-03-19 01:46

Steve,
There is another reference which I do not have to hand, and that is the lecture A TALK TO ETHICS OFFICERS WORLDWIDE. In that lecture LRH clearly lays out the function and job of an Ethics Officer -- and it in NO way resembles what currently passes in the Corp Church as an E/O.
I firmly believe that Ethics is a personal thing -- and the job of the Ethics Officer is related to an org and keeping the channels there, so that products can flow and people can move up The Bridge. That is the simplicity of the job.

 

 

# Worsel 2013-03-19 11:23

Lana, you find this reference in the Data series Evaluators Course.

 

 

# steve spargo 2013-03-19 22:20

You have the better of me on this one Lana as I have not paid a lot of attention to how Ethics is supposed to work in the Church. I studied Ethics from a 1st Dynamic viepoint to figure out how it works and how I could use it personally.

I believe that the Church got Ethics mixed up with Ron's desire to provide an alternative justice system. And then it proceeded to get very confused indeed under DM's management. But I haven't done the necessary study to be very sure about that.

 

 

# vertsurblanc 2013-03-19 16:51

Steve. I agree we need to look this over thoroughly. I am not sure if I have duplicated you fully, but if you strictly adhere to the written word, in the cases cited, you may now, with hindsight, suggest how to do it differently.

This will go against the strictly LRH written word gist of this blog?

I reviewed the many dozens of KRs written on me over the years and can truly state that not one single KR had actual value to me or the group.


This says to me that something is amiss here.

This in no way denigrates the axioms of the subject in any way. I speak of the non-axiomatic rules and policies.

What is your view of this?

Greenonwhite

 

 

# steve spargo 2013-03-19 20:58

Hi Geenonwhite.
Many posts on the org board are called "officers." But so what? It's not a requirement of Scientology to call people officers and I would consider it ludicrous of anyone to suggest that. Is someone going to accuse me of "going against the written word of LRH" if I name our ethics guy an Ethics Consultant or Ethics Manager or Ethics Helper? That would be stupid.

Scientology DOES require that ethics be sorted out on a self-determined basis. That's important and wasn't happening in the Church - regardless of the titles of people involved.

Scientology is a description of how the universe works and we would be foolish to ignore those rules. Not because they were written by LRH - but because our activity will be less successful.

LRH wrote many things and a great deal of it was NOT Scientology. This includes how to file invoices, advice on cleaning windows, admonitions against perfumes and what to call Ethics Consultants. People need to differentiate between the various types and importances of the data.

 

 

# vertsurblanc 2013-03-20 15:14

Steve.

We are on the same page. I assisted someone to create an organizational structure with a post in the personnel area called "Staff Counselor".

It worked perfectly.

As an antithesis, i read an article on corporate governance recently that suggested companies need to introduce the concept of Ethics Officers!

Go figure.

Greenonwhite

 

 

# Chris Mann 2013-03-18 23:04

I don't know everything. I don't have first-hand knowledge of the entire history of this thing, but I believe I have enough data to form a firm conclusion.

If I was on a jury I could vote guilty with no doubt or reservations based on the evidence- and there was a lot of evidence.

The decline of Scientology including technical alterations, perversions, departures resulting in lack of results and attacks clearly can be blamed on David Miscavige.

It's date-coincident, and based on all the data and testimony out there it is impossible to not draw that conclusion.

Look what Marty himself says here at 3:38 bcove.me/r0vj6ug0

What happened was a alteration and destruction of the entire Admin Scale of Scientology. The whole damn thing is jacked up. Who did it? Pretty sure it was David Miscavige with some help.

I'm not saying that Scientology was an infallible, perfect, unquestionable thing before this, but if some laudable activity (and it was) is rolling along, producing results and improving lives and is suddenly derailed and you can clearly see the why right in front of your eyes why would you blame it on something else?

I don't think LRH is the why.

He was not a god. He was not perfect. Scientology was not perfect. But LRH and Scientology itself are not the why.

 

 

# george 2013-03-19 01:00

Great references Lana,thanks. I found when I applied the ethics formulas to myself outside of the org I had the biggest cog and wins. I can understand how some people can ridge on this tech after its been applied as a punishment, but as you have pointed out, those people who have misapplied it are the ones who should be targeted by it and the Justice pls.

 

 

# Lana M 2013-03-19 01:42

I feel duplicated George. Thanks!

 

 

# Chris Mann 2013-03-19 18:29

Obviously willingness is key , so if the ethics cycle is incorrect or uses force and doesn't consult the persons willingness it's not going to work. Unless you want to force someone and babysit them every day . Or if the intent is to overwhelm and suppress

 

 

# Worsel 2013-03-19 11:37

Many years ago I included Ethics Folders in FESing. From my view today I can say that the common denominator in "Ethics"-Errors, like the ones mentioned above is in a not knowing or not applying the Data-Series HCO PLs.
Not knowing them one can be subject to misapplication or misapply them easily.
What can you expect of a "Liabilty" (given that it is one) when neither the MAA/EO nor the staff or public has heard about consistency?
What can you expect from a danger formula or an affluence formula when none of the involved has a clue what a proper Why is?
As I see it today, without this knowledge Ethics is mostly a catastrophe and more or less a matter of luck. With this knowledge it becomes a tool to achieve the above purpose.

 

 

# vertsurblanc 2013-03-19 17:05

Lana.

I agree the current target at the top is DM.

The situations you describe as violations of ethics tech re-date DM.

It seems what you cover are two different subjects.


DM the current leader of the church and his gross mismanagement

and

Why ethics tech has been so very, very, very, poorly applied for so long.

True?

 

 

+1 # Lana M 2013-03-19 18:02

Green on White,
As always, you make astute observations.
Yes -- gross mismanagement from DM. Much of what is currently in place as "Ethics" can be directly traced to him, or to orders he issued.
In terms of earlier times (ie. 50s, 60's, 70's) there is much information to collect, review, evaluate - both in terms of application of Ethics tech, Management actions, field activities, etc. We have the Data Series and a number of wise evaluators who can assist us in getting definitive Why's that open the door -- with the view of applying Ethics in a constructive and positive way, to the result of the purposes laid out by LRH.

 

 

+1 # george 2013-03-19 21:27

"In terms of earlier times (ie. 50s, 60's, 70's) there is much information to collect, review, evaluate - both in terms of application of Ethics tech, Management actions, field activities, etc."

This is really good to hear!! It would be a very valuable excersize.

 

 

+3 # Tom M 2013-03-20 09:19

LRH said himself that ethics and justice cannot be trusted in the hands of homo sapiens. The reason it was used destructively is because those administrators of the misuse of ethics and justice tech were untrained and knew not what the hell they were doing. This is true from the times of old St Hill to the present. I have seen injustices in all walks of life. anyone who has ever worked for a company has seen injustice. anyone who has served in the military has seen injustice. It is the nature of man to be cruel to his fellow man.
The problem was and always will be to clear men of their reactive minds and then train them to be auditors and administrators and only then can you trust him with ethics and justice.
ML Tom

 

 

+1 # Thoughtful 2013-03-20 09:22

Tom, you are particularly qualified to write on this subject, because of all of us, you have seen man's cruelty to man like no other, in Vietnam and even when you returned to the US. Great comment.

 

 

# calvin b. duffieldI 2013-03-20 11:30

A RESOUNDING bulls-eye Tom! as in:

.......Boy-oy-oy-oy-inggggggg!!!!

ML,Calvin.

 

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

You have no rights to post comments

JComments