An Analysis of a Screwy Tech!
I was wrestling with whether I should put this post in another thread under the title of "
Screwy, Destructive 'Tech'" . . . but this old thread is live, so here we go!
______________________________
Ethics Conditions
For those who were not in $cn prior to the release of the “Operating Conditions” and their Formulas in the mid-1960’s, what I am about to write might come as either a bit of a shock, a funny, an Aha! moment or even be offensive . . .
Hubbard said some interesting things over the years: some of it accurate. Here’s one: “You know them by their product.” That is, you can observe the worth of any action, datum or person by observing what they produce.
A major change for the worse occurred in $cn at the time of two things:
1) the creation of the SO and the giving it “ethics power” over and control of the orgs and,
2) the introduction of the “Ethics Conditions.” I cite the “Ethics” Conditions and hold them as distinct form the “Operating Conditions”.
In the early days up till the latter part of 1967 Orgs were happy places to be. Folks pretty much honored each other and helped each other get the “show on the road.” It was a very fun and productive scene!
While we had a tape on the “conditions” circa ’65-’66 and an HCOPL listing the operating conditions non-existence to power, the formulas only addressed these “operating conditions” — not any conditions below non-existence which were not released until late 1967.
In October ‘67 Hubbard put out the first version of what would be later referred to as the “Ethics Conditions” below non-existence with their formulas. HCOPL dated 6 October 1967 titled “
Condition of Liability” listed them as Liability, Treason, Doubt, Enemy in that order. (These were later re-ordered)
Interestingly enough, concurrent with this Hubbard fired off his first SO Mission into St. Hill and the GO with total Ethics Powers.
And here with these two events began the INTERNAL destruction of the Scientology enterprise. The orgs went into self-destruct mode along with the cutting-itself-off-from-society mode, which is also a method of self destruct. (If you don’t believe me on that one, ask what happened to the now non-existent “Shakers.”)
And this self destruct by the orgs
themselves is a direct result of the application of this screwy, very screwy tech of assigning enemy conditions willy-nilly to people and “things.” To be noted is the fact that Hubbard states a person in “the Condition of Liability” has taken on “the color of the Enemy” . . . and indeed is treated as though an enemy! Indeed anyone assigned in any of the conditions below non-existence is treated as an enemy in $cn!
And look at the attitude of the “innies” in the orgs towards those outside who either disagree or do not accept $cn — they are treated as the enemy! And the response? Of course the orgs and their “innies” are regarded as a bunch of cultist idiots and enemies of good societal order and treated as such!
Of course, some, who are into domination and the putting of others down or otherwise are into intellectualizing the wonders of the good of such screwy things without actually looking at what’s involved and the actual outcomes, think this assigning conditions of enemy all about is such clever stuff! But then, they too often live in cocoons, often in self created delusion, and are oblivious to true and actual outcomes. (And can’t figure why they have less than optimum lives or accomplishments, including poor health.)
And so it was with the advent of this “tech” that the orgs embarked on the madness of the dedicated finding, creating and destroying of enemies both within and without
Let’s look at what’s involved and what actually happens as the outcome when this screwy tech is applied.
Here are some comments by the person who led the first SO mission fired into action by Hubbard revealing some of the stupid tragedy of it all. Though he is in actuality trying to relay a history of the period and the fun that was had by all, he also (possibly unwittingly) reveals how utterly insane the scene and Hubbard was.
The full write-up by Joe van Staden is here on ESMB:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?16669-Birth-of-the-Sea-Org
My reply to Joe which paints a very different picture to his jolly report, is here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?16669-Birth-of-the-Sea-Org&p=385164&viewfull=1#post385164
These are some of Joe’s comments made as he paddled along. They pertain to the 1967 period when the Ethics Conditions were introduced, and their subsequent outcome.
“Where the bond between people is the telling factor the top brass is inclined to see total commitment to The Cause as being undermined by too close a connection between friends and family. Hence, throughout history instilling fear of those in command has been adopted more often than not. And as is clear to ex SO members, the latter is SOP in the SO.”
(And here we see a why of the brutality towards staff and public along with the dictates of disconnections.)
“A clue as to the direction the Sea Org was heading was provided one evening during a visit by LRH to the ship. He announced that it was time the Sea Org came out of non-existence – it was time to make an impact on the orgs out there beginning with St Hill. It was mission time. The mission’s purpose was mainly to assert and affirm SO authority and presence. As it turned out the three members of this first SO mission was my wife Jill, Fred Payer and me.”
Here is the beginnings of the destructive control that was then practiced and leveled at orgs and throughout $cn. This is the infamous mission where a dagger was flung into the roof of the Monkey Room at St. Hill Manor as a means of demonstrating “SO dominance” of those present. This is the event in which occurred the wasting and loss of one of LRH’s closest confidants and supporters, Reg Sharpe (he loaned Hubbard the money to buy the manor!).
“What a waste!
“I have gone down the list of declared SP’s, the vast majority of whom I don’t know. But of the names I do recognize most of them were at one stage dedicated, experienced, well trained Scientologists. They all added value to the organization and most of them would probably still have been active had it not been for the seriously flawed benchmarks (policy) in accordance with which the value of a staff member is measured.
“In simple terms, these people were measured not by what they gave to the organization but by the extent of their submission to “source”. The individual contribution by many was considerable; in some cases vital to the survival of the organization. Some such stories have been told but many more remain unacknowledged.
“In the final analysis, what I am trying to say is that the organizational mindset of Scientology is inclined to waste its most valuable resource; highly trained, experienced and creative people. Looking at most of the people I know on the list of Scientology enemies I see “what could have been” had different benchmarks been used to measure the value of people.”
And that, of course, is the product and outcome of screwy, very screwy tech —
waste of goodness and of good people!
“By this time most ethics conditions had been formulated and were being implemented. But, it would be awhile yet before the mindless application of these conditions would become a dominant characteristic of many SO members. Consolidation at its worst.”
In the context of the above and of what this “mindless application” of screwy tech has produced since it was introduced, that is a very telling comment by one of the first to actually apply that shit to orgs!
Here, below, is a note by Joe that speaks to Hubbard’s deviousness and machinations resorted to to get his way. Joe makes this comment following recounting some particular events which he recognizes might appear to be a little unbelievable to folks . . .
“Now I won’t blame any ex SO members or those still in, to question or simply dismiss the validity of this story. Imagine LRH casually admitting to what amounts to the manipulation of ethics policy to get his way and what’s more, admitting to having failed at it.”
So, what’s with this assigning others/things/groups “low conditions”? What does it actually do to the person or group
doing the assigning — this apart from what it does or attempts to do to the person/groups being assigned the condition. How come it has set in motion the shrinking and destruction of the $cn enterprise from within?
Well, let’s look at how folks who do the assigning treat those who have been assigned in lower Conditions than non-existence. They behave as an enemy to the person who has been assigned the low condition! They go into the mindset that the person assigned into the lower condition is no better than shit! Go into any org and see it going on! Even those who did not actually deliver the assignment on the victim, but who accept it as valid, treat the victim as shit. Their behavior is that of an enemy to the person assigned in the lower condition! They go into being an enemy to the victim!
In other words, this screwy tech is creating everyone in the group who practices it as an enemy to everyone else in the group each time the tech is implemented. This screwy tech is and has set up the existence of constant enmity within the $cn enterprise. They are at war internally as though all, even if only gradiently, are enemies or potential enemies.
And what’s the greatest fear dramatized by $cn? Fear of those they think are or might be enemies to $cn!
And certainly there is the constant fear of “being declared in or assigned one the lower conditions of enmity to the group — and that is not conducive to a happy life-style.
And so, the simple message here is that those who run about assigning others or things a condition of “enemy” are actually being destructive to and damaging themselves. At a minimum because they are putting themselves in a low condition towards that which they are putting down. But in actuality they are severing the harmonious relationship that ought be there and practicing a form of undeclared disconnection. And they make themselves smaller by their shattering of connection and their misalignment of relationship.
I have often written that $cn and the orgs create their own enemies! They make enemies. The above is how it’s done: they “assign” the condition to another or others. Internally it destroys the cohesion and operating power of the group itself, but externally the result of assigning enemy to those who disagree or do not accept the org’s dictates is that they MAKE that person or group an enemy to it by creating alienation.
You see, the trap is that when you project onto another that they are an enemy, you are putting yourself in the position of and as being as enemy to them.
And the “innies” wonder why we “ex-ies” and “not-ever-been-in” types are pissed at them and
are acting as enemies to them!
In short, the “Ethics Conditions and assignments” are used as a destructive control and domination mechanism upon those who are stupid enough to go along with and accept that barbarity.
Later on I will likely do a write up on the relevance of the above to the failure of the “SP/PTS tech.” The actuality is that having to “disconnect” from another because they disagree with your beliefs or are “nasty to you” is such a glaring example of the failure of the auditing tech and what the tech of human development and betterment claims to be able to accomplish, it is astounding that the “innies” haven’t seen the stupidity of the situation.
Alan Walter once did a lecture (taped) titled: “No Enemies.” It’s a big concept. It’s based on the point that the tech exists that can undo all enmity. Of course $cn practices exactly the opposite! Alan created a series of processes known as the “Connection Series.” They restore harmonious alignment — now
that is a correct “handling.”
RogerB
and that it can put you into a new level of game to play. All these things need to be articulated and knowing responsibility implemented on them.
and I hope all that good training and early Scn experience you had did not feel invalidated, Ant. (if that’s what my missive may have done) 
“book and bottle,” SCS (8C), CCHs, even clay table healing.
