Scientology: Ethics Protection Policy ("a staff member can get away with murder as long as his statistic is up")
Alert
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead. Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF l SEPTEMBER AD15
Issue VII
Remimeo
All Hats
Div 1
ETHICS
ETHICS PROTECTION
Ethics actions must parallel the purposes of Scientology and its
organizations.
Ethics exists primarily to get technology in. Tech can't work unless
Ethics is already in. When tech goes out Ethics can (and is expected
to) get it in. For the purpose of Scientology amongst others, is to
apply Scientology. Therefore when tech is in, Ethics actions tend to
be dropped. Ethics continues its actions until tech is in and as soon
as it is, backs off and only acts if tech goes out again.
The purpose of the org is to get the show on the road and keep it
going. This means production. Every division is a production unit. It
makes or does something that can have a statistic to see if it goes up
or down. Example: a typist gets out 500 letters in one week. That's a
statistic. If the next week the same typist gets out 600 letters
that's an UP statistic. If the typist gets out 300 letters that's a
DOWN statistic. Every post in an org can have a statistic. So does
every portion of the org. The purpose is to keep production
(statistics) up. This is the only thing that gives a good income for
the staff member personally. When statistics go down or when things
are so organized you can't get one for a post, the staff member's pay
goes down as the org goes down in its overall production. The
production of an organization is only the total of its individual
staff members. When these have down statistics so does the org.
Ethics actions are often used to handle down individual statistics. A
person who is not doing his job becomes an Ethics target.
Conversely, if a person is doing his job (and his statistic will show
that) Ethics is considered to be in and the person is protected by
Ethics.
As an example of the proper application of Ethics to the production of
an org, let us say the Letter Registrar has a high statistic (gets out
lots of effective mail). Somebody reports the Letter Registrar for
rudeness, somebody else reports the Letter Registrar for irregular
conduct with a student. Somebody else reports the Letter Registrar for
leaving all the lights on. Proper Ethics Officer action = look up the
general statistics of the Letter Registrar, and seeing that they
average quite high, file the complaints with a yawn.
As the second example of Ethics application to the production of an
org, let us say that a Course Supervisor has a low statistic (very few
students moved out of his course, course number growing, hardly anyone
graduating, a bad Academy statistic). Somebody reports this Course
Supervisor for being late for work, somebody else reports him for no
weekly Adcomm report and bang! Ethics looks up the person, calls for
an Ethics Hearing with trimmings.
We are not in the business of bring good boys and girls. We're in the
business of going free and getting the org production roaring. Nothing
else is of any interest then to Ethics but (a) getting tech in,
getting run and getting run right and (b) getting production up and
org roaring along.
Therefore if a staff member is getting production up by having his own
statistic excellent, Ethics sure isn't interested. But if a staff
member isn't producing, shown by his bad statistic for his post,
Ethics is fascinated with his smallest misdemeanour.
In short a staff member can get away with murder as long as his
statistic is up and can't sneeze without a chop if it's down.
To do otherwise is to permit some suppressive person to simply Ethics
chit every producer in the org out of existence.
When people do start reporting a staff member with a high statistic,
what you investigate is the person who turned in the report.
In an ancient army a particularly brave deed was recognized by an
award of tile title of Kha-Khan. It was not a rank. The person
remained what he was, BUT he was entitled to be forgiven the death
penalty ten times in case in the future he did anything wrong. That
was a Kha-Khan.
That's what producing, high statistic staff members are - Kha-Khans.
They can get away with murder without a blink from Ethics.
The average fair to poor statistic staff member of course gets just
routine ethics with hearings or courts for too many misdeeds. The low
statistic fellow gets a court if he sneezes.
Ethics must use all org discipline only in view of the production
statistic of the staff member involved.
And Ethics must recognize a Kha-Khan when it sees one - and tear up
the bad report chits on the person with a yawn.
To tile staff member this means - if you do your job you are protected
by Ethics. And if you aren't so protected and your statistic is high,
cable me.
L RON HUBBARD
LRH:ml.rd
Copyright © 1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
navy.intern...@gmail.com
Bump!
Alert
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 JUNE 1968
Remimeo
Flag Order
ETHICS
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.
Many mechanisms can exist to mask a counter intention.
One has an intention to expand the org. An ,,expert" says it is
difficult as "The
building society....". The impulse is to then handle the problem
presented by the
"expert", whereas the correct ETHICS action is to remove his Counter
Intentionedness or Other Intentionedness. If he were an EXPERT he
would simply say "OK. I'll handle my end of the expansion".
There are many ways to handle counter and other intentionedness.
There is a fine line between Ethics and Tech.
The point where a thetan goes mad is very exact. It is the point where
he begins
to obsessively stop something. From this the effort becomes
generalized and he begins to stop lots of other things. When this
includes anyone who or anything that would help him as well as those
people and things that help, the being is suppressive. His intentions
counter any other intention, particularly good intentions.
Other intentionedness comes from unawareness or dispersal. By removing
things which disperses others. Offering bottled medicine to cure "the
blues" is a direct distraction. It is the purveyor of the distraction
who is the target.
The person who enters on Sen groups to then sell other-answer is of
course an
enemy.
However we go about accomplishing the above is the action of Ethics.
The above
is the purpose.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Alert
In Scientology, ethics is defined as "rationality toward the greatest
good for the greatest number of dynamics" (parts of life, such as
self, family, groups, etc.). The purpose of ethics is said to be
"paving the way for getting tech in."
Notice how that second sentence qualifies the first and frames how the
definition of ethics is to be understood and applied in Scientology.
In practice this turns out to mean getting statistics up. If a
registrar brings in dollars then his ethics must be correct because
dollars help Scientology survive and "get tech in," and of course the
other dynamics (parts of life) will not survive without Scientology.
That is ethics.
There are formulas in Scientology by which one evaluates alternative
courses of action and then announces publicly and acts on what he has
decided to be the more ethical action. When done inside the group
context, this ensures the decision will be seen in terms of
Scientology's frame of reference, and non-Scientology considerations
invalidated. The action most favorable to Scientology gets decided
upon because it is favorable to Scientology, and therefore by
definition ethical -- since nobody else has the tech. One cannot argue
otherwise within the group without losing cachet.
As the subject of ethics becomes externalized, the person's own sense
of right and wrong gradually is invalidated and replaced by public
procedures monitored and controlled by Scientology.
Conflicts of value are held to be illusion, with the non-Scientology
side false and unreal, not really you, just your "case," something to
be resolved and overcome by additional "handling." If others would be
harmed by an action, then it is not really them who would be harmed,
just their case. One learns to dismiss any nonconformity as aberration
and achieve personal distance from any alternative source of meaning.
If I wish to help you, I put my attention on Scientology, not on you.
This facile and self-serving logic isolates the Scientologist, like
the Ugly American, behind a barrier of moral impenetrability, and
justifies a pathetic and lonely arrogance. Eric Hoffer, in The True
Believer, describes it in these words:
The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced, by
innate shortcomings or external circumstances, to lose faith in their
own selves. They separate the excellent instrument of their
selfishness from their ineffectual selves and attach it to the service
of some holy cause. And though it be a faith of love and humility they
adopt, they can be neither loving nor humble.