6505C18 SHSpec-61 Organization and Ethics

     [References: HCOPL 1May65 III "Organization -- The Design of the
Organization", and the policy letters on staff status:  pp. vi-vii in OEC Vol.
1.]

     Staff status policy letters have been issued.  On the new org board, we
will remedy an old evil by putting after the person's name his certification
and classification as an auditor, his grade as a PC, and his staff status.  In
the past, in trying to appoint someone at a distance, LRH had trouble knowing
who was there.  Now, copies of org boards will be exchanged between orgs, and
it will be easy, in filling posts, to see who is qualified for promotion.

     To be a staff member in Tech, one needs to have a technical certificate
that covers basics of the organization.  An admin terminal needs a basic cert
on the org.  Then he is qualified as provisional (Staff Status I).  They can
be transferred without permission.  Staff Status II is "general staff
member".  This individual has worked for and attained a solid position.  From
there on, it goes up to "in-charge" (Head of a sub-section.  This is the
lowest exec rating.).  An "officer" is in charge of a section.  For instance,
the cramming officer is in charge of the cramming section.  Then there are
titles that are not associated with rank or status, e.g. "communicator".  A
post can also have "deputies".  A post assigned locally is "deputy".  One
assigned from St. Hill would be "acting" for awhile.  Then the "acting"
prefix is removed, and the person has full status.  "Acting" or "deputy" do
not refer to rank.  They refer to permanency.  A deputy is somebody who is in
there temporarily.  A small breath of air could dislodge him.  "Acting"
denotes a St. Hill appointment.  After a short time, up to a year, the
"acting" prefix is dropped.  Then the person becomes the "(title)" without the
prefix.  A "Deputy HCO Exec Sec" is someone holding the post until confirmed.
It is not at all permanent.  "Acting HCO Exec Sec" is a St. Hill appointment
and therefore official.  To be an "acting", the person would have to have the
appropriate staff status for the post.  This is not true of a deputy.  But a
deputy doesn't draw the pay of an acting.  You put a person on a post to see
how they do.  You can't wait, to fill posts, for someone with the proper staff
status.  So we have the "deputy" rating.  This appointment must be confirmed
by St. Hill, to get an "acting" rating and full pay.  "Acting" applies until
a person knows his hat cold and can apply it.

     Policy letters are pouring out, covering everything from organizational
theory to nit-picky details of minor hats.

     Ethics is there to hold the lines and to get technology in, i.e. to make
it possible for tech to go in.  That is its sole purpose, and it is fabulously
successful in fulfilling that purpose.  "Ethics is the tourniquet before the
doctor arrives."  Its purpose is to quiet the turbulence down long enough to
allow the auditor to come in.  You carry ethics in until you get tech in.  It
has looked like the publication of someone as an SP has the same effect as a
public hanging.  Cancelling someone's certs has the effect of getting him back
in, all straightened up, within two to two and a half years.  Not cancelling
the certs results in his going off into the wilds and never showing up again.
Peter Crundall, for example, had his certs cancelled five or six years ago,
when he was screaming and howling about something.  He had to get 500 hours of
auditing at his own expense.  Now he is being the featured lecturer at an
org.  It took about two years for him to get his auditing started, and he got
it all handled.  So it is an unkind thing to do, not to bring order into a
scientology area.

     Man has a tremendous reaction to "justice".  The purpose of ethics is to
get in tech.  But Man's law and Man's justice is not like that.  Man wants to
squash people who get in his way.  His "justice" has no end product, save
punishment.  It does not straighten out the community.  Therefore it doesn't
work.  Police forces have bad morale, because there is no end product of penal
action.  People know this and react against it.  And some, on an A=A=A basis,
will react against ethics in scientology the same way:  You jar people's banks
when you present the idea of ethics.  Be that as it may, a greater proportion
of people in scientology today favor a decent ethics system than are batting
back at it.  This is because they see that a good ethics system will give them
better training, processing, and a better grip of on scientology.  You can't
sentence someone to technology or to getting better.  You can sentence him to
not getting better.  No one is forcing us to help people.  If someone keeps
getting in the way, it is pretty normal to stop wanting to assist him.

     If you feel like blowing up organizations, you should very carefully look
up the justice actions of organizations and huge governments etc., and compare
these things.  If you do this, you find some astonishing data.  The taut ship,
the viciously conducted regiment, the harshly run empire -- all these survive
and flourish with high esprit de corps almost forever.  The sloppy ones
succumb rapidly.  LRH got interested in this phenomenon while reading Gibbon's
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  The only long periods of progressive
rule, recovery from barbarian attacks, and freedom from internal upsets were
periods when the emperor was a nut.  The "good" emperors got killed within a
few months.  This didn't jibe with LRH's experience in handling discipline on
a ship.  He realized that what works for a small, intimate group to keep the
peace is different from what is needed for a big group which gets lots of
confusion.  In an org, the points of enturbulation are the ones where the
public impinges, e.g. the line of getting the PC from the Reg to the D of P.
This line keeps going out.  LRH used to wonder if there was something wrong
with us, to allow us to get enturbulated in this way.  Then he looked at
society in general and saw how much worse off their condition is.  Society is
deteriorating.  We are gradiently doing better and better.

     As we expand, we reach straight out into the tumult of society.  We had
to have tools to extend our reach so that we could get our jobs done in time.
LRH found that as people moved up towards OT, a certain disdain occurred.  He
saw that ethics would be necessary, so that OT's would take orderly bites out
of people, when they got annoyed by the disaster to that extent.  There is a
need for an ethics system, because a sufficiently powerful being, annoyed at
something, is "liable to straighten [it] up with such thoroughness that hardly
anybody would ever recover....  And unless they have some orderly method of
straightening things up," they will straighten things up in their own way, and
it will make a Hell of a mess.  The laws of ethics need to be known and
understood.  They need to be predictable.  They cannot be capricious.  The
question is, "Are you for just shooting somebody down without warning, or do
you want ethics?  Do you want law that just freakishly strikes down everybody
in sight, or do you want the kind of law that says, "Here is the path, narrow
as it may seem.'?" In acting on these lines, we have ethics rattling around in
the orgs.  People are getting used to the tools.  You can give someone a shock
with a heavy use of ethics.  It can be very effective, used lightly.  Used in
this way, ethics backs up tech most amazingly.

     LRH has just discovered the PTS case: its cause and handling.  Never
audit a PTS.  The rollercoaster case is one that we have never been able to
handle before.  He is connected to an SP, and until ethics makes him
disconnect or handle the SP, he will continue to rollercoaster.  Ethics can
label the suppressive, if nothing else.  You give the PTS case the policy
letter covering PTS'ness.  You don't have to issue an ethics order unless tech
doesn't go in, i.e. unless he can't or won't handle or disconnect.  You can
insist that a PTS bring the SP in, if necessary, for auditing.  If things went
that far, you could threaten the PTS person with not getting the SP audited
unless the PTS person gets him in before he is labeled an SP.

     Suppressives are pretty crazy.  The SP has got to fight.  He is back on
the track, fighting the Ugbugs.  He is in an old PTP.  He is taking the
actions, in PT, that would solve the problem with the Ugbugs.  He is back on
the track, fighting an enemy that no longer exists."  99.999999999% of his
attention units are at some exact, precise past period of the track, and in
that ... instant, he is fighting off something and is trying to handle
something by some means, [which are] the [ones] he is using in PT."  He has no
problems with you, and vice versa."  He isn't up there with you, and you
aren't back there with him...."  That's the whole anatomy of psychosis:  "Given
associative restimulators and A=A=A, you've got a mad-dog type."  He's just
defending himself, in some mad insanity, against things which are no longer
there."  [Hence the use of power processes on psychotics.] You can assume that
the SP has problems in PT, but those are not the problem that he wants to
solve.  That problem is on the back track, and it is loaded with
cross-associations and identifications.  He misidentifies anyone who
approaches or tries to help him, in an effort to defend himself.  He is driven
down to the first dynamic to such a degree that no one must get any better.
When he is driven down into the first dynamic, he must destroy all around
him.  No one must get any better, because they are the flying saucer people.
Once scientology is known to be an effective way to help people, watch out!
International City [See pp. 604-609, above.] is being looked at by a group
connected to the U.N.  We are having an effect.

     The true anti-scientologist isn't trying to be convinced.  He is trying
to stop you!  You are the green alligator he is fighting 7000 years ago, and
if you (or anyone else -- they are all the green alligator) got any better,
you would be stronger, and that would tear it, and you would eat him up (he
thinks).  Insanity is just a total stuckness on the track in a fight.  This is
a point that you prove instantly and utterly when you are running power (Class
VII) processes on someone.  Power handles the SP and the insane.  The SP can
be processed to sanity in under fifty hours, but you had better have the
organization and the ethics to hold things together.  You have to label PTS's
and SP's, to get the tech in.  "An ethics action lasts until, tech is in....
You use English to get tech in....  You stop it when you've got tech in," even
if stopping at that point leaves unfinished cycles of action along the way.
"It's not a question of 'Where does the ethics proceed?' ... It's, 'How long
do you have to hold the area down?'"

     An organization will run, as long as it has channels, and as long as
particles on the channels don't carom off the sides of the channels and
collide with the working parts of the organization.  If you can bring that
about, you can have an organization that would have a total capability of
pouring through it practically the whole of the human race.  Lacking clean and
definite flow channels, your volume stays small because of all the barriers
and stoppages that occur.  If the channel isn't kept open, you can't handle
the load.

     Scientology "is probably the only outfit that ever hit this planet that
meant exactly what it said and was doing exactly what it was doing [and what
it said it was doing] and was doing exactly nothing else."  Scientology
doesn't have the time to do half the things that it has been accused of.

     An SP, saying, "I never said that!", believes that he really didn't.  And
he is right, in a sense."  How the Hell could he say anything?  He hasn't been
there for seven trillion years."

     "I'm sure that [many entheta-ish people believe] that we've ... gone
stark, staring mad, with all this 'justice'.  No.  We're just having a little
fun with justice, just now, and when we learn about it, why, we'll be able to
control fairly well a wide sphere of public in such a way that they don't all
get destroyed....  The main danger to them is not ethics.  It's having their
silly heads blown off because they make somebody mad."

     You've got to have ethics in to handle non-scientologists.  If you put
discipline in right at the start, you can work very nicely with
non-scientologists.  Make sure that they know what ethics is, how it works,
etc.  Society is losing its grip.  We are putting in order, to make an orderly
show for the future.

