Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Responsibilities of Leaders

(Introductory note: In this essay, I use the term “wog”. Generally, this term has come to mean anyone who is not part of the more general group being addressed. The origin of the term is slightly unclear, but it came to be a pejorative used primarily by the British to describe conquered or subjugated Asians, most particularly those of India when it was ruled by the British. In Scientology, it came to mean non-Scientologists. The Independent Field has made a fair amount of noise about how this term is a pejorative and insensitive to the dignity of non-Scientologists. In the present essay and others, I do not mean this term to be pejorative. I mean it as a strictly neutral short-cut to represent non-Scientologists as a group. If you’re offended by its use, please get over yourself. Political correctness is an attempt originated by psychs to control thought by controlling speech. It is based on the false idea that people can be permanently damaged by the mere utterance of words by others. They cannot, except in cases where the words occur at the same time as pain and unconsciousness. See Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health.)

There is a policy letter called “Responsibilities of Leaders”, in which Ron essentially reviews a book he read about Simon Bolivar and his 2D. If you haven’t read this policy letter, go get a copy of it and read it. It’s quite conversational and entertaining. The policy letter has been included in some editions of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and is closely linked to the formula for the condition of Power.

The book itself is about the rise and fall of Simon Bolivar, a Venezuelan revolutionary, in his struggles to loosen Spain’s grip on Latin America. In the policy letter, Ron digs deeply into the factors which ultimately led to Bolivar’s downfall. Ron shows how these factors relate to anyone who rises to power, and to those surrounding the person of power who wish to partake of and share the power.

There has been much finger-wagging of late in the Independent Field about how this policy letter (and by extension, Ron) encourages things like murder, mayhem and blackmail in the name of supporting a person who has power. (Apparently, David Miscavige uses this policy letter to justify any number of unethical and immoral acts. Who’s surprised by this?) Such finger-wagging is the result of too literal an interpretation of what Ron is saying.

Let’s be clear. Early in Ron’s career as a writer, he wrote reams of fiction where murder, mayhem and blackmail figured prominently. This was the stuff of pulp fiction. But it was also a reflection of the types of things which happen daily in the real world, then and now. Even in his final work of fiction, Mission Earth, they figure prominently.

The case for Ron’s depravity in this respect is often supported by the Fair Game Law and certain policies supposedly written specifically for use and execution by personnel of the old Guardian’s Office. Two considerations are relevant here. First, the Fair Game Law did not necessarily encourage such behavior; it merely shielded Scientologists from penalties for such actions under Scientology justice codes. And the Fair Game Law was canceled. Second, the authorship of any policy in the Guardian’s Office is questionable. I’ve seen many a GO policy letter half redacted, particularly as regards its authors. The GO was guilty of taking a great many undue liberties, a fact which ultimately lead to its downfall and destruction, nearly taking the whole Church of Scientology with it.

In “Responsibilities of Leaders”, Ron is reviewing a book by a wog about wogs. The context of his commentary is that of the wog world. As a policy letter, it serves as a cautionary tale for Scientologists, and a commentary on human behavior. But its context is still that of the wog world. In the wog world, particularly that lived in by Simon Bolivar, murder, mayhem and blackmail would have been rather common, or at least not-unheard-of occurrences. In the world of Scientology or the Sea Org, those same actions would be virtually unheard of, and certainly actionable.

If you read this policy letter and believe (as some prominent members of the Independent Field do) that Ron is directly encouraging this type of behavior, you need to re-read the policy again, this time without being so literal about what LRH is saying. Remember, the policy is a bit of social commentary about wogs in the wog world. It would be patently absurd to imagine that Ron would encourage ambitious Letter Regges to murder other staff to bolster the power of an Executive Director of an org. Do you honestly imagine that Ron would look the other way, if such a thing were happening in any org he was aware of? (It’s been remarked that the policy on Kha Khan also excuses the recipient of that title of the crime of murder. Again, such an interpretation is wildly literal.)

You’ve got prominent opinion leaders in the Independent Field making bizarre assertions as regards LRH policy. This bespeaks of a too-literal frame of mind. Such literalness is at least indicative of study bugs. Unfortunately, we have no Qualifications Division in the Field to which to send such people. And worse, few who are willing to stand up and strongly encourage such people to get their study bugs handled.

I might also mention a factor LRH omitted in his materials related to study: common sense. Ron assumed you had some. Believing that he might seriously be quoted as saying something like, “Scientologists, go forth and murder in the name of power!” bespeaks a true lack of common sense, if nothing else.

Of course, if your intention is to besmirch Ron’s reputation, that’s another matter entirely.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

4 thoughts on “Responsibilities of Leaders

  1. At last, a sensible commentary on that HCOPL of 12 February 1967!

    Context is everything. Too many people choose to interpret phrases like “the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark” literally as justifying crime. But in this essay LRH was writing about people living through a violent historical episode. And he had a boisterous sense of humour that seems to go over the heads of some of his shorter readers.

    In a present time context, the equivalent of killing the enemy or burning their camp would be defeating them using evidence, argument, legal tactics or lateral thinking. Any game is played by rules, whether these be the rules of gang warfare or the rules of civilized debate. My boss wouldn’t be pleased if I murdered one of our competitors; but he’d welcome a successful program that got us extra funding at that competitor’s expense.

  2. 1984 on said:

    Thanks for your eval on the policy. It’s nice to know that someone has his feet on the ground with respect to policy and properly applying it as intended.
    (I work in electronics, and I keep hearing the request to design it as foolproof. They keep underestimating the ‘ability’ of fools. )
    By the same token, the “Art of War” by Sun Tzu, is very ap-pro-po , however, I think that the idea of beheading the woman of the house for not following orders, would not be politically OK, these days. (IMHO)

  3. Pingback: Wogs | Martin Luther

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: