[ Chapter Nine | Table of Contents | Chapter Eleven ]

The Mind Benders, Scientology

by Cyril Vosper

10. Ethics

To build a new civilisation requires new laws.

Laws with a greater purpose than to maintain the status quo or to remove offenders from public view.

To get the best out of people, the new laws must be applied with scrupulous fairness. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, as the saying goes. The new laws must protect the accused from injustice and must protect the new civilisation from wrongdoers.

The new laws must be so magnanimous, mighty, dealing with trivia and weighty problems with equal concern for the individual's welfare, so as to eventually draw the masses, wide-eyed with joyous relief, towards them. They, the plain people, beset with exploitation, injustice, a crumbling civilisation headed by leaders incapable, incompetent and uncaring, will reject phoney standards and turn towards that which gives hope to the individual, puts decent, clean-living people where they belong - at the pinnacle of all that's best - and puts justice where otherwise there is injustice.

The mind-bending prattlings of a bookish utopian, divorced from the realities of how people act?

Not a bit of it. This is what Scientology is doing. As part of its make-this-world-a-decent-place-to-bring-kids-up-in programme, Scientology is making laws and thus laying the foundations for the first civilisation of which Mankind may be proud.

Millions already believe the Ethics of Scientology carry more weight and honesty than the traditional and confused laws of nations. These are becoming the new Citizens of the World. They are giving up narrow nationalism, mere ethnic barriers for the greater cause of all life. There is a distinct leaning towards the Anglo-Saxon ethos but this is subsidiary to that of Scientology. For the first time, there is a genuine and strongly organised movement to convert all peoples to a creed which, though godless itself, does not argue on religious grounds but claims to enhance all forms of religious experience. A philosophy, moreover, which brings practical and realistic benefits in this life rather than in some vaguely defined afterlife.

Hubbard has stated: "All that Ethics is for - the totality of the reason for its existence and operation - is simply that additional tool necessary to make it possible to apply the technology of Scientology.

"Man does not have that purpose for his law or his justice. He wants to squash people who are giving him trouble.

"That is not the case with Scientology Ethics which having the above purpose is a fabulously successful activity.

"... the systems of disciplinary actions which are employed on earth today are incapable of doing more than worsening an individual."

Hubbard has defined his Ethics as: "reason and the contemplation of optimum survival".

In other words, the laws of Scientology enhance the survival of all. Existing laws threaten or inflict lowered survival and by fear lower the survival of even non-criminals.

Scientologists willingly accept these heady assurances.

"The greatest being in the 300 trillion years of history of the physical universe says this is the way to get things done, so who am I to argue?" type of willing acceptance.

If one follows through on the reasoning behind all of Scientology, one sees that humanitarian and creative laws are possible. A Thetan cleared of all mental aberration is a good person. Not just well-intentioned but good in action. Such good people will act for the overall welfare. If they have a code of conduct which is at once clearly understandable, applicable to all circumstances and guaranteed to produce the optimum results, then good people will turn to that at all times. There is a code of conduct and laws which not only provides for a clear, happy, sparkly-eyed, joyous world but which has the truly unique advantage of being based upon untold trillions of years' experience. It is as if an the civilisations down through incomprehensibly long aeons have been proving-grounds for the culmination of laws, the quintessence of which is SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS.

Scientology Ethics; the very name stirs the heart, mind, soul and stomach with renewed hope. Man's travails, indeed the travails of all beings, including purple-furred, seven-eyed, methane breathing, sexually divergent occupants of the Lesser Magellanic Cloud galaxy, are at an end. Every being in the cosmos now has a perfectly straightforward and essentially therapeutic code whereby he can order his life and his social systems.

For "advanced thinkers" and proponents of the "Permissive Society", Scientology Ethics will come as something of a shock. As it is a mixture of Barry Goldwater's Republicanism, Nazism, the less esoteric elements of Communism, the sickly sweetness of television Christianity and the philosophy of Soldier Termites, it does indeed have a uniquely embracing quality but, regrettably, it makes no allowance for people "to do their thing". Still, life is like that. Thousands of people think for years to find a more satisfactory way of getting things done only to find they have wasted their time.

Hubbardian Ethics is not in the great tradition of Socrates and Aristotle. It contains the brutality of Friedrich Nietzsche, the absolutism of Immanuel Kant, the romantic impracticality of Benedict Spinoza and the denial of self of Existentialism. A wildly improbable admixture. It is essentially a series of injunctions from the Master. Do's and don't's on how to be a good Scientologist.

As may be imagined, Scientology Ethics consists to a great degree in a protection of Scientology.

L. Ron Hubbard, being the most important Scientologist, amongst his other remarkable qualifications, is protected most thoroughly. Mary Sue Hubbard, his present wife, comes next. Then his family, with the exception of his son by some other marriage - L. Ron (Nibs) Hubbard, Jnr., who is not spoken of nowadays. Then senior Scientologists and lesser and lesser Scientologists. The non-Scientology general public - "Wogs" - is not protected much at all. Ex-Scientologists, particularly those who take overtly reactive actions against Scientology, such as writing a book on it, are regarded as so far gone as to be a menace to the welfare of the human race. They must be quietened by intimidation, blackmail, physical threats, mental coercion (Hubbard has stated, as if invoking a Voodoo curse, that anyone rash enough to take action against Scientology is guaranteeing unto himself an incurable insanity followed by a painful death. Most ex-Scientologists I know appear in excellent physical shape and, if anything, somewhat saner. Nevertheless, just in case old Ron is right, I always keep in mind that these poor unfortunates may suddenly be possessed of an indescribably horrible insanity and may keel over shortly afterwards. It gives an air of excitement and delicious anticipation to meetings with ex-Scientologists).

The system of awards and penalties contained within the Conditions of Existence which forms the backbone of the practical application of Scientology Ethics is based upon: "We reward production and up-statistics and penalise non-production and down-statistics." A statistic - "A number or amount compared to an earlier number or amount of the same thing. Statistics refer to the quantity of work done or the value of it in money" - is compiled for all jobs, posts and organisations within the Scientology complex and is computed each week to determine the Condition of Existence to be assigned.

Hubbard cites the Welfare State of Britain and other western countries as examples of Rewarding Down-Statistics, as if the only people who ask for welfare handouts are lazy, good-for-nothing layabouts. Everyone in a Scientology-controlled society would work hard and long for their daily crust in order to push their "stats" up and up. It sounds very boring.

The Conditions of Existence from highest to lowest are: Power, Affluence, Normal Operation, Emergency, Danger, Non-Existence, Liability, Doubt, Enemy and Treason.

When a Scientology staff member first assumes his post, whether it be as a transfer from another post or as a completely new member of staff, he is declared in a Condition of Non-Existence. He must apply the formula for Non-Existence in order to pull himself up to the next condition: "(1) Find a Communication line; (2) Make yourself known; (3) Discover what is needed or wanted; (4) Do, produce and/or present it." Once having successfully applied this formula, the staff member is assigned a Condition of Danger.

The formula for Danger: "(1) Bypass [ignore] the junior normally in charge of the activity - handle it personally: (2) Handle the situation and any danger in it; (3) Assign the area where it had to be handled a Danger Condition; (4) Handle the personnel by Ethics Investigation and Committee of Evidence; (5) Reorganise the activity so that the situation does not repeat; (6) Recommend any firm policy that will hereafter detect and/or prevent the condition from recurring". In the case of a staff member newly on post, much of the Danger Formula is applied in a very fleeting way. It is applied more thoroughly when a staff member or department slips into Danger from a higher condition.

Once out of Danger, a Condition of Emergency is assigned, the formula for which is: "(1) Promote. That applies to an organisation. To an individual you had better say produce; (2) Change your operating basis; (3) Economise; (4) Then prepare to deliver; (5) Stiffen discipline."

If the Emergency formula is applied successfully, one goes into Normal Operation: "(1) The way you maintain an increase is when you are in a state of Normal Operation you don't change anything; (2) Ethics are very mild, the justice factor is quite mild, there are no savage actions taken particularly; (3) A statistic betters then look it over carefully and find out what bettered it and then do that without abandoning what you were doing before; (4) Every time a statistic worsens slightly, quickly find out why and remedy it."

Exactly how one goes from Normal to Affluence when there is a heavy injunction to change nothing is difficult to see but it does happen that the statistic will suddenly shoot up and then one applies the following formula: "(1) Economise; (2) Pay every bill; (3) Invest the remainder in service facilities, make it more possible to deliver; (4) Discover what caused the Condition of Affluence and strengthen it."

If one can strengthen the Condition of Affluence for a long enough period of time, a Condition of Power will be achieved. "(1) The first law of a Condition of Power is don't disconnect; you just can't deny your connections, what you have got to do is take ownership and responsibility for your connections; (2) The first thing you have got to do is make a record of all of its lines. And that is the only way you will ever be able to disconnect. So on a Condition of Power the first thing you have to do is write up your whole post; (3) The responsibility is write the thing up and get it into the hands of the guy who is going to take care of it; (4) Do all you can to make the post occupiable."

This formula for Power may seem extremely confusing as it mentions "don't disconnect" and later suggests that the person in a Condition of Power is going to leave his post. This is something to do with an obscure state known as Power Change which is the condition in which one moves on to some new post by going out of the top.

The rates of pay in Scientology organisations are extremely poor. A new staff member at some organisations is paid a flat rate of £8.00 per week. With experience this can go up to about £30 per forty hour week. In the majority of organisations, there is a unit system, akin to a commission, whereby each staff member is paid a proportion of the total takings of the organisation for any week. This can vary widely from nil to £30 or £40 per week, usually on the lower side.

Depending on the Condition of Existence, the pay is adjusted. At Normal Operation, the staff member is paid his set wage or set number of units, low for a filing clerk or copy typist, high for a divisional secretary. In a Condition of Affluence, there is a 33 1/3 per cent increase; in Power, a 66 2/3 per cent increase. In Emergency, the staff member receives 33 1/3 per cent less: in Danger, 66 2/3 per cent less, and in Non-Existence and all of the lower Conditions of Existence, he receives nothing.

If the staff member is unfortunate enough or, as Hubbard would put it, is maliciously foolish enough to sink below Non-Existence, he enters a most uncomfortable area known as the Condition of Liability.

"The being has ceased to be simply non-existent as a team member and has taken on the colour of an enemy.

"It is assigned where careless or malicious and knowing damage is caused to projects, organisations or activities. It is adjudicated that it is malicious and knowing because orders have been published against it or because it is contrary to the intentions and actions of the remainder of the team or the purpose of the project or organisation.

"Such a person, assigned a Condition of Liability, may not wear any insignia or uniform or similar clothing to the group and must wear a DIRTY GREY RAG tied around the left arm.

"The formula of liability is:

"(1) Decide who are one's friends; (2) Deliver an effective blow to the enemies of the group one has been pretending to be part of despite personal danger; (3) Make up the damage one has done by personal contribution far beyond the ordinary demands of a group member; (4) Apply for re-entry to the group by asking the permission of each member of it to rejoin and rejoining only by majority permission, and if refused, repeating (2) and (3) and (4) until one is allowed to be a group member again."

It is a truly illuminating experience to be assigned a Condition of Liability (it happened to me about twelve times!). Colleagues whom you regarded as friends, seem suddenly distant and distrustful. They won't talk to you. They don't offer you cigarettes or suggest you take a swig out of their Coke bottle. In some really Eager Beaver cases, they even refuse your cigarettes when you offer them! It is amazing.

In addition to the above degradations which everyone takes great delight in heaping on your bowed and shamed head, you are not supposed to eat and drink more than stale cheese sandwiches and water and you are barred from sexual relationships with your wife. (In Scientology, you are either married or single and chaste.)

When you come out of your Condition of Liability (which is supposed to last only forty-eight hours maximum but which I experienced for fourteen days at one point), other Scientologists begin smiling at you again, a little wanly maybe but the effect is electrifying. You are back in the Land of the Living, even though you have not slept during the entire period of the Condition of Liability. Once having been in a Condition of Liability, you resolve never to go near it again but it does not always work out that way.

The Condition of Doubt is even worse. "When one cannot make up one's mind as to an individual, a group, organisation or project a Condition of Doubt exists.

"The formula is:

"(1) Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organisation, brushing aside all bias and rumour; (2) Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organisation; (3) Decide on the basis of 'the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics' whether or not it should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped; (4) Evaluate oneself or one's own group, project or organisation as to intentions and objectives; (5) Evaluate one's own or one's group project or organisation's statistics; (6) Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses towards the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides; (7) Do everything possible to improve the actions and statistics of the person, group, project or organisation one has remained in or joined (8) Suffer on up through the conditions in the new group if one has changed sides, or the conditions of the group one has remained in if wavering from it has lowered one's status."

In other words, if you doubt that Scientology is all it claims to be, get rid of the doubt or get out.

The additional penalties when in a Condition of Doubt are exotic. The doubting Scientologist must wear a handcuff on his left wrist. Since handcuffs are expensive and difficult to obtain, a symbolic handcuff is worn, made up of paper-clips. One is either thrown off the premises or is locked up in the most dungeon-like part of it. It is rumoured that the major executives at Saint Hill were hurled into the swimming-pool fully clothed in the middle of winter because Hubbard felt they must have been in a Condition of Doubt. It is also rumoured that some really bad cases of Doubt were lowered to the bottom of the well at Saint Hill to help them sort things out in cool and quiet surroundings.

Below Doubt comes the Condition of Enemy: "When a person is an avowed and knowing enemy of an individual, a group, project or organisation, a Condition of Enemy exists.

"The formula for the Condition of Enemy is just one step:


Someone in a Condition of Enemy and the next lower Condition of Treason is a Suppressive Person: "One who is battling constantly in covert ways to make others less powerful and less able because of imagined danger to himself." Hubbard, revealingly, has spoken and written a great deal about the S.P. Apparently, only some of the 2½ per cent of the population are truly suppressive. They influence another 20 per cent and make them Potential Trouble Sources: "Any person who, while active in Scientology or a preclear, remains connected to a Suppressive Person or Group. (A person 'roller coasters', i.e., gets better, then worse, etc., only when connected to a Suppressive Person or Group, in order to cease roller-coastering he must either handle the source of suppression or disconnect from it)." Because an S.P. destroys the case gains of other Scientologists by making them into Potential Trouble Sources, people in the Conditions of Enemy or Treason are shunned by any self-respecting Scientologist.

The Condition of Treason is brought about by a betrayal of trust or faith which Scientologists have had in an individual. Should a Scientologist give evidence at any of the government enquiries into Scientology, should he write a critical book, then he has betrayed the trust invested in him and he is in a Condition of Treason.

"The formula for Treason Condition is:

"(1) Deliver a paralysing blow to the enemies of the group one has worked against and betrayed; (2) Perform a self-damaging act that furthers the purposes and or objectives of the group one has betrayed; (3) Inform the group, project or org. one has betrayed of one's previous betrayal and (1) and (2) above and petition each member for forgiveness; (4) Abide by their reaction or decision."

Anyone in a Condition of Enemy or Treason is classed as Fair Game. Scientologists have claimed this to mean that the individual is not protected by the codes of Scientology, when pressed on this point by television interviewers and reporters. Yet Hubbard in his book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, 1968, states: "A Suppressive Person or Group becomes 'Fair Game'."

"By FAIR GAME is meant, without right for self, possessions or position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or Group during the period that Person or group is 'fair game'."

Would a Scientologist who takes it into his head to murder a declared Suppressive Person be regarded by Scientologists as fully within his rights? That murder has not occurred as far as is known is not to the credit of L. Ron Hubbard's Ethics but more to the credit of police and courts of the old-fashioned, repressive type.

"... it is a very interesting fact that a far greater proportion of people in Scientology today favour a decent (!) ethical law and favour ethics actions than have reacted against it, because they see that it will make things go right." Doubtless Adolf Hitler might have expressed very similar sentiments about the actions of the band of thugs attracted to his "philosophy". It is astonishing and very disquieting that many ordinary and apparently law-abiding people should directly or indirectly subscribe to this form of violent extremism.

As religious zealots, Scientologists exceed any that have gone before. They have not simply a deep faith that theirs is The Way. They can present a comprehensible whole; an all-embracing answer to many of the problems that beset humanity. Normal procedures of democracy, socialism, capitalism, religions, laws and social standards seem incapable of saving us from a future, pointless and dehumanised. Hubbard does not bother to justify the inhumanity of his Ethics. If families are broken up, if friends are turned against friends, if suicides occur, if an entrapment of the very spirit that makes humans human should occur, then that is subsidiary to the aim to prove Hubbard right. After all, as he is careful to instil into the outlook of his followers, anything that happens to anyone is fully and totally that person's own responsibility, they pull it in on themselves, don't they?

Hubbard's Ethics are applied in each organisation by Department of Inspection and Reports, and specifically by Ethics Officers. These individuals, one for each TWELVE staff members and students, carry short wooden batons. They carry out routine Ethics inspections of work and conduct of the people assigned to them and often act in an officious and interfering way. They can assign low Conditions with no more reason than that they feel low Conditions are needed, for the good of the victim's everlasting soul, of course. For instance:

I was working at a drawing-board one day in the spring of 1968. It was a complicated layout for a booklet. It took a lot of time and concentration to get the Letraset exactly as I wanted it.

A thump came on the drawing-board, making the board tilt, my arm jerk and cracking the Letraset. Thirty-minutes' work up the spout.

"What the hell do you think you're doing?" I said turning to see Con Whitlock, Ethics Officer.

"I'm doing a comm. inspection. You'd better watch your language. Which are your baskets?"

"Buzz off and take your funny comm. inspection with you. I'm too busy to fool with you right now."

"What did you say?" he asked, a look of incredulity in his eyes.

"I said buzz off. B-U-Z-Z O-F-F. You've just ruined a lot of work and if you're not careful I will apply my own brand of personal Ethics on you, mate."

"Do you know what the penalties are for obstructing an Ethics Officer in the performance of his legal duties?"

"No, but I can guess. Something degrading and sadistic like being publicly flogged in front of the window of L. Ron Hubbard's office in the Manor."

Con seemed to have lost his sense of humour since becoming an Ethics Officer. "No," he said. "But you will be assigned a low Condition."

He didn't exactly buzz as he strode away but there was an air of self-righteous incredulity about him which was almost audible. About fifteen minutes later another Ethics Officer brought me a little slip of paper. It was a hastily scribbled Ethics Order on the H.C.O. Old Gold paper. It said:

"Cyril Vosper, Director of Promotion, SH is hereby assigned a Condition of Liability for obstructing an Ethics Officer, Con Whitlock, in the performance of his legal duties."

It didn't say anything about Con Whitlock obstructing me in the performance of MY duties. I suppose I asked for it though. I took out my own special dirty grey rag and tied it around my left arm. I took the white carnation out of my buttonhole and threw it away.

This police state system of constant checking of the work and conduct of a staff member cannot be justified in terms of greater efficiency. In the admittedly extreme example cited above, about three days were lost in my work in scrambling up from the Condition of Liability to the state of Normal when I could resume the layout I had been on. It certainly cannot be described as "that additional tool necessary to make it possible to apply the technology of Scientology". Since the vast majority of Scientology staff members are in their jobs not for money or personal gain but because they are convinced they are doing the only truly worthwhile job in the world, it is obvious that they need little of the Scientology brand of Ethics, correction and punishment. By some strange alchemy, Hubbard has induced his followers to believe implicitly in him. Whatever may happen in any Scientology organisation, and almost everything that does happen is a direct result of his policies, Scientologists believe that no possible wrong can stem from Hubbard but must stem from the inadequacies of the people whose job it is to apply his policies. It is a curious experience to read a Policy Letter issued and written under L. Ron Hubbard's copyright (for instance, one, issued in about 1967, stated that ANY falling statistic was caused for no other possible reason than that a Suppressive Person was causing it to fall); to mention to other Scientologists that Hubbard's statement seemed a bit extreme (one would obviously not say - "He must be out of his mind!"); to see the policy applied with gusto and a total lack of sane judgement (since there is a feeling amongst Scientologists that policy applied wrongly is better than policy not applied); to see utter chaos reign; to see further policies issued by Hubbard not so much admitting his earlier policy was incorrect (one would be prepared to then put his earlier statement down to research or some such) but blaming Ethics Officers for going on witch-hunts among his beautiful and valued staff. To cap it all, there could well be another instruction from Wise Old Ron a few months later saying that Ethics Officers must dig out the horrible S.P.'s with utter ruthlessness, and the whole idiotic thing starts over again. Perhaps it is that Hubbard is full of boyish fun and gets immense malicious glee from the discomfort of his slavish followers. If this be so, then he also gets a bonus of totally uncritical adulation. Some people have all the luck!

Though Ethics Officers take their hard or soft line at the whim of L. Ron Hubbard - maybe it's a hard line when his teeth are aching and soft when they are all right, because he refuses to go to the dentist from fear of acquiring Engrams from the anaesthetic - the assignment of the Conditions of Enemy or Treason and their attendant declaration of Suppressive Person is usually carried out by a Committee of Evidence.

Such Committees are composed of four or five ordinary staff members and the proceedings are tape-recorded. The recording is used in the case of an appeal being lodged against the findings of the Committee of Evidence. This sounds fine in theory but in practice if one is assigned the Condition of Enemy or Treason, one is not allowed to appeal until the Conditions Formulae have been applied, at which there is only academic interest or point in the appeal (in my own case, they also mislaid the tape recording).

Committees of Evidence are convened by the HCO Area Secretary, head of HCO Division 1 under which comes Department 3, the Department of Inspections and Reports (Ethics amongst other things). There are four general classes of crimes and offences upon which a Committee of Evidence may be called to ajudicate - Errors, Misdemeanours, Crimes and High Crimes.

A Comm. Ev. may not be called solely to judge guilt or innocence of an Error, since these are minor unintentional omissions or mistakes which are usually handled by direct actions by the senior or Ethics Officer.

There are three classes of Misdemeanour - Technical, General and Ethical.

Under Technical Misdemeanours, of which there are fifteen listed, come: "Knowing and repeated departures from standard technology, procedures or policy" and "Any other answer to a student's demand for verbal technical or unusual solutions than the permitted: 'The material is in (HCO Bulletin, Policy Letter or tape)', 'What does your material state?', 'What word did you miss in the (HCO Bulletin, Policy Letter or tape)?' and requests for unusual auditing solutions: 'What did you actually do?'" Technical Misdemeanours are therefore applicable to auditors and instructors.

Amongst the twenty-six General Misdemeanours listed comes: "Continued association with Squirrels (Squirrels: Those who engage in actions altering Scientology, and offbeat practices)." As additional information on Squirrel groups, the most infamous in the U.K. is "The Process" which seems to be an unlikely mixture of Para-Scientology, Mein Kampf, The Cult of Cthulhu by H. P. Lovecraft, John Lennonism, Anti-Christianity, Make War AND Love and "Doing your Thing, Man". The word "Squirrel" has something to do with Nuts.

Another General Misdemeanour: "Refusing auditing when ordered by a higher authority."

Under the nine Ethics Misdemeanours comes: "Failure to appear before a Committee of Evidence as a Witness or Interested Party when personally given summons or receiving summons by registered post." (Interested Party is Hubbard's charitable term for The Accused.)

There are four classes of Crimes - Non-Compliance and Neglect, Financial, Technical and General.

Under the seventeen Non-Compliance and Neglect Crimes come: "Omissions or non-compliance requiring heavy intervention by seniors, consuming time and money, with Dev-T (Developed Unnecessary Traffic)" and "Neglect of responsibilities resulting in catastrophe even when another manages to avert the final consequences."

Under the fourteen Financial Crimes come: "Juggling Accounts" and "Selling auditing hours or training courses for advance which are not then delivered as to hours and time in training (but not results or subject-matter)."

In the twenty-one listed Technical Crimes come: "Being or becoming a Potential Trouble Source ... without reporting it or taking action" and "Any Supervisor teaching or advising any method not contained in HCO Bulletins or on tapes, or slighting existing HCO Bulletins, Policy Letters or tapes".

Amongst the twenty-two General Crimes come some truly remarkable activities: "Mayhem", "Organising or allowing a gathering or meeting of staff members or field auditors or the public to protest the orders of a senior" (the Trades Union Congress will have something strong to say about that one, when Scientology takes over!) and "Impersonating a Scientologist or staff member when not authorised". (The mind boggles at the idea of being authorised to impersonate a Scientologist or even a staff member.)

High Crimes are divided into four categories: - A. Attacks on Scientology and Scientologists; B. Disavowal, Splintering, Divergence; C. Technical High Crimes; D. Criminal Issue of Materials. Within these categories come the most revealing fears and phobias of their author. Here are shown the true pressures exerted on Scientologists and those who attack it or try to make it more rational in its approach to the world of men as opposed to the fearful and jealous world of L. Ron Hubbard.

Amongst the twenty-two High Crimes listed as Attacks on Scientology and Scientologists come: "Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed towards the Suppression of Scientology", "Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti Scientologist evidence to the press", "Testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public", "Being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons", "Mutiny", "Receiving money, favours or encouragement to suppress Scientology or Scientologists", "Delivering up the person of a Scientologist without defence or protest to the demands of civil or criminal law", "Spreading false tales to invalidate Clears", "First degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings".

Within the fourteen High Crimes in the sub-heading of Disavowal, Splintering, Divergence, come: "Announcing departure from Scientology (but not by reason of leaving an organisation, a location or situation or death)" [Death?], "Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and refusing to return despite normal efforts", "Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by the Hubbard Communications Office" [such as a wife who stays with her husband who is a declared S.P.], "Failure to handle or disavow or disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts" [I received about 200 letters dated 5-9-68 all saying the equivalent of: "Cyril Vosper: I hereby disconnect from you. Eileen Shapiro." I did not know who Eileen Shapiro was but it was very civil of her to let me know she had disconnected from me. Another said: "I disconnect from you completely. Barbara Chandler." Again, I did not know who Barbara Chandler was and that savage little "completely" was a little unnecessary, I felt.], "Dependency on other mental or philosophic procedures than Scientology (except medical or surgical) after certification, classification or award" [could the Roman Catholic Confession be regarded as a mental or philosophic procedure? If so, so much for Scientology's stated non-interference in other religious faiths], "Continued membership in a divergent group" [could the local Tennis Club be regarded as a Divergent Group?], "Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or to 'save the organisation from the higher officers of Scientology'".

Of the two items classed as Technical High Crimes, the first concerns Star-rated Checkouts on the auditors employed by Scientology organisations. The second is: "Pretending to have an organisation but have no technical personnel on staff in Tech or Qual."

There is one item classed as Criminal Issue of Materials: "Public Dissemination of false or forbidden or dangerous data."

The findings of any of the above subjects of a Committee of Evidence, are published in pseudo legalistic jargon as an HCO Ethics Order [see Frontispiece], upon the approval of the HCO Area Secretary or the HCO Executive Secretary, for and on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California, Incorporated. The Chairman, Secretary and Members of a Committee of Evidence are not trained in legalistic or judicial matters and base their findings upon the copious Policy Letters that Hubbard has issued about Scientology Ethics.

If Scientology can be regarded as a professional body, it is justified to issue a set of ethical standards whereby its name and the names of its practitioners and members may be kept clean in the eyes of the public. With Hubbard's ability to reduce complexities to simplicities, there is a reasonable chance, or rather there was before he came to regard himself as the greatest thing to have hit the physical universe in 300 trillion years, that a new ethos could have evolved. Certainly those standards of behaviour social, political, scientific, religious, seemingly based upon tribal and ethnic values, are no longer appropriate for "Today's Changing World".

Presumably, after much struggling there will evolve a comprehensible and comprehensive ethic, upon which can be built a more profound and humanitarian system for humans to live with humans. It will owe nothing to Scientology.

Hubbard devised his Scientology Ethics to give guidance to Scientologists as to the conduct expected of them and to control the excesses of zeal which could bring the whole movement into disrepute and in for ridicule. His Ethics has had the precisely opposite effect. With the development of Scientology Ethics as a codified system under the justification that such a system was desirable to give a wider therapeutic value to the whole of Scientology, zeal has expanded, doubtless very flattering to Hubbard, at the expense of tolerance and sanity. For all the pompous verbosity and self-importance, there is not the slightest trace of self-criticism and therefore not one iota of humour in the whole absurd edifice. Scientologists are right; all others are wrong. Not simply wrong from ignorance but in a malignant, creepy, sordid, intentional way.

Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, who made the amazing space opera film 2001: A Space Odyssey, were probably ignorant on a conscious level of using very restimulative past track symbols. Yet deep down inside, where they, as scared Thetans, reside, they must have used these images - which seem no more than highly imaginative extensions of space ships and gadgets and the colours and forms experienced in Cannabis "Trips" - from a malicious motive to enslave the very souls of the audience. At least, one would assume so, since the Ethics Officer of the Hubbard Scientology organisation in London issued an Ethics Order which was circulated to all other organisations in the world and placed on public view on the notice board, banning Scientologists from seeing the film. Presumably, that Ethics Officer did not think much of 2001 when he saw it and decided that since, in his elevated position, he knew best, he forbade all his "flock" from seeing it too. Astonishing though this may be, the most absurd part of this affair is that it was taken with deadly seriousness by other Scientologists and presumably by L. Ron Hubbard since all Ethics Orders are sent to him for information.

The editor of Truth newspaper, J. Mahoney of Wellington, New Zealand, was declared "to be in a condition of Enemy and a Suppressive Person for condoning the printing of articles detrimental to mankind ...". Fifteen charges against Truth are listed: "1. Which is seeking, by printing articles which are totally untrue, to turn people away from Scientology when this organisation provides at this time the only means man has to free himself from a cycle of warfare and insanity which has been prolonged for an insufferable amount of time" and "9. Which seeks to destroy maliciously and with lies a philosophy like Scientology [Surely, to God, there aren't others!] which is aiming to bring spiritual, mental and physical freedom to man and seeks to free mankind from complete spiritual oblivion" and "10. Which seeks maliciously to conceal from man the truth about the mind which has been available for years since the evolution of Einstein's theory of relativity [So that's where it all started!] which established conclusively that energy has mass and thereby provided further data directly related to the mind that thought created energy and therefore produces mass, mental mass, and has enabled further research to produce the exact structure of the subconscious or reactive mind". Poor old Einstein has been blamed for the Atomic Bomb and the hideous rise of technology, but to blame him for Scientology as well seems a bit much! "15. Which by insistence on printing only one-sided reports on Scientology whilst knowing full well that there is another side to the story and whilst knowing that Scientology is one of the fastest growing organisations in the world, which fact has obviously only come about through the fantastic results obtained by hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout the world. Therefore because this newspaper considers it only worth while to print the opinion of a fractional minority to the exclusion of the majority a full public apology is required." Mr. Mahoney was graciously informed that the formula for the Condition of enemy was: "Find out who you really are." If he applied this formula based on the charges of this Ethics Order, he probably found out he was the Devil Incarnate.

The Ethics Order is signed, Pat Bloomberg, HCO Secretary, Auckland and has a sweet tail-piece: "If you find yourself critical of this - look for a misunderstood word." One wonders seriously whether it is Auckland, New Zealand, Earth or Auckland, Mars!

This illustration of Scientology Ethics at work is taken from the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Hubbard Scientology organisation in New Zealand which was issued in Wellington, N.Z., in June 1969.

The report makes fascinating reading and its conclusions are drawn with care. "... the activities, methods and practices of Scientology in New Zealand have contributed to estrangements in family relationships"; "... the attitude of Scientology towards family relationships was cold, distant, and somewhat uninterested"; "... the commission is again definitely of the opinion that Scientology has affected the custody or control of children or persons under the age of twenty-one years ..."; "... the commission's clear opinion that the activities, methods, and practices of Scientology did result in persons being subjected to improper or unreasonable pressures", nevertheless, the Commission decided not to ban or restrict Scientology activities in New Zealand.

This conclusion was based as much upon the Commission's unwillingness to add to "the body of statute law which restricts personal activities for social reasons", as upon the apparent change of heart of the Scientologists in New Zealand resulting in a letter from L. Ron Hubbard to the Commission: "With regard to the practice of disconnection, I have taken this up with the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology, and they have no intention of reintroducing this policy, which was cancelled on the 15th November, 1968." This letter is dated 26th March, 1969 and purports to come from Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex, though at this date Hubbard was cruising around the Mediterranean with has flotilla of ships and yachts. His statement to "have taken this up with the Board of Directors" is laughable. He is a law unto himself. He issues edicts.

One remark by the commission is relevant: "Because of the hierarchical structure of Scientology and the extent to which policies and directions were issued from above, it seemed to the commission that, if practices which had been regarded as objectionable could be cancelled by fiat, they could also by the same fiat be reintroduced."

This is the essence of the danger of Scientology. Its actions are determined solely and completely by one individual. It does not have the moderating influences of a democratic structure. The mind of Hubbard seems composed of genius and an insensate lust for power. This unique combination has brought distress to large numbers of people already and if the lust-for-power aspect should again grow in prominence and with the vastly greater wealth and influence that Scientology commands, all Hell could be let loose.

If Hubbard were just one individual, he would be pathetic but avoidable. There are 5,000,000 Hubbards and in that quantity are not pathetic but menacing and very difficult to avoid.

[ Chapter Nine | Table of Contents | Chapter Eleven ]