Message to DM from LRH

[Div6]

"It is not a condition of emergency because when tech goes out
in an area you're liable to have even government flaps in that area.
That's how, that's how bad it is. So an organization which has out
tech is attracting the lightning right down on the back of
Scientology, boy. And you never really have government
flaps or anything like this in areas where tech has stayed
in. Because there're too many satisfied people, there's too
many friends. See? But when tech slips, and it isn't
working anymore, then it doesn't seem worth while.

When morale is bad in an organization tech had to go out in
the first place. If tech is out, if it's invalidated, if it
isn't being done right, if it's non-standardized, if it's
shoved all over the place, then you can be absolutely sure
that morale will be going out because there is no reason
for anybody to be there.


Scientology, badly applied, is nothing to protect. And
that's why you have to get tech in in a hurry. And the way
you get tech in in a hurry, when it's madly out, is you put
ethics in hard and follow it straight up with tech. Then
you will find the cycle will go on through, and admin
follows in afterwards. And then you have ethics, tech and
admin are all in."

Now if you find ethics is having to stiffen up, if you're
getting more ethics than you would normally predict, and if
ethics is stiffening up beyond anything that anybody
thought was necessary, then you know very well that tech
has slipped, and slipped badly, and that the reports that
you are getting must be; and it follows true. It isn't just
a reasonability; it must be that the technical reports you
are getting are false reports.




Class VIII Tape 13 Ethics and Supervision

tl,dr You are doing it wrong! tl,dr


As an historical aside, there never was a GAT version of the Class VIII course.
Curious?

[alex]

Nice reference!

If only there were a simple to understand reference to instill some understanding of ethics in the man....(perhaps defined as conducive to survival?)

Or perhaps a man there...

In present time.

alex (whose concept of ethics put in hard is not a screamed "suck on my big fat wet one")

[Veda]

"It is not a condition of emergency because when tech goes out
in an area you're liable to have even government flaps in that area.
That's how, that's how bad it is. So an organization which has out
tech is attracting the lightning right down on the back of
Scientology, boy. And you never really have government
flaps or anything like this in areas where tech has stayed
in. Because there're too many satisfied people, there's too
many friends. See? But when tech slips, and it isn't
working anymore, then it doesn't seem worth while.

When morale is bad in an organization tech had to go out in
the first place. If tech is out, if it's invalidated, if it
isn't being done right, if it's non-standardized, if it's
shoved all over the place, then you can be absolutely sure
that morale will be going out because there is no reason
for anybody to be there.


Scientology, badly applied, is nothing to protect. And
that's why you have to get tech in in a hurry. And the way
you get tech in in a hurry, when it's madly out, is you put
ethics in hard and follow it straight up with tech. Then
you will find the cycle will go on through, and admin
follows in afterwards. And then you have ethics, tech and
admin are all in."

Now if you find ethics is having to stiffen up, if you're
getting more ethics than you would normally predict, and if
ethics is stiffening up beyond anything that anybody
thought was necessary, then you know very well that tech
has slipped, and slipped badly, and that the reports that
you are getting must be; and it follows true. It isn't just
a reasonability; it must be that the technical reports you
are getting are false reports.

Class VIII Tape 13 Ethics and Supervision

tl,dr You are doing it wrong! tl,dr

As an historical aside, there never was a GAT version of the Class VIII course.
Curious?

Why don't you quote Hubbard explaining that the reason that Scientology is attacked is because it has and uses the tech - remember? To paraphrase: "Other groups exist, but they aren't attacked. Why are we attacked? It's because of our tech. They're afraid of our tech!"

Tech?

And what had "Tech" become by the Class 8 course?

So let's get TECH IN!!!, per the Class 8 notion of what that is.

Yippie!

C'mon. Get real.

[Dulloldfart]

As an historical aside, there never was a GAT version of the Class VIII course.
Curious?

Maybe the hypocrisy of GATting up the course on Standard Tech was too much for everyone concerned.

Paul

[TheSneakster]

not important

[Dulloldfart]

I don't think even DM would have dared. The Class VIII checksheet was authored by LRH himself personally, AFAIK.


The green-on-white Class VIII checksheet I saw in the early 80s wasn't authored by Hubbard, and neither was the black-on-brown-spotted-white original one.

I recall a conversation I had with Al Baker while we were both sup'ing at ITO on the subject of "LRH checksheets". The only one we knew about was the one he put out in an LRH ED on, just a moment while the brain cells crank up...., the Hubbard Causative Leadership Course (1974?). What flashes into my mind is one checksheet item that says "Op Pro By Dup, 25 (or maybe 35) hours each way". I wondered about it because it is irrespective of any EP or overrun and it seemed to me like out-tech. But hey, it was Hubbard, so it couldn't be, could it?

But neither of us knew of any other extant (or even cancelled) LRH checksheets, and we were both extremely knowledgeable about such things, though I say it myself. I mean ones issued as if he wrote them, rather than merely approved by him. Who actually wrote such things could be completely different.

Paul

[DartSmohen]

The Class VIII checksheet was authored by LRH himself personally, AFAIK.

That fact must be very well known throughout Scientology.

[/QUOTE]

Well, the first issued class VIII course checksheet was finalised by Hubbard.
I had done the prelim work and passed it back to him where he introduced a whole new raft of steps that had been written up in the summer of 1968.

That is the course I did and the one I supervised.

I do not know what was done to the checksheet subsequent to the early 1970's.
Hope this helps.

DS

[Axiom142]

Well, the first issued class VIII course checksheet was finalised by Hubbard.
I had done the prelim work and passed it back to him where he introduced a whole new raft of steps that had been written up in the summer of 1968.

That is the course I did and the one I supervised.

I do not know what was done to the checksheet subsequent to the early 1970's.
Hope this helps.

DS

DartSmohen,

Then you would probably be a good person to ask this question - who was the first person to complete the Class VIII course?

When I was in the Sea Org, I was at an event where John Parselle was introduced as "the first Class VIII on the planet."

Is this true?

Thanks,

Axiom142.

[Dulloldfart]

DartSmohen,

Then you would probably be a good person to ask this question - who was the first person to complete the Class VIII course?

When I was in the Sea Org, I was at an event where John Parselle was introduced as "the first Class VIII on the planet."

Is this true?

Thanks,

Axiom142.

You mean it wasn't Pierre? :D

Paul

[Whitedove]

Now if you find ethics is having to stiffen up, if you're
getting more ethics than you would normally predict, and if
ethics is stiffening up beyond anything that anybody
thought was necessary, then you know very well that tech
has slipped, and slipped badly, and that the reports that
you are getting must be; and it follows true. It isn't just
a reasonability; it must be that the technical reports you
are getting are false reports.

OMFG! Excuse my language. I had NEVER EVER seen that before.
THIS should be in BIG RED FLASHING LETTERS!

EVEN if I'm not 'in' anymore, finding writings like that just blow
ALOT of charge. Things that just makes you go nuts and it keeps
going round and round in your head till you find an answer and to me
THIS is one huge answer. So thanks Div6 :happydance:

[Div6]

Yeh, it indicated heavily to me too.

Glad it was of assistance.........

[Div6]

Why don't you quote Hubbard explaining that the reason that Scientology is attacked is because it has and uses the tech - remember? To paraphrase: "Other groups exist, but they aren't attacked. Why are we attacked? It's because of our tech. They're afraid of our tech!"

Tech?

And what had "Tech" become by the Class 8 course?

So let's get TECH IN!!!, per the Class 8 notion of what that is.

Yippie!

C'mon. Get real.

Veda,

You should know by now that the intended audience of this post was not you, but the people who may still be in, but lurking on this board.


Assume that viewpoint for a minute, and then re-read this reference. What would you think about the attacks from Anonymous, knowing the above LRH viewpoint on tech and ethics? Would you think twice about your next ethics cycle? Might you be encouraged to look more?

[Terl]

Wow! So LRH does have the.. er, a... answer for this situation with Anonymous. Very interesting! Thanks for posting :D

[Div6]

The Class VIII checksheet was authored by LRH himself personally, AFAIK.

That fact must be very well known throughout Scientology.

Well, the first issued class VIII course checksheet was finalised by Hubbard.
I had done the prelim work and passed it back to him where he introduced a whole new raft of steps that had been written up in the summer of 1968.

That is the course I did and the one I supervised.

I do not know what was done to the checksheet subsequent to the early 1970's.
Hope this helps.

DS

How did it go with that? With overboarding very much in vogue, were your students in a receptive frame of mind?

[Scilooking4truth]

[/B]And you never really have government
flaps or anything like this in areas where tech has stayed
in. Because there're too many satisfied people, there's too
many friends. See? But when tech slips, and it isn't
working anymore, then it doesn't seem worth while.

When morale is bad in an organization tech had to go out in
the first place. If tech is out, if it's invalidated, if it
isn't being done right, if it's non-standardized, if it's
shoved all over the place, then you can be absolutely sure
that morale will be going out because there is no reason
for anybody to be there.


Scientology, badly applied, is nothing to protect. And
that's why you have to get tech in in a hurry. And the way
you get tech in in a hurry, when it's madly out, is you put
ethics in hard and follow it straight up with tech. Then
you will find the cycle will go on through, and admin
follows in afterwards. And then you have ethics, tech and
admin are all in."

Now if you find ethics is having to stiffen up, if you're
getting more ethics than you would normally predict, and if
ethics is stiffening up beyond anything that anybody
thought was necessary, then you know very well that tech
has slipped, and slipped badly, and that the reports that
you are getting must be; and it follows true. It isn't just
a reasonability; it must be that the technical reports you
are getting are false reports.




Class VIII Tape 13 Ethics and Supervision


Hey Cabbage you just got owned:lol:

[Veda]

Why don't you quote Hubbard explaining that the reason that Scientology is attacked is because it has and uses the tech - remember? To paraphrase: "Other groups exist, but they aren't attacked. Why are we attacked? It's because of our tech. They're afraid of our tech!"

Tech?

And what had "Tech" become by the Class 8 course?




Veda,

You should know by now that the intended audience of this post was not you, but the people who may still be in, but lurking on this board.

Assume that viewpoint for a minute, and then re-read this reference. What would you think about the attacks from Anonymous, knowing the above LRH viewpoint on tech and ethics? Would you think twice about your next ethics cycle? Might you be encouraged to look more?

I can understand that telling a half-truth to someone, on rare occasion, might be justified in the short term, but it's still dishonest (or naive); can you understand that someone, already familiar with the quote about Scientology being "attacked because it has and applies the Tech," and, then, reading the statement that Scientology is attacked because "Tech is out," might be a bit confused?

Hubbard routinely did a "Mutt and Jeff" on Scientologists, meaning he would present a "good cop" and "bad cop" viewpoint for purposes of manipulation and control.

That might be helpful for a nascent X-Scientologist (experiencing the fairly rapid "learning curve" of the Internet/ESMB) to understand also.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=37634&postcount=2

Re. the Class VIII lectures...

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=177122&postcount=41

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Come on, be a good boy Davey. Bend over, and let's get that tech in.

[Rmack]

"It is not a condition of emergency because when tech goes out
in an area you're liable to have even government flaps in that area.
That's how, that's how bad it is. So an organization which has out
tech is attracting the lightning right down on the back of
Scientology, boy. And you never really have government
flaps or anything like this in areas where tech has stayed
in. Because there're too many satisfied people, there's too
many friends. See? But when tech slips, and it isn't
working anymore, then it doesn't seem worth while.

When morale is bad in an organization tech had to go out in
the first place. If tech is out, if it's invalidated, if it
isn't being done right, if it's non-standardized, if it's
shoved all over the place, then you can be absolutely sure
that morale will be going out because there is no reason
for anybody to be there.


Scientology, badly applied, is nothing to protect. And
that's why you have to get tech in in a hurry. And the way
you get tech in in a hurry, when it's madly out, is you put
ethics in hard and follow it straight up with tech. Then
you will find the cycle will go on through, and admin
follows in afterwards. And then you have ethics, tech and
admin are all in."

Now if you find ethics is having to stiffen up, if you're
getting more ethics than you would normally predict, and if
ethics is stiffening up beyond anything that anybody
thought was necessary, then you know very well that tech
has slipped, and slipped badly, and that the reports that
you are getting must be; and it follows true. It isn't just
a reasonability; it must be that the technical reports you
are getting are false reports.




Class VIII Tape 13 Ethics and Supervision

tl,dr You are doing it wrong! tl,dr


As an historical aside, there never was a GAT version of the Class VIII course.
Curious?

The thing I see in this reference is the unquestioned idea that the 'tech' always works and always produces a good result. Bullshit.

This seems to be Blub's version of what I remember $cio calling a 'service facimile' or 'serfac'. If things aren't going just the way he thinks they should, then it is always the fact that his wishes aren't being exactly followed. It's never the fact that the tech isn't perfect, even though over the years it's been changed many times.

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

"It is not a condition of emergency because when tech goes out
in an area you're liable to have even government flaps in that area.
That's how, that's how bad it is. So an organization which has out
tech is attracting the lightning right down on the back of
Scientology, boy. And you never really have government
flaps or anything like this in areas where tech has stayed
in. Because there're too many satisfied people, there's too
many friends. See? But when tech slips, and it isn't
working anymore, then it doesn't seem worth while.

When morale is bad in an organization tech had to go out in
the first place. If tech is out, if it's invalidated, if it
isn't being done right, if it's non-standardized, if it's
shoved all over the place, then you can be absolutely sure
that morale will be going out because there is no reason
for anybody to be there.


Scientology, badly applied, is nothing to protect. And
that's why you have to get tech in in a hurry. And the way
you get tech in in a hurry, when it's madly out, is you put
ethics in hard and follow it straight up with tech. Then
you will find the cycle will go on through, and admin
follows in afterwards. And then you have ethics, tech and
admin are all in."

Now if you find ethics is having to stiffen up, if you're
getting more ethics than you would normally predict, and if
ethics is stiffening up beyond anything that anybody
thought was necessary, then you know very well that tech
has slipped, and slipped badly, and that the reports that
you are getting must be; and it follows true. It isn't just
a reasonability; it must be that the technical reports you
are getting are false reports.




Class VIII Tape 13 Ethics and Supervision

tl,dr You are doing it wrong! tl,dr


As an historical aside, there never was a GAT version of the Class VIII course.
Curious?
I haven't done Class VIII or listened to Class VIII tapes, but the ideas expressed in your post are well-known to me.

Those 3 items, Tech, Ethics and Admin, and the relationship between them, was certainly one of the things I was taught in Scientology when I was staff (Sea Org). But I don't remember the references.

This idea that if tech goes out in an area then Scientology will be in trouble, does make sense. If tech is delivered with the intention to actually improve conditions and succeeds in that endeavor I can't see any reason why there would be trouble or bad PR. But if you think that your tech is more important than an actually improved condition there is a reason for troubles. Actually improved conditions of life are of course senior, since that is the whole idea.

Addition: You need to admit or be aware of that if your tech doesn't fit a certain situation then that is how it is. So you need to get rid of the idea of having the "only" tech or the "only" truth, because that won't work. As soon as an organization or an "-ism" or an "-ology" admits that, PR gets much better.

[Imnotsupposetobehere]

Oh wow kick butt LRH:happydance:

[Zinjifar]

Oh wow kick butt LRH:happydance:

Ron's Auditor - 1950

http://cindratee.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/kick-butt.gif

Zinj

[British Mom]

"It is not a condition of emergency because when tech goes out
in an area you're liable to have even government flaps in that area.
That's how, that's how bad it is. So an organization which has out
tech is attracting the lightning right down on the back of
Scientology, boy. And you never really have government
flaps or anything like this in areas where tech has stayed
in. Because there're too many satisfied people, there's too
many friends. See? But when tech slips, and it isn't
working anymore, then it doesn't seem worth while.

When morale is bad in an organization tech had to go out in
the first place. If tech is out, if it's invalidated, if it
isn't being done right, if it's non-standardized, if it's
shoved all over the place, then you can be absolutely sure
that morale will be going out because there is no reason
for anybody to be there.


Scientology, badly applied, is nothing to protect. And
that's why you have to get tech in in a hurry. And the way
you get tech in in a hurry, when it's madly out, is you put
ethics in hard and follow it straight up with tech. Then
you will find the cycle will go on through, and admin
follows in afterwards. And then you have ethics, tech and
admin are all in."

Now if you find ethics is having to stiffen up, if you're
getting more ethics than you would normally predict, and if
ethics is stiffening up beyond anything that anybody
thought was necessary, then you know very well that tech
has slipped, and slipped badly, and that the reports that
you are getting must be; and it follows true. It isn't just
a reasonability; it must be that the technical reports you
are getting are false reports.




Class VIII Tape 13 Ethics and Supervision

tl,dr You are doing it wrong! tl,dr


As an historical aside, there never was a GAT version of the Class VIII course.
Curious?

I was on the Class V111 course & remember learning about Standard Tech, I could see things in the Org that werent Standard & boy did I start getting attacked, I was a C/S at the time & was trying to get the tech fully in, but I got kicked off of staff, then made an illegal PC, :confused2: boy did I get attacked.:pillowfight:

Cant remember but Hubbard said on one of the tapes that it would happen if you were getting the Tech in, but I never was able to complete the course, he said the tech would protect you, anyway, I am grateful that it happened now, as I couldnt get out of there quick enough.:woohoo: :fly2: :fly2: :fly2: