Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology,alt.religion.scientology Subject: Criminals. From: kenlong@netcom.com (Ken Long) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 21:34:50 GMT LRH's definition #1 of "criminal" from the *Technical* dictionary is: "One who is unable to think of the other fellow, unable to determine his own actions, unable to follow orders, unable to make things grow, unable to determine the difference between good and evil, unable to think at all on the future. Anybody has some of these; the *criminal* has ALL of them." The Admin Dictionary covers ethics and administrative terms and has a great definition of "exchange" saying: "Criminal *exchange* is nothing from the criminal for something from another. Whether theft or threat or fraud is used, the criminal think is to get something without putting out anything. That is obvious. A staff member can be coaxed into this kind of thinking by permitting him to receive without his contributing. When you let a person give nothing for something you are factually encouraging crime. It is *exchange* which maintains the inflow and outflow that gives a person space around him and keeps the bank off him. One has to produce something to *exchange* for money. If he gives nothing in return for what he gets the money does not belong to him. It is interesting that when a person becomes productive his morale improves. Reversely it should be rather plain to you that a person who doesn't produce becomes mentally or physically ill. For his *exchange* is out." The above is EXACTLY why I did not want to let the Church of Scientology get away with ripping me off for 10,000 hours of work I never owed them. The Church's exchange factor went out years ago. I was just one more "piece of debris" floating in that stream of inflow-no-outflow on their part. A staff member receiving without being permitted to contribute? How about enforcing contribution and never giving the poor, dedicated bastard anything for it! Andrew Milne will not comment on any LEGITIMATE complaints about the Church staff DELIBERATELY NOT APPLYING POLICY. Willful misapplication by staff *including* Executive Director International will not even be conceived of as even remotely possible by anyone snowed by their PR. But, when the ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE IT, they see through the PR. Why they can't just see it anyway is a pitiful, sad situation. Self-criticism is a luxery a suppressive person or group cannot afford. LRH noticed that one. If you stop looking at the potentiality of YOU or YOUR GROUP committing harmful acts, then when you do you won't see that it's happening. And you're liable to disbelieve anyone who says you did! Ethics are those actions a person takes on himself to live in coexistence with the components of HIS dynamics. Once he gets the idea that he's "ethical" and stops monitoring it, he's liable to be unethical and not notice it. So, look at publics who allow their staff to be criminal. I was looking at a picture of Lisa Presley on the TV guide cover and got to thinking how she probably has never worked at anything harder than putting her toys away, in he whole life. How about the Fetchbuck brothers (bothers)? Look at all the inflation (devaluation of everyone else's production) they have CAUSED. Are there any others? Every time someone makes money for nothing it makes the value of the work people who PRODUCE for a living worth less. They are already WORKING for a living so now more is demanded of them. Their production is penalized while the Fetchbuck bothers are living in luxery. How did they make their money? Work? Never! Sharp practice? Definitely. Society is rampant with criminal think. Getting on the "Road To Truth" would eventually lead to realizing the truth of one's own criminality. And the truth that he is better than that would end the creation of the alteration. To many, though, it's only a justifier as to why it's "okay" for them to BE criminal. They just brought their criminality in with them and got it pumped up along with everything else. -Ken-