by Milestone Two crew
We have had a number of articles regarding ethics in the last week, and here is an additional observation that our readers may enjoy.
It is puzzling to some of us how a handful of individuals in the field spend their days fault finding with Scientology – seemingly fixated on trying to prove to all others that they have a reason to be motivating and be a victim of the system or technology or Founder or something.
What is clear is the intention to destroy – but understanding the illogic of the situation is not always as clear. OK, there is the venting of BPC – an ongoing effort to get as-isness by communicating about problems as they see them — but we are not talking about the venting of upset. We are talking about several individual, ongoing campaigns to smear, confuse or destroy the Founder, the Tech or Scientology itself.
Below are some great excerpts from an LRH lecture that we wanted to share. As always, LRH’s words speak for themselves.
“The basis of destruction is Alter-isness. And when somebody would like to destroy you, but can’t, all he can do is alter-is you. Got the idea?”
“Destruction as we know it, in war or in anything else, is simply Alter-isness of the creation. It is not the cessation of creation-it is the Alter-isness of the existing creation.
“That’s why I’ve been talking to you about busted pagodas, you know; and broken ashtrays and all that sort of thing, you see. Actually, the ashtray is still being created, because its fragments are still there. But somebody has alter-ised the creation, you see. And they call that destruction. And when done very, very, very spectacularly, they call it war.
“But Alter-isness, Alter-isness is the keynote of all destruction.
“And any person who has a great many overts against another person starts trying to alter-is. Get the idea? He starts to alter-is the other person. He alter-ises anything the other person is doing. You see? He alter-ises anything the other person thinks. He alter-ises any other thing the other person has as a reputation and so on. And it adds up to basically what looks like destruction. And this basically is caused or can be caused by no more than an overt.
“In other words, you get this silly situation where one overt breeds another overt, which breeds another overt, which breeds another overt, which brings about a bad opinion.” …
And further on and example is provided:
…“A husband and a wife. Wife one day is walking down the street and, her husband is a blond, she’s always been attracted by brunets, you know. Married this guy, loved him dearly, everything is going along all right and she sees this brunet guy, see. She says, “Whew; boy! Tsk! Oh, wow!” You know. And then she says, “Oh-oh! I’m a married woman. Yep. Well [sigh], it would have been nice.” That night she’s sitting there, you know; and the husband hadn’t been feeling very friendly these days he’s worried about business or something of the sort, you know-and he’s sitting there, reading a magazine or something, muttering to himself about somebody he’s committed overts against, you know: [laughter] And the wife is sitting there and she suddenly remembers this guy with the black hair, you know: And she says, “Oh, wow; you know; that-that-that … [gasp!] What am I doing? He’s a good husband. He’s faithful. He’s loyal. He’s decent. He’s everything. And what am I doing something like this to him? You know? Well, I’ll straighten out. I’ll toe the chalk mark.” All her own volition, you see. Noble.
“Couple of weeks go by and she sees one of these physical culture magazines you see. It’s sitting on the stands, you know: And there’s somebody with tremendous biceps, you know; curling up, the neck muscles all taut, you know: And she says, “Woooowwww” you know. “That’s pretty good, you know. Wait a minute! What the hell is the matter with my husband?”
“Now, she gets this all explained, just because her husband doesn’t look like that and therefore so on and so on. And she’s got it all explained and that’s why she’s annoyed with her husband. That night she’s serving up the roast beef and the mashed potatoes and something like that and he notices they’re slightly underdone, because she has been a little bit abstracted while getting dinner, you know. And he says, “Dear, I wish you’d do the roast beef a little bit more next time.”
“(She) “Crab! Crab! Crab! You’re always chopping at me!” [laughter] Here it goes.
“He goes around and he says, “I can-what have I done?” See? “What have I done?” He can’t think of anything he’s done so he skips it. “Well, she’s just a little bit out of sorts, you know.”
“Well, because she barked at him and jarred at him and was upset about him, now she can be more upset about him. You get the idea?
“Now, this has a rather unexpected twist here. Eventually, if you caught her in a moment and you said; “What color eyes does your husband have?” She wouldn’t be able to answer the question. Got that? She’s flashed back and flashed back and flashed back, you see, and piled up overt after overt until she’s alter-ised, not only the circumstances and condition of the thing, she’s actually alter-ising his appearance.”
“Now, that’s basically because she understands very clearly that he thinks that her thoughts would be an overt against him. Just untangle that one. Got that?
“It begins because she thinks, you see, that her thoughts would be considered by him to be an overt act against him.” …
…“So, people’s ideas of what an overt act is shift all over the place. See, they shift all over the place. They could be some of the most remarkable things you ever heard of.
“But we all seem to have — per school training and religious training and other things — we’ve all been given to believe that the other fellow has a standard pattern of what are overts.
“In other words, there’s overt one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight, you see. And if you do these things, then he will consider them overts. You got the idea? And then he will start to alter-is you because he’s now got a motivator.
“This is (quote) “human conduct” (unquote) as understood by-oh, I don’t know, psychology, Freud, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Paul-lots of guys. See this? They got it all figured out.
“So part of your education is what the other fellow will consider an overt.”
(Excerpts from LRH lecture, ALTER-ISNESS – KEYNOTE OF ALL DESTRUCTION, 18 Nov 1959, 1st Melbourne ACC.)