There’s hardly one of us who hasn’t asked himself the question, “Isn’t it better to be mean?” Almost every one of us has had the feeling that we were a bit soft. We didn’t like flying into the teeth of some human being and making him or her feel bad. We’ve told ourselves, “We ought to be tougher. We ought to put up a better front; we ought to know when to snarl, know when to show the sharpened tooth.” And probably we have walked away occasionally after we’ve loaned somebody five dollars or something of the sort and said, “When am I going to learn to be tough? When am I going to learn to be hard-boiled and just stand right up to that little kid and say ‘No!’ When am I going to learn this?”

The motto behind this is “Isn’t it better to be mean occasionally? When am I going to stop being soft and be a hard, forthright, capable-of-saying-no person? I would be a much better manager. I would be a much better person if I know when to come down with a slight slam. If I could just know, occasionally, when I should be mean, and if I was just willing to be mean, wouldn’t that be right? I should be able to just take people out there and just sweep them aside. Isn’t there some rightness in being tough?”

One can spot times when he knows he should have been tougher — he’s sure of it. But a highly informative series of Scientology spiritual counseling procedures demonstrates that the person who is willing to confront other things doesn’t every have to say no, he doesn’t ever have to be mean, he doesn’t ever have to be tough at all. (And by confront things, we mean face things without flinching or avoiding.) It is perfectly alright to be nice to people. It isn’t a weakness at all. As a matter of fact, if you aren’t, you’re in the soup.

You could say that the only times for which you are suffering are those times when you weren’t nice enough, when you weren’t kind enough and when you weren’t unmean enough. Those are the only times from which you are suffering.

It is not true that being mean gets anybody ahead anyplace. That’s really factual.

When you deny your fellow man — you say “no”; you say “be mean,” you say “be very positive” — the truth of the matter is that you are denying him communication, one way or the other.

The only thing you should ever be tough about is insisting that the other fellow ought to stand on his own two feet, too. And the only way you will ever communicate that to him is to communicate it to him in a very nice way. Then he’s liable to receive it.

Being mean is simply going out of communication with things.

The individual who is kind, who is decent and who does communicate and who is nice and who isn’t averse to conversation and saying this and doing that, who is tolerant, we find gets along beautifully.

But the fellow who’s mean and who’s ornery and who’s cutting communications all the way along the line, we find he’s in the soup.

Therefore, a standard of optimum human performance would be measured on the basis of human kindness as a high and human meanness as a low.

So we know the answer at last to whether you should have been mean those times or whether you should have been more kind: You should have been more kind.

Excerpt from the Scientology Background and Ceremonies book

39 thoughts on “Kindness

  1. I wholeheartedly agree. I think that some Scientologists sometimes overlook this basic of Scientology. LRH was and is a kind, loving soul who cares about others. Kindness is actually an integral part of The Tech.
    He may have sometimes taken it for granted that people understood this, but he did mention it and emphasize it from time to time.
    Here is another place where he repeated the important of simply kindness:

    KINDNESS: Our Most Valuable Asset
    (OEC Tape: Attitude and Conduct of Scientology, 3 November 1955)

    “The most valuable asset we have, actually, is our ability to understand, to be kind, to be decent.
    “Amongst us we have occasionally the feeling like: life requires that we be stern, life requires that we be ornery enough and mean enough to fire him: life requires that we’ve got to tell this preclear the next time we come that she must go, she must leave, she must never darken our door again. Life requires that. We must be stern, we must be mean, we must be occasionally ornery, and we must steel ourselves to take an unkind action. And we feel sometimes there’s something wanting in us, because we refuse to take this unkind action. We feel we are being cowardly that we are ducking back from our responsibilities. We feel the best way to solve the thing would be to be a little bit mean about it. Get the idea? We should be able to be tough…
    “And so our kind impulse is muffled by the fact that we β€˜know’ we had certainly better tell this person off…
    “Well, I hate to unsettle a very stable datum, if it does unsettle it. But the only way anything ever does resolve is by letting your own kind heart reach through. That’s the only way it ever does solve.
    “And it never solves by being tough. And believe me, ladies and gentleman, here talks a guy who in his college days was a top sergeant of the reserve marines, who drilled battalions. And when I tell you that it doesn’t pay to be tough, I’ve had experience.

    “An officer in the war, and I can tell you that at no time, at no time during the entire war, did I ever see toughness win either in the field of discipline, the field of efficiency, or the field of getting a job done. I have never seen it win.
    “…There is no substitute for liking people like liking people. There’s no substitute for reality like reality. There’s no substitute for communication like communication with good affinity and good reality. And that’s really close to a static. Do you understand?
    “You go down scale from that you get into Dale Carnegie-ism. You ought to read that book sometime; it’s a real killer. It’s how to subvert ARC.
    “All right. What do we have then? What do we have in these organizations? What do we really have of value in the organizations of Scientology?
    “The only thing we have of value, actually, is Scientology, an understanding of life, increasing ability to communicate, a good concept and grip on reality, and the ability to like guys. That’s all you got.” – LRH

  2. Espiritu that is a fabulous quote. Thank you for sharing.

    I have mentioned this before, but when I was promoted into RTC in 1994, there was an issue that was written by COB and then implemented called “The RTC Code of Conduct”. The was a blue on blue RTC Executive Directive and it was several pages of do’s and don’ts in terms of what an RTC staff member could and could not do.

    One of the points on this issue was along the lines of having an “almost cold” attitude to those outside of the org.

    I could not think with this — never could. And I had REAL trouble with it. I am a smiley person — I just am. I like to walk up to someone and give them a grin and an ARCful hello, but this was prohibited by COB from 1994 onwards. If you have ever seen an RTC Rep in an Advanced Org or on Flag and wondered why they always look so serious and seem so aloof and out of comm — that is the RTC ED on the Code of Conduct.

    Now how the hell is RTC, as an organisation, ever going to do its job if it is intentionally cutting comm with everyone outside the organisation??? It just makes absolutely no sense and violates basic, basic Scientology.

    What the RTC staff resort to, instead of ARC, is bullying, force, antagonism and intimidation. And that has yet to win them any friends, allies or support. People are factually scared of RTC execs and staff – and that is why.

    LRH would be shocked and terribly disheartened to see such a perversion of basic Scientology – from the organisation that is supposed to be seeing that KSW is kept in (sigh).

    There is my rant for tonight. Lets go back to the subject at hand — kindness.

    • Lana,

      I used to see this kind of lack of ARC “handling” long before Dave came to the party.

      It was just SOP for some “execs”. Maybe they thought they were in the Marine Corp. Instead of the Church of Scientology.

      In fact some of them were probably in the Marine Corp or some other branch of the Military before they got into Scientology which is probably where they got the idea to be as obnoxious as possible.

      I would pretty much ignore this. Thinking that “this too shall shall pass”.

      But instead as we know it got worse when the Junta took over and instituted that abomination known as the “Finance Police” led by Heinrich Reynolds and his Financial Gestapo and CMO crashing in on the GO like the FBI did earlier.

      Doesn’t surprise that Miscavige would memorialize all this as a code of misconduct later. Probably because it “seemed like a good idea at the time”.

      Personally I thought Ron never got the full story of what actually went on back then.

        • Very true Lana.

          People like Miscavige, Franks, Reynolds et al are basically a dramatization of a 3rd Dynamic engram.

          Not nice people really.

          Unlike Ron. Who was a real nice guy and granted people a lot of beingness.

          Interestingly I was listening to RJ 38 again over the weekend and noticed that many of the Stats back then could be explained by something other then the change in Management.

          Going back to ’78 with the release of NED and the realization that many more clears were being made than originally thought. Followed by NOTs.

          Then there was the End of Endless Training, End of Endless DRD and an International Amnesty.

          Putting SSOs on post and adding the VSD stat etc.

          Later Ridge on the Bridge and Streamlining the Grade Chart that Ron himself personally instituted that contributed to the Stat increases covered in that RJ.

          In fact in many ways Management had become the “spoke in the wheel” that Ron described in Essay on Management.

          And became more so as time went on.

    • Thanks, Lana. I have observed the behavior and attitude you describe. It is very unimpressive. No wonder that organization is driving the COS into the mud. I agree that if LRH were on the lines would be shocked and dismayed for a moment…..but after that all hell would break loose for a while as heads rolled (DM’s first)…..and then sanity would set in and he would get orgs back to the business of orgs….well done auditing hours and auditors made.
      I can just visualize it! πŸ™‚

  3. Is the above “the correct Why found”? It certainly opens the door to “doing something about it” as we can, by applying these references along with RJ68, KSW 1 etc., rebuild and restore “Ron’s brand of Scientology” with ARC and KRC.

    This also gives us a “Who” and “how” Scientology was dismantled internationally.

    Very, very, very well done!

    Happy New Year, Lana, Espiritu and everyone.


    • Lou, there is no effort here to evaluate the Scn world and find Why’s or Who’s.

      It is just an LRH reference which I felt some may not have read before (or not read for some time), and that is a useful tool that can be applied to improve life.

    • Hi Lou,

      I think what is needed to find a who, why etc would first require a full investigation and a Data Series Eval of some kind.

      Some people seem to think that I argue against Miscavige being a who which is incorrect. My contention is that he isn’t “the who” and that there are possibly other candidates as well.

      As far as finding a why.

      First we’d have to establish what “the situation” is which is the “furthest departure from the ideal scene” as covered in the Data Series in particular Data Series 11.

      Like auditing it is a very specific tech that is covered in the Hubbard Data Series Evaluator’s Course.

      Those who have done this course for the most part were either in the GO’s Information Bureau or were Org Managers working in the Flag Command Bureau.

      Like INCOM which kept track on all the stats and Flag Data Files which filed all the reports these areas were eroded and eventually eradicated.

      So now the Orgs and what can be called “Management” are basically deaf, dumb and blind and is stumbling around like a wounded water buffalo stuck in quick sand.

      That said.

      Meanwhile back at the ranch πŸ™‚

      I think the best thing we can do is apply the tech we have.

      • just out of interest RV — where did you get the data that Flag Data Files were eradicated? They were certainly in full swing when I left, and I got personal accounts from people who were scanning them into computers to make them more accessible.
        What was eradicated was the evaluators corps — which was to use those files to find right whys.

        • Lana,

          Maybe the files themselves weren’t eradicated per se but the Multiple Viewpoint System that used them was non-operational.

          So I’d say that they might as well have been “eradicated”.

          From what I know very few Scientologists in the orgs (at least when I was there) know how to write a Knowledge Report or any other report covered under the PL Staff Member Reports.

          They are supposed to be used to point out off-policy and out-tech actions done by management but instead they are used as a Stazi type action to rat out other Scientologists.

          Also I noted when GAT was implemented that the Student Rabble Rouse Line was totally eliminated.

          Fact is they may have been scanning in various reports but as I found out when I was ordered onto the TRD implemented by our dear friend Marty when he was IG RTC that these so called “reports” violated the PL Urgent Urgent False Reports since in many cases one couldn’t find out who wrote the “report” so that one could dispute it.

          Also another interesting fact was that many of the reports that I personally wrote on the off policy and out tech actions perpetrated by management including letters sent on “SO #1” were used as part of my so called “Black PR or BPR handling”.

          In other words all my reports on management’s off-policy and out-tech were not only considered “Black PR” but were used against me which is totally against policy.

          Of course they told me this wasn’t the case etc. but I knew better. In fact I knew that when I’d write a report that for some “mysterious” reason I’d end up in ethics or qual within 48 hours after writing it πŸ™‚

          In fact Marty admitted that is what they were doing with these reports shortly after starting his blog.

          This is in my opinion was the impetus for all the whistle blowing that started on the Internet in the late ’90’s that started with ARS and moved on to other discussion boards like OCB and ESMB.

          So yes.

          True they may have kept what they called “Flag Data Files” in operation but these reports were not used in the manner covered in the FO on Flag Data Files.

          Not only that but they perverted the purpose of INCOM which was to keep track of and analyze stats of all Orgs World Wide and began using their scanners to keep dossiers on various “disaffected” Scientologists such as yours truly.

          I found all this out while spending some quality time being Roll Backed and Sec Checked on the “Truth” Rundown while being raked over the coals by the PAC base Gestapo.

          • Holy sheee-it! Man, who’da thunk? Now, I truly hope all this raving is gonna help in getting up the Bridge, man, ’cause really, that’s what it’s all about, right?

            “Unless we ourselves are audited, we will die as personal beings.” LRH

            • True getting up the Bridge is a big part of it.

              But Scientology also involves improving conditions and applying the Philosophy to various problems.

              Remember RJ ’68?

              Also Scientology involves Communication.

              So maybe this as you say “raving” might include data that wasn’t known by others.

              Rather then just be dismissive about it all. Maybe you could contribute.

              What da ya think?

              • I think that rehashing the same old stuff is not going to contribute anything further to the discussion and isn’t really communication, but could be likened to a circuit. I think that moving up the Bridge does resolve things on all dynamics, including what to do about the current (and past) scene in Scientology. I think that the “authority” button doesn’t contribute further data and is nothing but vainglory. I think it’s all been said before. That’s what I think.

                • It’s possible that what you’re saying could be qualified as a “circuit” as you seem to say it quite often.

                  Also talking about the past isn’t just being vain glorious.

                  I suggest you look up the word.

                  To quote Shakespeare the past is prologue.

                  It’s also history and in my opinion it is very important in any discussion of the present or future.

                  The fact is Ron uses historical references quite a lot in the Briefing Course lectures and was one of the main reasons I became interested or more accurately rehabbed my interest in the subject.

                  Also auditing individually on a first dynamic basis isn’t really by itself going to resolve the 3rd Dynamic engram.

                  This goes back to what Ron discusses in Notes on the Lectures.

                  Besides if you feel auditing alone will handle the scene. Then why are you here discussing this?

                  Shouldn’t you be in session?

                    • Lana,

                      I guess being a Den Mother comes in handy at times πŸ˜‰

                      Actually Chris is jealous that I went on the Love Ride and he didn’t which is probably the reason he’s been stalking me πŸ™‚

                      Seriously though I’ll go back to my usual civility and magnanimity.

                      BTW I sent ya something on the back channel you might find interesting.

                      Let me know what ya think.


                    • Oh, I think it’s been civil so far, Lana; at least, per definition. I mean, if it wasn’t, we’d be seeing stuff like:


                      For starters, anyway. lol

                      And to save you the trouble, I found one you can post about me:

                  • I don’t believe I’ve said what I said, before, RV, except maybe to push doing the Bridge. I hardly think that qualifies as a circuit. No, it was much simpler than that. Perhaps too simple.

                    Re auditing the 3rd Dynamic engram; well, perhaps (although I wasn’t saying that), as there are other mechanisms and processes that are also important. But it does alleviate much of the BPC and unknowns that engender repetitiveness, as well as handling much of the 4th Dynamic engram. And I don’t see constantly going on about the same thing over and over bringing anyone closer to Clear or OT.

                    Re my auditing, actually I’m making steady progress on Solo NOTs and have been in session, currently out on a win. How ’bout you? What auditing are you receiving these days? Have you done your NOTs yet?

                    Btw, I wasn’t alluding to talking about the past when I mentioned vainglory. (Also, there is no space between “vain” and “glorious”; perhaps you need to look it up. πŸ˜‰ )

                    • Hey Chris,

                      Nobody’s trying to clear anybody here.

                      Though as you know discussing something interesting that may cause a rise in tone could be considered valid processing per SOS.

                      “Re my auditing, actually I’m making steady progress on Solo NOTs and have been in session, currently out on a win. How ’bout you? What auditing are you receiving these days? Have you done your NOTs yet?”

                      Well that’s great!

                      I can’t complain. Did Original VII a while back and IIIX.
                      Probably snag a co-audit at some point to do Audited NOTs.

                      Till then I’m quite happy doing the Six Steps to Better Beingness and other actions that can be done Solo.

                      I’ve found R1-9 can be a lot of fun.

                      I mean there is a lot of tech covered in the earlier materials such as Remedy of Havingness among others that are quite therapeutic and most importantly a lot of fun.

                      I’ll get to NOTs when I get to NOTs.

                      Vainglory or vainglorious doesn’t really apply since I don’t really get stuck in my past achievements. So either you got a wrong def or you’re are talking about someone else.

                      Also regarding commenting on the fact I separated the two indicates that you’re in need of some hatting on netiquette πŸ˜‰

                    • You can say that again.

                      Personally I always thought that “the asshole stage of NOTs” that Amanda used to joke about was a myth.

                      Thanks bud.

                      You’ve proven otherwise πŸ˜‰

  4. Ron was a complex person, and this essay on kindness is one of the positive things that will be remembered about him. I particularly like the other lecture quoted by Espiritu, and the bit ” at no time during the entire war, did I ever see toughness win either in the field of discipline, the field of efficiency, or the field of getting a job done. I have never seen it win.” This is the answer to anyone who demands that we adopt an aggressive mock-up in order to ‘get things done.’ Kindness does not mean being weak, submissive or pattycake – on the contrary, it means being outgoing and taking the initiative to help.

    • Dave,

      I don’t know if Ron was all that “complex”. True like everybody else. He wasn’t perfect. But for the most part. He was a kind and generous individual.

      Personally I find these people who say he wasn’t. To be in the minority of people who actually knew him and have their own reasons for trying to discredit him which is pretty much covered in the materials on level II and possibly IV.

      My view.

      You can take it or leave it.

    • “Kindness does not mean being weak, submissive or pattycake – on the contrary, it means being outgoing and taking the initiative to help.”
      Damn right, David! LRH was no shrinking violet. He was and is a powerful being. He committed lots of kindness upon the people of this planet in a very powerful manner by giving us the philosophy and the Technology of Scientology.

      The Quakers have a saying which I think is somewhat descriptive of Ron’s attitude:
      “Walk cheerfully over the earth, answering that of God in everyone!”

  5. There’s a SHSBC tape, ca. 1964 or so, where Ron says something along the order of (in regards to auditing) that “nothing can replace human compassion, kindness and understanding.” Bottom line.

  6. KINDNESS is a message that has been coming down the spiritual track for so long, it goes hand in hand with every honest movement ever undertaken in the direction of spiritual growth.

    LRH merely validated it as a workable concept, well in keeping with the Bridge.

    It is one of the most common and valued points of REALITY between Beings on the face of the Earth. Any country, and Faith, any street corner or village square, kindnes is the fastest, surest way to ARC imaginable.

    That the RTC, or any individual on the planet does not, will not embrace such a concept joyfully, holeheartely, with or without auditing excludes them from the ranks of HUMAN KIND, if only by default.

    RTC is not merely out-of-comm, they now officialy create MEST Beings. Kindness is Theta. And billions of people on this planet know that, if not by definition, they know it in their heart.

    Thus, they are my friends.


What is your view?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s