Squirrels and Comm Evs

Of all the squeaking that the squirrels do, most is targeted at the ethics and justice systems of the Church, so I thought it was time to clear up this subject a little more.  It has been brought to my attention that some squirrels think that, having rejected the group, they are now entitled to comm evs.

Squirrels are the third dynamic manifestation of the first dynamic problem of lice.    People can get Lice.  Organizations get Squirrels.

As LRH says, “There’s nothing personal in having squirrels.  Even heroes can have lice.”

I explained more about this in my article Lice, Squirrels and Contrary Facts.

The bottom line is that for lice, or squirrels, to survive, they need to be feeding off their hosts.  Lice are parasites and scavengers, and feed on the dead skin and detritus shed by the body they are catching a ride on.

Remove the lice from the host, and they are unable to survive.  No matter how many times they may have said they can make it on their own; that they know the tech of survival; that if the host would just die they would be fine.  It’s all rubbish as evidenced by the fact that a parasite removed from its host withers and dies.

What has this got to do with ethics?

Ethics and justice is the third dynamic tech whereby an organization locates those individuals that are antipathetic to its goals, purposes and its survival.

Depending on the severity of the situation, the remedies are as simple as correcting a staff member, or as extreme as permanently ejecting someone and the cutting of all his communication lines.

An organism does much the same thing, even though it’s not called ethics.  When it finds itself under attack from sick cells, bacteria or viruses, or lice it deploys a variety of remedies – be they “warrior cells”, chemicals, anti bodies or topically applied poisons.

The principle is to localize the attack and repel the invaders and is a natural reaction to disease, engaged upon by every living organism.   Those that do not do this are known by a very specific medical term, coined in antiquity because it has been observed so often.  And that term is dead – organisms that do not fight off invading diseases die.

There is no such thing as a living organism that invites the attacking bacteria in and gives it access to all the comm lines of the body – the nerves and the blood vessels and free access to all cells.

Fighting off enemies is also something that is done by every successful organization and country, and those that do not do this but instead invite hostile forces in and allow them access to their ethics and justice systems are very easy to spot.  They are disintegrating – on the way out.

So it is kind of obvious why Marty and his squirrels chatter and natter about ethics, justice and disconnection.  It is no different from a bunch of malaria parasites complaining that their target has had some quinine, and that the environment is being sprayed with pesticides.

It also obvious why they pretend they are anything but what they are – they may pretend they are vitamins; they try hitch a ride on some foods that are being ingested; they hang around in toilets; they say they are ‘friendly’ and ‘just want to help” – all manner of tricks to try infect the organism.

Demanding a comm ev is one such trick.  There is no intention on the part of the squirrel to actually look at any of the suppressive acts they have committed and take responsibility for such – they only intention is to open a comm line into the organization to spread more poison, waste staff time, make a circus event.

Just as no living organism anywhere invites disease in to present its case on why it is actually good for the organism, any sane Third Dynamic would also not invite in the very things that are pledged to destroy it.

Now here is what LRH said about this in a policy called Organizational Suppressive Acts.

The reason a democracy or any wide open group caves in lies in extending its privileges of membership to those who seek to destroy it.

The idiocy of doing so is plain.  When a person announces he is no longer part of a group, he has rejected the group.  He has also rejected its codes and rules.  Of course he has also rejected the protection to which he was entitled as a group member.

. . . It does not make sense to extend the protection of the group to the person seeking to destroy the group.  That’s like encouraging a disease.

If a group member rejects the group, he rejects everything about he group and no further question about that.  Certainly there is no question in his or her mind of salvaging or helping the group.  Why should the group then seek to extend its protection over him unless it wants to defy its first right: that of survival.

So in Scientology, anyone who rejects Scientology also rejects, knowingly or unknowingly, the protection and benefits of Scientology and the companionship of Scientologists.

A suppressive person, wishing to work more damage, is the first one to cry for the protection of justice.

Archives