No matching fragments found in this document.
INTERPRETATION OF POLICY
The organisation then has all its policy rigged to expand. It takes many
things to ensure expansion.
Thus when you are interpreting policy it should be interpreted only
against EXPANSION as the single factor governing it.
This can serve to clarify questions about policy. The correct
interpretation always leads to expansion, not holding a level or
contraction.
For example, policy bars the entrance of the healing field. This is
solely because there is too much trouble with the occupiers of that field
and only outright war (with no demand) could solve them. This seems to be a
brake on expansion. It is only a brake on expanding by war in the absence
of demand. Therefore the right way to expand is to gradually build up
general public demand, let experience by the public see that we heal and
when the demand is there and howling for us, reinterpret the policy or
abolish it as a brake to expansion. As one can only expand by external
demand for the product, if one seeks to expand in the absence of a specific
demand for the product, one has war and war doesn't lead to expansion any
more than burning heretics and other brutalities expanded the Catholic
movement.
So one interprets policy against Proper Expansion that is proper.
CORRECT EXPANSION
Expansion which when expanded can hold its territory without effort is
proper and correct expansion.
Hitler (like Caesar) did not "consolidate his conquered territory". It
was not possible to do so, not because he did not have troops but because
he didn't have a real demand for German technology and social philosophy
before conquering. Thus Hitler lost his war and fascist Germany died. It is
almost impossible to consolidate territory where one was not invited in in
the first place and force had to be used in order to expand.
One can remove a real suppressive by force to ensure demand will then
build, providing he does not seek to force the product on the suppressive
and all those around the suppressive.
The suppressive, as an individual, can be removed by force because he is
an anti-demand factor using falsehood and lies to prevent demand from
occurring. But one, in removing the suppressive, has to be sure one's own
product and delivery are still correct and straight and in no way
suppressive of anything but suppressives.
Further one must leave, at least a crack in the door and never close it
with a crash on anyone because a demand still may develop there.
The only way to start a full scale revolution is totally and thoroughly
slam the door. One must always leave a crack open. The suppressive can
recant and apologize. The pauper can by certain actions, no matter how
improbable, secure service. Etc.
In short, use force only to shut down false anti-demand factors. Yet
leave the door at least a crack open in case demand without duress
develops. Never finally shut off a possible demand.
You can stimulate demand. You can create it. But you may only
comfortably and properly expand into demand.
Removal of a suppressive only brings a potential appearance of demand
from the area he dominated. That potential, by some means, the best of
which are good dissemination and service examples, must become demand
before one can truly occupy territory.