Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

The copyrights issue, licensing and related matters  or
     Who ‘owns’ Scientology?
(What has the future in stock for the subject of Scientology)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“Scientology, well understood, is a very powerful thing. Well used, it can do a great deal for the social order and for the individual. Poorly relayed, poorly communicated, monopolized or used exclusively for gain, it could be a very destructive thing.”
        
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from The Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress tape lecture #15 “What Scientology Is Doing – Organizations, The Control & Division of Man”, given on 6 Jun 55)  
        
sound  Sound snippet (0:25) 
        


Back to “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order”  index page


The copyrights issue, licensing and related matters  (page 1, Copyright)

If you own the copyrights of Scientology in a sense you would own Scientology. Although this may not entirely be true as a practice of Scientology does not actually require a copyright. There are some issues involved with this supposed copyright that may be seen as awkward. This page attempts to gather the various theories and ideas that are going around. The aim is to forward factual information and draw logical conclusions thereof.

 
Index:

     “The work was free ...” vs “The authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology”
 
Copyrights and trademarks
  Who ‘owns’ Scientology?
         - HCO, the owner of the copyrights  &  Some words defined
         - (a) Trademarks
              (Includes:  Trademarks owned by L. Ron Hubbard?;  Trademarks given by L. Ron Hubbard to Religious Technology Center?;  Published statements from Church of Scientology representatives regarding trademarks)
               - (b) Copyrights
        (Includes:  Confusion and various misinformation about who owns the copyrights;  ‘Church of Spiritual Technology’ (CST);  Published statements from Church of Scientology representatives regarding copyrights)
         - New copyright names coming into being (1981-82)
  What does ‘© L. Ron Hubbard Library’ actually represent?
      - A new copyright
- A note about tape lecture recordings
  Final notices on copyright:  Interpretations (a frightful scenario)
 
About licensing a practice
  A ‘science of mind’ vs ‘licensing and regulation’  or  Can/should the subjects of Scientology and Dianetics be legislated?   (on separate page)
   
     L. Ron Hubbard lays out these matters and says no to legislation ...;  The Field Auditor and the Franchise/Mission holder identified;  Franchises/Missions (1959- );  ‘Certificate of Ordination’: Limiting the freedom of the auditor to audit (Sept 1973- );  ‘non-profit’ versus ‘for profit’, and a 10% remittance for Field Auditors (1979- );  ‘I HELP’ versus “Field Auditor Fees” (1982- );  Can a process or procedure be protected by a copyright?
 
Preservation of a technology
  The ‘Church of Spiritual Technology’ preserving the technology for future generations?
         - What exactly are we going to preserve? And on what medium? Only LRH?
- Burying in bunkers...?
  A prediction of the future by L. Ron Hubbard



 
Back to Main Index ‘The work was free ...’  vs  ‘The authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology’

        
“As the organization rapidly expands, so will it be a growing temptation for antisurvival elements to gain entry and infiltrate, and attempts to plant will be made.
        
 
To foil these, all staff members must be alert to attempts of this nature and it is their duty to inform the Technical Director, or above, of any doubts they may have and to see that the necessary action is taken.”          LRH     
(from HCO PL 30 Oct 62 I “Security Risks Infiltration”)
 

        
“... the United States government and the efforts of that government since 1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology rather than forbid or stop it ... .”          LRH    
(from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 III “Politics, Freedom from”)
        

Now how would this work?

An interesting change is observed in “The Auditor's Code”, it used to say the following:
         “25. 
I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.”          LRH
        
  (from HCO PL 14 Oct 68R (Revised 1 Jan 76) “The Auditor's Code”)
(the same is found in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition), page 190; © By L. Ron Hubbard)
 

Today it says:  (changes in script)
         26
I promise to cooperate fully with the authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology in safe guarding the ethical use and practice of those subjects.”
        
  (from HCO PL 14 Oct 68RA (Revised 19 Jun 80) “The Auditor's Code”)
(see also in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), © By Church of Scientology International)
 
The main change is that it turned from “legal” to “authorized”. Which really is not the same thing. Please reflect on it and realize its actual implications.

Please take note that point #25 became #26 on the list because of that a new #23 being added in the 1980 revision, for this reason the original #23-28 were renumbered #24-29.

An additional rather significant note is that it says on the original mimeo print-offof HCO PL 14 Oct 68RA “The Auditor's Code” that “Revisions” are in script. And indeed we find various changes/additions that are given in script. Point 26 was in script. However it is very very odd that the actual changes made in the text text following that number was NOT IN SCRIPT AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!!!  Because of the obvious significance of this change this therefore looks very suspect.
HCO PL 14 Oct 68R (Revised 1 Jan 76) “The Auditor's Code” is found in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume VI, 1965-1969’ (1976 release) on page 269-270.  HCO PL 14 Oct 68RA (Revised 19 Jun 80) “The Auditor's Code” is found in about all auditor course packs issu3ed in the 80's. If you have both, you can verify this for yourself.

For this and other reasons it has been seriously questioned if L. Ron Hubbard himself would have made or ordered this change. The later 70's and early 80's witness of rather suspicious practices regarding accredited authorship and changes incorporated. For an overview of these see study found at link here below:  (separate window)
    “Scientology: The printed materials and the changes that the original setup has been subjected to during 1974-86”

        
“I'll not always be here on guard.
  The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
And the wind sighs for songs
  Across the empty fields of a planet
A Galaxy away.
        
 
You won't always be here.
  But before you go,
Whisper this to your sons
  And their sons –
 ‘The work was free.
  Keep it so.’”          LRH

(from ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume I, 1950-1953’ (1976 release), page ii)
 
  –Note: Is not anymore to be found in the 1991 release of these same volumes–
(these exact same lines also appear on the back page of ‘The Auditor 79 (UK Edition)’, [ca.Sept 72]
)
 
This text is originally deriving from “Introduction” found in ‘Scientology: Clear Procedure, Issue One’ (published 1957), (separate window). It may however be noted here that ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume IV, 1957-1958’ (1991 release) does print the whole booklet, it however skips this Introduction in its entirety. The periodical ‘The Auditor 129 (UK Edition)’, Mar 77 prints the whole Introduction on page 6.

Leaves question: “Is it still free?”

Go to index

 
Copyrights and trademarks

Back to Main Index Who ‘owns’ Scientology?

 
Go back HCO, the owner of the copyrights  &  Some words defined

        
“The HCO is owner and custodian of all tapes, publications, bulletins and materials of Scientology.”          LRH   
(from HCO PL 22 Nov 58 “Owner of Materials - The Legal View”)
        

        
“The most important function of HCO in any organization is that which justifies its existence.
        
 
HCO must then first and foremost of all its duties, be the keeper of every seal, copyright, trademark, registered mark, master tape, master book copy, and master bulletin file in the organization.
 
 
All this applies now and later. And it will become more important as time goes on.
 
 
Similarly, any book on Dianetics and Scientology must be copyrighted in the name of L. Ron Hubbard and the copyright becomes the property of HCO.
 
 
Similarly any trademark, registered mark, or patent for any sign, symbol, shield, device or design for Dianetics or Scientology or their organizations must be secured for HCO. All these are registered to L. Ron Hubbard and by blanket transfer are the property of HCO only. The name in which it is done is L. Ron Hubbard.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”)
 

        
“All copyrights are made to L. Ron Hubbard, then after ‘my demise’ it says in the franchise, to L. Ron Hubbard, Founder. But all copyrights, marks and rights, by blanket assignment are the property of and will remain the property of HCO Ltd the main office. Although the copyright is to L. Ron Hubbard it becomes by that the property of HCO with no further administrative action by reason of existing contracts and franchises.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks”)
        


Definitions:

‘blanket’ (adj) as per Random House Dictionary (1967 edition):
“covering or intended to cover a large group or class of things, conditions, situations, etc.”
‘assignment’   as per World Book Dictionary (1974 edition):
“the legal transfer of some property or right, etc.”

It is very important to have a good understanding and concept of the meaning of the following 2 words, what each of them exactly represent and the actual difference between them:
‘copyright’ as per World Book Dictionary (1974 edition):
“the exclusive right to make and dispose of and otherwise control a literary, musical, or artistic work, granted by a government for a certain number of years”
‘trademark’   as per World Book Dictionary (1974 edition):
“a mark, picture, name, word, symbol, or letters owned and used by a manufacturer or merchant to distinguish his goods from the goods of others”

 
Go back (a) Trademarks

Some happenings occurred in 1982 concerning these trademarks.

 
Go back Trademarks owned by L. Ron Hubbard?

The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) says the following on page 359:
        
“Until 1982, all the trademarks and service marks were owned by L. Ron Hubbard.”
        
Now, is this what it actually says in the earlier quoted HCO PL's? It said: “But all copyrights, marks and rights, by blanket assignment are the property of and will remain the property of HCO Ltd the main office.”  LRH   (“marks” refers to these trademarks). Please do note that this principally is in diametrical contradiction to “were owned by L. Ron Hubbard.”!

Mind also this:  (underlining is mine)
        
“HCO PL – Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter. This is a permanently valid issue of all third dynamic, org and administrative technology. These regardless of date or age, from the know-how in running an org or group or company.”          LRH
          
( from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”)
        
The following references that address this topic matter are till this day listed as being valid:
    HCO PL 22 Nov 58 “Owner of Materials - The Legal View”
HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”
HCO PL 15 Nov 58 III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks”
They are all found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. So, why are these still this day listed as valid when the situation has changed?

We have one other piece of information about this which is found on Ron's Journal 38 “Today and Tomorrow: The Proof” (tape released on New Year's Eve 1983). It reads: “As you may know, a long time ago I made a free gift of all trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology to an independent non-profit corporation. This was the Religious Technology Center. I no longer own these marks. And RTC controls the licensing and use of all trademarks.”.
Apparently just one year is deemed here a long time ago. The authenticity of this tape however has been seriously questioned. A voice analysis has been applied to this which was compared with older recordings containing the spoken word of L. Ron Hubbard. Serious inconsistencies had been found.
At any account this is still a long way from producing official evidence that any transferal of any trademarks had occurred. And even if we would rely on this tape recording, it still would just be a Ron's Journal which is not a policy letter issue-type format. HCO PL 15 Nov 58 III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks” would still be senior.

 
Go back Trademarks given by L. Ron Hubbard to Religious Technology Center?

The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) says the following on page 359:
        
“Until 1982, all the trademarks and service marks were owned by L. Ron Hubbard. In may of that year he gave the marks of the Scientology religion to a newly formed church, Religious Technology Center (RTC).”
        
Well, L. Ron Hubbard technically only owned them from 4 May 1978 to (16) May 1982. I'll explain that here below.

Naturally prior to be able to transfer any “marks of the Scientology religion” to someone or something else it is required that you actually own them.
Here we find this recurring problem of HCO PL 15 Nov 58 III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks” that clearly indicates that these “are the property of and will remain the property of HCO Ltd the main office”. The main office of HCO was the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, Inc. (HASI, Inc.) of Arizona, as amongst other HCO PL 30 Sept 64 “HCO Corporations” confides to us.
To get them thus out of HCO Ltd. you basically only needed to get HASI to go defunct. And this is pretty much what happened.

So, how were these “marks” returned to L. Ron Hubbard?

The following 2 links read in this sequence may explain what happened next (please read before continuing!):  (pop-up windows)
    Certificate of Revocation, HASI, Inc. (10 May 1977)
  Copyrights transferred back to ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ (4 May 1978)

The information found at the second link correctly questions why there would have been any consideration about transferring any trademarks/copyrights back to L. Ron Hubbard, “when L. Ron Hubbard had long before assigned, into perpetuity, all Dianetics and Scientology copyrights to HCO?  HCO, at the time of this 1978 Assignment is a part of CSC (Church of Scientology of California).
The document mentioned is actually assigning these trademarks/copyrights back to L. Ron Hubbard, those who instigated this and actually signed this document were the “Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California”. We certainly do not learn about his position from L. Ron Hubbard himself about all this.

 
Go back Published statements from Church of Scientology representatives regarding trademarks

There have been 3 releases that provide ample insight in how the matter of trademarks is regarded and treated by the Church of Scientology. These 3 releases have been addressed here below:

  
    
‘SO ED 2104 Int’, 7 Nov 82 “The Flow up the Bridge, The US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco 1982”
    
This conference was held on 17 Oct ’82. The section relating to this starts with telling about trademarks and copyrights, but then we find that it only relates about these trademarks. All the weight is put on these trademarks. It makes a comparison with the Coca-Cola symbols. You may consult the full section of this SO ED that speaks about the trademarks here (pop-up window).
We find here this interesting little statement:
        
“CMDR. DAVID MISCAVIGE:
Scientology will go as far as it works, and when it is not applied correctly (out-tech), that's a violation of trademarks. This is a very serious matter.”
        
It may very well be a “very serious matter”, but it is not per the stated reason. You see, “out-tech” is according to the law not a “violation of trademarks”. These are disrelated.

  
    
The Religious Technology Center, Information Letter #1, 2 Mar 83
    
This whole release is dedicated to the Service and Trademarks . It makes a rather odd comparison with a “white taped road out of the labyrinth”, and that these Service and Trademarks “are the signs — ‘white tapes’ to all that they are on the path”. It does not address the copyrights anywhere in this release either. You may consult this Information Letter in full here (pop-up window).

  
    
HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”
    
Interesting is also that we find the following 2 entries addressing trademarks added in the 1983 revision of. Neither of these are found in any earlier policy letter.
       
        
“4.  
Using the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the owner of the marks or its authorized licensee.
        
 
14.  
Acts calculated to misuse, invalidate or alter-is legally or in any other way the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology.”
 
We didn't had them before, so why are we having them now?

 
Go back (b) Copyrights

 
Go back Confusion and various misinformation about who owns the copyrights

The book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), on page 359 had said:
        
“Until 1982, all the trademarks and service marks were owned by L. Ron Hubbard.”
        
Mind that this notice only involves the ‘trademarks and service marks’, and not the copyrights! In fact it is not mentioned anywhere in this book who supposedly would be the owner of these copyrights. It is generally believed and accepted by Scientologists and even the general public that RTC would also be the owner of these copyrights.
On the Internet for example you can find: “Religious Technology Center, a church-affiliated organization that owns Scientology's copyrights and trademarks.”. But on their website itself, one will see that it says in big characters: “Holder of the Dianetics & Scientology Trademarks”. Visit here, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). If you further look around on that site, you will note that it refers only to some marks (=trademarks). It does not say anywhere anything at all about copyrights. It is about marks, marks and marks. And this is actually odd when you think about it. These marks in fact are only about some graphical designs, and that's all. The marks are an issue of minor importance but all attention is focused on them and not the copyrights which I find rather strange! It is the copyrights that are relating to the distribution and copying of some written materials. Supposedly this is what RTC should be all about, but it focuses only on some marks. How can it effectively protect the correction distribution and copying of the materials if RTC only owns the trademarks and not the copyrights?

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia says: “Church of Spiritual Technology, doing business as L. Ron Hubbard Library, owns the copyrights to L. Ron Hubbard's texts.”.
Do note that it says ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ and not ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. Technically this actually means to say that the Church of Spiritual Technology owns the revisions incorporated in these works or newly written/compiled works, but not the original texts.

Newly added entries found in the 1983 revision of HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”, that would come closest to some copyright are the ones listed below. Nonetheless these also fail to use the word:
       
        
“11.  
Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology.
        
 
12.  
Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee.”
 
Now, we can say something more about “authorized” as used in #11 here above. In HCO PL 14 Oct 68RA (Revised 19 Jun 80) “The Auditor's Code” we find:  (underlining is all mine)
      “promise to cooperate fully with the authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology ....”
And in the previous version HCO PL 14 Oct 68R (Revised 1 Jan 76) “The Auditor's Code”:  
  “I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard ....”   LRH
(addressed in more detail in earlier chapter on this page: “‘The work was free ...’ vs ‘The authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology’”)
An interesting point to make here may be that we find both “unauthorized use” combined with “illegal usage” in HCO PL 4 Jul 59 “Actions for HCO Secretaries Faced with Illegal Usage”. The wonder is then also why “legal” would need to be changed into “authorized” in that Auditor's Code?

 
Go back ‘Church of Spiritual Technology’ (CST)

The Religious Technology Center (RTC) was officially incorporated on 16 May ’82.

As I said earlier generally it is assumed that the RTC would be the owner of these copyrights, when in fact RTC itself only claims to own the trademarks. No mention is made anywhere in any Scientology publication who supposedly is holding the copyrights. Then who is the owner of some copyrights and what then is it exactly that they own?
You can do some search on the U.S. Copyright Office site (external link). The copyrights appear to be registered under the name of Church of Spiritual Technology (CST).You can verify this for yourself. Click here, search by Claimant (you have to check the box), then type in the search box: Church of Spiritual Technology. In the search results you will find amongst other the following entries:  (the items # are still rising)
      CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY (4,998 items)
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY (LOS ANGELES (2,158 items)
You can check these boxes and click the submit button.

This Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) then would be –strictly as per the records in that database– the actual registered owner of these copyrights. I found no hits with Religious Technology Center (RTC). I was unable to find any data at all about CST in the different Scientology publications or the official Scientology sites. So why is this like that, why-why-why are we not informed about this?

Interesting is also the realization that we are being informed that “In may of that year (1982) he (L. Ron Hubbard) gave the marks of the Scientology religion to a newly formed church, Religious Technology Center (RTC).”  (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition, page 359). We are however totally missing out on the information when and how the copyrights of Scientology and Dianetics were transferred to Church of Spiritual Technology (CST). We find notices in the testaments of L. Ron Hubbard from 1982 & 1986 about these ‘marks’, but they don't relate about the copyrights or CST. Anyone care to fill me in on that?

 
Go back Published statements from Church of Scientology representatives regarding copyrights

  
    
HCO PL 10 Sept 81 “Copyright Policy Clarification”
    
It was “THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA” that wrote and issued HCO PL 10 Sept 81 “Copyright Policy Clarification”. This reference makes for very interesting reading indeed! It appears that it has since been reissued as ‘Scientology Policy Directive 17’, 27 Jun 82 “Understanding Copyright Notices and How to Use Them” (presently in use as ‘SPD 17RA’, Revised 13 nov 82, Re-Revised 24 Aug 83). The original HCO PL release is not easy to come by, for which reason I quote it in full here (pop-up window).

 
Go back New copyright names coming into being (1981-82)

The rules of the game were:  (underlining is mine)

“All copyrights are made to L. Ron Hubbard, then after ‘my demise’ it says in the franchise, to L. Ron Hubbard, Founder.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks”)

“The name in which it is done is L. Ron Hubbard.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”)

The above included any and all published by the organization, be it written by L. Ron Hubbard or not. Those policy letters and writings attributed as deriving from L. Ron Hubbard maintained using ‘L. Ron Hubbard’, but in a variety of policy letters (HCO PL's) primarily written or issued in 1981 by ‘THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA’ this rather suddenly changed! As far as I have been able to verify HCO PL 7 May 81 “L. Ron Hubbard, Founder and Author” was the first policy letter not using the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright. It uses instead: ‘Copyright © 1981  by the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California’. Later this sometimes also appears as ‘Copyright © 1981  by the Church of Scientology of California’, the latter became standard near the end of 1981. HCO PL 25 Nov 81R (Revised 15 Dec 81) II “Corporate and Other Changes” was the very last one to ever use it. The question is: “Why had the original practice been abandoned?”.

On 1 Nov ’81 the Church of Scientology International (CSI) had come into being. This incorporation of the CSI also resulted in that the copyright notification once again was changed for policy letters that were indicated to have been written by some other than L. Ron Hubbard. The mentioning of ‘THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA’ appears also to have been abandoned in the policy letters from here on out, instead it may now just say ‘THE INTERNATIONAL WATCHDOG COMMITTEE’ or ‘THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’ or something like that. HCO PL 23 Dec 81 “International Watchdog Committee” was the very first policy letter to use ‘Copyright © 1981 by CSI’, sometimes this copyright is also referred to as ‘Copyright © 1981 by the Church of Scientology International’. This copyright notice is still in use today.

A few reality examples of how it was implemented:
  
  Issue   Initials & Copyright notice   Attributed authorship
BPL 16 Mar 65R
     (Revised and reissued
      12 August 1974 as BPL)
  Mary Sue Hubbard
  Approved by the
Commodore's Staff Aides
  and the
Board of Issues
  for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:CSA:BI:MSH:mg
Copyright © 1965, 67, 74  
by L. Ron Hubbard
 
HCO PL 7 May 81
  BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:JM:bk
Copyright © 1981
by the Board of Directors
of the Church of Scientology
of California
 
HCO PL 8 Sept 83
  CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL
CSI:pm:iw
Copyright © 1983
by the Church of Scientology
International
 

The copyright designation that always had been used for the materials attributed to L. Ron Hubbard was also in for a change.

Summary:
    
  
 Writings attributed to other than L. Ron Hubbard
1950 - 1981 Apr ©  by L. Ron Hubbard
1981: 7 May - 15 Dec ©  by the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California  or
©  by the Church of Scientology of California
1981: 23 Dec - present ©  by CSI  or
©  by the Church of Scientology International
    
  
 Writings attributed to L. Ron Hubbard
1950 - late 1986 ©  by L. Ron Hubbard
late 1986 - present ©  by L. Ron Hubbard Library

Note:  Known to me is a leather bound copy of ‘The Way to Happiness’ that was copyrighted ‘© 1982  by L. Ron Hubbard Library’. This is the earliest instance of this being used that I know of. It is also noted that for example the latest edition (2007) of ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of mental Health’ carries a copyright for the years 1983 and 1984 with this Library. It appears that this new copyright name had been used some few times, but it did not turn a standard until late 1986, at which time it functioned as a replacement basically for the previous copyright ‘L. Ron Hubbard’, but skipping the previous copyright years that were used with ‘© L. Ron Hubbard’. It appears though that preparations and use (although limited) for this new copyright notification ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ were already ongoing and planned as early as 1982!


Once again:

“The name in which it is done is L. Ron Hubbard.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”) (underlining is mine)

“All copyrights are made to L. Ron Hubbard, then after ‘my demise’ it says in the franchise, to L. Ron Hubbard, Founder.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks”) (underlining is mine)

Why are these rules not being followed anymore?


Continue reading in following chapter!

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index What does ‘© L. Ron Hubbard Library’ actually represent?

 
Go back A new copyright

Earlier I had mentioned that a new copyright had come into being. It used to say on books and materials:
  Copyright © 19--
By L. Ron Hubbard.
All Rights Reserved.

Now it is almost always replaced with:
  Copyright © 19--
L. Ron Hubbard Library.
All Right Reserved.

Question is “Why are we having this new copyright?”. I don't seem to be able to find some explanation from the Church of Scientology about that, not in written materials, nor anywhere else. However it appears to be added after more significant changes made or newly issued in 1986 or at a later date. Some people confided to me that thousands and thousands of changes had been made. The following may very well be relating to all this:

        
“To ensure the purity of the religion and its Scriptures, RTC supervised a massive five-year project to republish all of Mr. Hubbard's writings on Dianetics and Scientology. RTC ensured that the authenticity of each work was verified by comparing them word by word with his original manuscripts — only once RTC was satisfied that the works were accurate were they republished. RTC then helped see that archival editions of these materials were produced, thus ensuring the availability of the pure unadulterated writings of Mr. Hubbard to the coming generations. As part of this project, Mr. Hubbard's original tape-recorded lectures — most of them over three decades old — were restored using state-of-the-art technology, and then accurately transcribed. Even the translations of the Scripture are scrupulously checked for accuracy by RTC prior to any publication.” 
        
  (the above text is how it appeared at http://www.rtc.org/en_US/intro/pg002.html, this is the official RTC website, it was removed from that site since late 2005, at present you find this here with minor changes (last checked: 10 Apr 2013), it is also found at various other official Scientology sites.)  

This five-year project started shortly after that it was officially announced that L. Ron Hubbard had dropped his body (January ’86), and it was concluded in 1991. As a direct result we saw the release of a new series of books comprising of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. The ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’, that appears to have been brought to live as early as 1982, turned only a standard during the second half of the year 1986. This change can be observed from the book publications, but especially on the original mimeo print-offs of individual references. During 1982-early 1986 various copyrights had been taken in this ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright name, but the standard during this time period was still ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. This may appear rather strange, but this is nonetheless what we find.

I checked a variety of original mimeo print-offs of HCOB's and found that if a significant change had been made the original ‘Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard’ was still there, but added was ‘Revisions Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard Library’ (sometimes the word ‘Revisions’ on these original mimeo print-offs was left out). Insignificant changes changes like “Only changes are to correct typographical errors.” did not get this Library copyright added.
Unpublished material received only the annotation ‘Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard Library’.

Sometimes things are kind of odd as can be seen in the below table. This HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling” was originally issued as HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”. On 28 Oct 2000 then it was decided to restore this date, and at the same time it turned from a ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright into a ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright. Even more odd may be the year 1991 that was given here (see table). It was written in 1972, during the later 70's it turned into a BPL, then it was decided to restore it into an HCO PL on 20 Oct ’81 (which became the HCO PL date), in 1983 it was thoroughly revised. The years 1972, 1981 & 1983 then seem applicable dates to mention, but only 1991 is given which is not even the reissue date (2000). The year 1991 simply tells us in what year the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright had been registered.

    
  Issue   (“PTS Type A Handling”)   Initials & Copyright notice
HCO PL 5 Apr 72 Issue I LRH:MSH:nt.lm.tda
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 20 Oct 81R
   (Revised 10 September 1983)
CSI:LRH:iw
Copyright © 1972, 1981, 1983
by L. Ron Hubbard 
HCO PL 20 Oct 81R
   (Reissued 3 April 1989)
LRH:CSI:iw.pp 
Copyright © 1972, 1981, 1983
L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 5 Apr 72RD
   (Reissued 28 October 2000 to restore original date)
LRH:RTRC:cp.ks
© 1991
L. Ron Hubbard Library  

Per all the above we can conclude that the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ does in fact stand for ‘significant alterations’ or ‘new releases of unpublished material’, and even same data reissued with a different presentation under a new date.

All the regular Dianetics & Scientology book publications give the year 1988 or 1989 under this new copyright, they do however mention ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ as the ‘Earlier editions copyright’. It suffices to say here that various changes in lesser or greater degree have been noted in these publications, but I do not intend to go into details about these changes here. More interesting here to mention is that these publications do not note any previous copyright under the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright. Later editions of these same books removed even the mention of the Earlier editions copyright. All that we see in these books is a recent year of copyright. In fact it even gets difficult to find out with these books when it was actually first published! Either way this should clearly indicate that there is no earlier valid and legal copyright in existence. If there were they would have been indicated in these publications. This same we in all individual references and books.
Another difference is that these regular Dianetics & Scientology publications in any and all of those earlier editions specifically say that it was ‘by L. Ron Hubbard’, if you look in any of those ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ releases you see only ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. Around this time we experience a general tendency in any and all book publications anywhere (not only L. Ron Hubbard that is) to not mention ‘by’ foregoing the author's name. It does not have to mean that the book was not by L. Ron Hubbard anymore, some however seem to have come to that conclusion, also this in regards to the copyright name change and the alterations incorporated in those books.

Since 1964 we have had the following:
        
“Scientology Library and Research has the purpose of collecting, safeguarding and preserving all Scientology materials, and while safeguarding the originals, compiling from such, new work and preparing it for direct dissemination as in tapes or designing and printing as in the case of written work.”          LRH     
(from HCO PL 24 Jan 64 I “Scientology Library and Research, Ltd”)
        

Not the same as a copyright, but this may explain the name library chosen. Anyway, still not explained is why we had this change of copyright. For about 36 years it always had been ‘Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard’, so was there any necessary practical reason for changing this to something else? If there was, I have not been informed about it.
It could be because of that L. Ron Hubbard passed away in Jan 1986, but does this answer all questions? L. Ron Hubbard could not write any new material after dropping his body, so it still would be ‘Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard’.

Do remember that it had said in HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”:  (underlining is mine)
        
“The name in which it is done is L. Ron Hubbard.”          LRH
        
And that an HCO PL is “is a permanently valid issue” & “regardless of date or age”  LRH  (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”).

Let's look at this a little bit closer. If you do not own some copyright, naturally you will not be able to publish under that particular copyright. And if some copyright has been expired, then also you will not be able to use it. The question emerges: “Does ‘Church of Spiritual Technology’ actually own the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright?”
Or is it may be so that you after some person deceases that by law you are not allowed to use that previous copyright? I know of no law saying so. In fact L. Ron Hubbard had left us instructions in regards to this:  (underlining is mine)
        
“All copyrights are made to L. Ron Hubbard, then after ‘my demise’ it says in the franchise, to L. Ron Hubbard, Founder.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 III “Outstanding Copyrights and Mark”)
        
Then if it would turn out that Religious Technology Center may use the name ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ why then do they use ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’?

There may be an additional consequence if in fact the original copyright would have expired. This in regards to the Scientology material that was originally compiled or written by someone other than L .Ron Hubbard. All of the Scientology material once has always been copyrighted in the name of L. Ron Hubbard. Now, if this copyright did expire, then it may fall back to the original compilers and writers (or their kin).
A legal matter may have caused the following lines to be written: “The scientology religion is based exclusively upon L.Ron Hubbard's research, writings and recorded lectures” (from the little publication ‘Description of the Scientology Religion’). “Exclusively” defined means ‘with the exclusion of all others’. So, why would all others who helped developing it be excluded, when in fact they received full credit for their contribution while L. Ron Hubbard was still around?
It gets even more strange as various of these writings compiled and written by others were later reissued under the name of L. Ron Hubbard (see my pages “Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution” and “The story of the ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH?”, see Scientology index page).

One should also consider that once copyrights have expired they never can be brought back to life. The rule is: “Once public, forever public.”. Now if you aim to copyright some revised work, because of that the original copyright had expired, then you can only copyright those aspects of the new/revised works that are not like the works whose copyright that have expired. You could for example design a bible and you could copyright your design, the type and layout, the editing, the notes, the illustrations, the translation, and all of that, but you could not copyright the bible per se, simply because its copyright had expired. So, even if some claim they have revived the copyright, or even if they have officially registered copyrights for the revised works, no American court of law would agree that the new copyrights had revived any expired copyrights. It just can not be done.

We see that the since 1986 published Scientology materials do not carry the copyright: ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. Then the ordinary Scientology books say very clearly: ‘Earlier edition copyright L. Ron Hubbard’ and the new copyright being: ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’. From the mimeo print-offs we can see that the earlier copyright still was printed on them, however if being significantly revised we see that was added: ‘Revisions Copyright by L. Ron Hubbard Library’.
The question to ask is: “Does the fact that the copyright name had changed, acknowledge that in fact the original copyrights had expired?” We definitely have to think this over very, very carefully!
A good question is also: “Could one simply reprint the old material exactly as it was without this being a breach of any still existing and effective copyright?”.

It should be mentioned that the previous published version of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ (HCO PL's) & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ (HCOB's) volumes from the 70's did mention the copyright at the end of every single reference listed in these books. Whereas this has been removed throughout in the 1991 release of all these volumes. The only copyright given is found on the reverse side of the title page of each of those volumes which says: ‘© 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library’. So here we should ask why the original practice had been abandoned?

 
Go back A note about tape lecture recordings  (‘L. Ron hubbard’  vs  ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’)

These changes are not only incorporated into written and published works. I found that ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ in fact introduces edited LRH recordings! Please see earlier chapter in this ‘L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order’ study: “‘Philadelphia Doctorate Course’ Lectures  (PDC) & ‘Black Dianetics’”, last section: “Conclusion and an observation relating to copyright notices”, or click here. And my “Overview of the editing implemented in the 2006 DVD release and additional observations”, click here. (separate windows)

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Final notices on copyright:  Interpretations (a frightful scenario)

What do we make of all this? We are facing the situation that supposedly the ownership of the copyrights got transferred back to L. Ron Hubbard (in 1978), this by a dubious document, dated 4 May ’78, only signed by an unidentified “Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California” and a missing involvement and/or signature of L. Ron Hubbard (consult here, pop-up window). When L. Ron Hubbard had established 20 years earlier in 1958 that all copyrights, marks and rights, by blanket assignment are the property of and will remain the property of HCO Ltd the main office.”. We see thus no L. Ron Hubbard accepting these copyrights back to his person. But without this transferal back to L. Ron Hubbard the copyrights could not have ended up with the Church of Spiritual Technology (CST). The 1978 document directed: “4. In the event of Mr. Hubbard's demise, this assignment and transfer shall vest, in its entirety, in his successors, assigns, heirs, and legatees [sic].”.
Now, if we disregard this and we would assume this all would be in order, then why, why, why has the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright been abandoned since? Why do we instead have the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright? Which basically is a replacing copyright that, and this in particular is very interesting, does not include the original copyright years as they had been in use with the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright!


A frightful scenario

One interpretation could be that we are facing here some kind of cover-up. The actual copyrights then would have fallen into the public domain for the original works, for this reason the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright could not be used anymore, or at least not after his demise. A new copyright then had to be thought up which had to be similar or at least including the name of L. Ron Hubbard somewhere, in order for people not getting suspicious. This came to be ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’. To be able to register the old material which copyright had expired we now have to implement ‘significant alterations’ or arrange ‘new releases of unpublished material’ if we are to publish under this new copyright. Still the copyright is only effecting these very changes, but we are not being informed about this. Naturally however the earlier copyright years as they were mentioned previously under the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright can not be mentioned anymore or included when using the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright.
It could be an attempt to actually re-own the copyrights. You do not own the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright, but you do own the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright (even if this is only effecting the actual changes incorporated, which you don't tell about). If you are to prevent people from using the not anymore copyrighted versions of the materials you then have to see to it that the Church of Scientology organizations only have the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ material available in the various organizations around the world. With other words, you somehow have to start getting rid of or shred this old material. At the same time as you are doing that you compile lots of Based on L. Ron Hubbard publications, which will have full copyright protection under the new ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright.
In the mean time though you do not wish to put very much weight on the original material, the bulk of which are still carrying the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright (now in the public domain). For this reason you don't discuss copyrights, as you only legally own the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyrighted material. Instead you focus on some trademarks which you do have, and you put all the weight and the importance on these trademarks. Trademarks which factually only are some graphical designs, but you present and promote these in such ways as if they are something more than that.
How exactly are we going to republish this original material? The ordinary Scientology books simply can be republished after being extensively revised or changed. ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes should be stripped from their copyright notices for each individual issue. This will make it impossible for those who only have these new volumes to determine which individual issues still carry the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright and which the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright. For sure you would effectively cover up that a variety of these could be in the public domain as all these individual issues together are copyrighted as a compilation publication, and do not witness of any individual copyright for each issue. It would also be a good idea to remove the revision notices which are found in the original mimeo print offs, data which explained why certain things had been done (its history). If you do that then you can prevent people from getting suspicious and wanting to track what had happened with these particular issues, as they are not given access to these historical revision notes that may motivate them to do so.
In regards to the Scientology material that once was compiled or written by others the ‘agreement’ has since developed in the present official Church of Scientology that these are no good. To still be able to use the material deriving from others you then need to have them rewritten, and then attribute them to L. Ron Hubbard. Of course you also have to see to it that the original versions of this Scientology related material written/compiled by others has to disappear. Imagine that some would start to do some comparison? No, we can't have that happening. A variety of this re-released material was originally issued under the BPL and the BTB issue-type format.

Indeed a frightful scenario! Could there be any truth in it? You yourself have to be the judge of that, but a variety of the implications that I describe in the above in fact have been confirmed that they have happened or are happening. Very applicable reading material directly relating to this you will find on my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)”. Consult the first 2 chapters: “The importance of the Qual Library” & “An odd misconception about ‘KSW’ & The story of the ‘old red volumes’”. And also my page “Non-LRH turns into LRH?”. (see my Scientology index page)


If Scientology is to survive as was originally intended by L. Ron Hubbard, each one of us as an individual simply has the responsibility to see to it that all is carried out as he actually intended. Meaning that you can not just assume that all is alright solely because someone tells you that it is all alright! Keeping Scientology Working is our personal responsibility, we can't just put this responsibility on someone else's shoulders.

        
“Collective-think is always closer to bank*-think than individual reasoning. That's because the bank is the one constant people have in common. And it's crazy. So almost any individual alive can plan better than a group will execute and certainly better than a group can plan.
        
 
Scientology groups are far superior to human groups. But the rule still applies that collective-think is always less sane than the thinking of an individual.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 18 Jan 65 “Financial Management; Building Fund Account”)
 

 
Preservation of a technology

Back to Main Index The ‘Church of Spiritual Technology’ preserving the technology for future generations?

Scientology & Eternity 1
Mr. Norman Starkey shows a sample of the plated copper long playing records of LRH lectures.

This Church of Spiritual Technology is not mentioned anywhere by its name in any Scientology release or magazine. The only mention ever made by the Church of Scientology, according to my memory, was during the late 1980's. It was in regards to protecting the Scientology technology for future generations, this was at a so-called Flag event (senior organization located in Clearwater, Florida). Practically this meant that the materials of L. Ron Hubbard (writing and tapes) were being preserved and saved and imprinted on very durable material and subsequently buried in bunkers at different places on this planet. So even if we would have a nuclear war or something these would then survive. An article appeared in ‘KSW News, Issue 29’ (late 1989), read the full article here (pop-up window). Illustration here above is also taken from this article.

 
Go back What exactly are we going to preserve? And on what medium? Only LRH?

        
“I charge you with this - - look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.
        
 
If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive ‘pitch’ or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.”          LRH
(from booklet ‘Scientology: Clear Procedure - Issue One’ (1957), underlining is mine)
 

A series of articles about “The Preservation of the Technology Project” appeared in ‘Legacy Premiere’ (Jan 92), ‘Legacy, Issue II’ (Jun 92) and ‘Legacy, Issue III’ (Jun 93), published by periodical of the Scientology corporation Author Services, Inc.. These articles found in there refer to ‘Preservation Update Issues’ (does anyone have these?, contact me).
Then at the celebration of the Anniversary of the Freewinds Maiden Voyage in June 1993 its passengers were given a “personal copy” of such a sample of an “Archival Nickel Record” containing 7 minutes of Ron's Journal 39.
Since then matters have cooled down about it. We don't actually here anything about it anymore. Matters had turned silent.

In ‘Legacy Premiere’ it started the first article with a quotation from L. Ron Hubbard that read:
        
“WARNING”
        
 
“Our materials are in highly perishable condition and will be gone in a few years unless this project is set up and done. Therefore the project has priority...”          —L. RON HUBBARD
ED 20 WW 26 September 1966
 
This is an unusual issue-type and they are not publicly preserved or accessible. We certainly would like to see what more this reference says. Has it been taken out of context? Are further recommendations made about what exactly this refers to? Obviously papers would not have been in any “highly perishable condition”.
You see, the problem here is that these things so very easily can be quoted out of context. And suddenly it starts to be used for something else. This quoted reference talks about “the project”, but what details about this are found in this reference itself? And what “materials” is it talking about? And how long are they supposed to actually last? For eternity or for a good 100 years? This chosen quotation doesn't specify anything.
It would appear that this quotation only can apply for the old magnetic audio tapes. They “will be gone in a few years”. These simply deteriorate and thus they needed to be copied onto more durable tape. But even today with the new medium preservation we still have a similar problem with CD's and DVD's. They just don't last for ever. Generally high quality tape preserves better, but the downside is that could be destroyed in fire. Today the advantage of CD's and DVD's medium is that they can be copied and recopied very easily and fast by virtually anybody, and it is rather inexpensive to do in this digital age.
We should assume that this “project” from 1966 had been dealt with at that time. It said: “will be gone in a few years unless this project is set up and done”, and thus you are not going to sit around and wait till 1993 (27 years later) to take care of that, by then it would be too late. This quotation from 1966 does not appear to give any support for the massive preservation project, imprinting it onto copper and nickel discs, as instigated by the Church of Scientology.

Another rather important issue is what exactly is going to need to be preserved? Are these the latest updated versions of references, the first releases or all of them? Rather an important issue this is. Make some tiny changes and it may not be so workable anymore. Are we going to preserve the handwritten originals? See, if you are going to preserve typed versions of references, how do you determine there is no error made there? And if you do, then what options are there for correction? And what version are you going to preserve? References did get revised. Are we going to preserve just the latest revised version or all of it? We are not particular being informed about that. Other than what I recall from the Flag event from late 1989 in where the target was set to have the latest and accordingly corrected materials preserved this way. Then judging though from the samples of the printed materials that have been given out, they would seem to preserve just the latest ‘corrected’ versions. Now, is this a good thing? I really fear it is not!
Mind here, that the times have been a-changing. That was back in 1989, the digital era is here now and we have a lot more options than back then. Anyone today can digitalize and preserve, and... pass on. Today you can pretty much put the whole reference legacy on one disc! And this would include any phase (version) of each reference.

One should understand here as well that only the materials that had been attributed to L. Ron Hubbard were going to be included. There is no intention to actually preserve the materials of Scientology and Dianetics that had been worked out and written down by others! We should be clear about this! It means that you are not actually preserving the actual complete and working technology of the subject matter.

 
Go back Burying in bunkers...?

Now, there is something further to say about these aforesaid bunkers. Would the wrong persons some way gain sole access to these bunkers the game would simply be lost. Making an analogical comparison with the following may be of interest:

        
“There is only one thing that could happen to Scientology and that is to say that it would be buried—the remedy would be buried. If it ever went out of sight, this world's done.”          LRH
        

If you bury these in some bunkers around this planet (7 places have been picked), there will be a record somewhere or some person(s) would know where these bunkers are located. This means that they can be seized if some would set their mind to that. Also it is imaginable that those places have been picked at forehand by those being in control, and then we do not know for sure if in fact this project is fully being carried out either. Public Relations can cover up a lot, we may have been fooled? Now, how do we know that we are not being lead behind the curtain?

        
“So anybody that knows the remedy of this subject—anybody that knows these techniques—is himself actually under a certain responsibility; that's to make sure that he doesn't remain a sole proprietor. That's all it takes; just don't remain a sole proprietor. Don't ever think that a monopoly of this subject is a safe thing to have. It's not safe. It's not safe for man; it's not safe for this universe.”          LRH
(both above quotations from Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture #20 “Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic”, given on 6 Dec 52)
        
 
sound  Sound snippet (2:12) 
 
        
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
        

To avoid such a situation that only a few would have access to this “remedy” and that no one is the “sole proprietor” may very well be to circulate as many copies as possible of this material. This way some copy will always be in reach of those who want to use this “remedy” to ‘free man from his burden’. This one copy will suffice to make other copies and circulate these, from which further copies can be made. No world power then will be able to confiscate every copy around as they would not know where all these are located. But then if you bury this in some bunkers at some places around this planet ...

As a comparison one could ask oneself how the Nag Hammadi scriptures (external link) actually could survive? Right! They did not know where all copies were located. And so, after some 2,000 years, they could come to the surface again.

Keep in mind:

“Thus, the first basic principle of Black Dianetics: So long as a natural phenomenon remains the knowledge of a few and is denied to the many it can be utilized to control the many.”          LRH   
(from ‘Journal of Scientology Issue 4-G’ [ca. early Oct 52])

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index A prediction of the future by L. Ron Hubbard

A foresight of things to come, from 1955. Some years have past now, 60 years to be exact. Well, has it proven its value? Was it accurate? Find out for yourself...

These are various snippets from a lecture given by L. Ron Hubbard. It is The Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress tape lecture #15 “What Scientology Is Doing – Organizations, The Control & Division of Man”, given on 6 Jun 55. (red emphasis is mine)
Soundsnippets of these selections can be found following the transcript.

        
“And when an organization is sitting where a living being should sit, it's time to call a halt.
        
 
Now, I'm not talking now about anarchy. Anarchy is not even vaguely possible amongst aberrated peoples. An anarchy is predicated on the basis that it is possible amongst aberrated people. What I am talking about, however, is we need better men, not better signs.
 
 
We need a better social order, and not one or two better individuals, and a better organization. And when an organization gets into the fantastic levels of being above reproach, or when an individual sets himself up as so infinitely superior to his fellow man that he cannot be touched, chaos no matter at what distant date is bound to ensue. Do you see that?
 
 
The control and direction of man depends upon the goodwill and the good state of man, it does not depend upon iron bars and handcuffs. It doesn't depend upon cells or electric-shock machines.
 
 
A society is sick as it has sick people within it. The way to make it well, however, is not necessarily to work only upon the sick and make them well.
 
 
If the members of that society were sufficiently well and able themselves, they would never apprehend the slightest difficulty in pulling out of the mud any fallen fellow. Pulling people up and back into the ranks is not a function of an organization; it is a function and responsibility of man himself. Pulling people back up into health and good fellowship and the game is not dependent upon a group of specialists. It's dependent on man.
 
 
And when helping one's fellows becomes a specialized action to be performed only by the anointed, to be performed only by somebody who wears the right star, badge, or signman is dead! Because the best of man comes into being when he is willing to aid and assist any of his fellows and is permitted to do so.
 
 
We allow any dog to come around and sympathize with us when we're hurt, and even in a cave society they let a dog lick the wound to help it heal. But not in this society! And when men are made to feel that they do not have the right to aid and assist their fellows, but that Joe or Bill or somebody down the street is the only one who should be permitted to wave a magic wand or rattle a magic healing crystal, somebody had better look at the society real good because it's not a well society. Do you see that clearly? ...
 
 
But I would be a very sad man to realize, after years of work, that we had created not a greater freedom in the society but a stronger and more powerful organization in place of existing organizations. ...
 
 
We could, at this time, put together an organization or a group in Scientology sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful to run over everything it came to. This would be a fascinating thing to do. Be a game in itself. And then someday—me gone, other guys gone—all of a sudden there sits this thing, this organization. And somebody has to rise up and say, ‘Auditors of the world, unite; overthrow this monster!’ And everybody would see it go down very plainly, you see. Down it'd go. Then they'd say, ‘Fine! Now we are free.’ And they would get another handful of letters cancelling their certificates.
 
 
I try to look far enough in the future to forecast and predict what might be, so as to not do too many things wrong. You must allow me some percentage. And as I look into the future, I see that we are handling here, material of a potential control and command over mankind which must not be permitted at any time to become the monopoly or the tool of the few to the danger and disaster of the many. ... And I believe that prediction is right.
 
 
And I believe that the freedom of the material which we know and understand is guaranteed only by a lightness of organization, a maximum of people, good training and good, reliable, sound relay of information. And if we can do these things, we will win. But if we can't do these things, sooner or later the information which we hold will become the property of an untrustworthy few. This I am sure, because it has always happened this way. But that's no reason it has to keep on happening this way. ...
 
 
Scientology, well understood, is a very powerful thing. Well used, it can do a great deal for the social order and for the individual. Poorly relayed, poorly communicated, monopolized or used exclusively for gain, it could be a very destructive thing.”          LRH
 
 
sound  Sound snippet (11:59) 
 
        
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
        


        
“Now, we have had five years—five years of consistent, continual research, theory, technique, advance. Five consistent, continual years. The progress of this work has not been interrupted by anything for five years. And we have had five years of organizational chaos. It's interesting, isn't it? Now, when I say chaos, I mean a human organization—where everybody passes slips of paper back and forth.
        
 
No, I am afraid that freedom does not depend upon or thrive well within the iron channels of organizations.”          LRH
 
        
sound  Sound snippet (1:15) 
        


        
“So Dianetics and Scientology organizations, I know after five years’ experience, will never be a business—never be.
        
 
Now, the efficient parts of the organization—the efficient parts today—are the processing center, auditor units, and training units.”          LRH
 
        
sound  Sound snippet (0:26) 
        


        
“The plans for the future of Scientology are actually in the run right  now. They are materializing. They are going forward at this time. The die, in other words, is cast. The modus operandi behind this planning is a very simple thing to understand if you'd only care to look at it. That is, with a minimum of organization, a maximum of dissemination, and still at the same time guarantee the training excellence of an auditor and guarantee the skill and knowledge of those auditors he trains. That's what we're trying to do.”          LRH
        
        
sound  Sound snippet (1:01) 
        


Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     AD..:
After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”. (HCOB 30 Apr 69)  See also at ‘reactive mind’ in vocabulary.
     Black Dianetics:
1. Hypnotism. (5109C17A)  2. There are those who, to control, resort to narcotism, suggestion, gossip, slander–the thousands of overt and covert ways that can be classified as Black Dianetics. (Journal of Scientology Issue 3-G, Sept. 1952, Danger: Black Dianetics!)
     BPL:
Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked.
     BTB:
Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked.
     CSI:
Church of Scientology International’. A senior level within the Church of Scientology.
     ED:
Executive Directive’. Issued by any Executive Council and named for the area it applies to. Thus ED WW, meaning issued to Worldwide. They are valid for only one year. They contain various immediate orders, programs, etc. They are blue ink on blue paper. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R). Note that the rules for LRH ED's are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading.
     HAS:
Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist’. This level teaches about elementary communication and control. Processes taught are training drills on communication and to put the student at cause over the environment (TRs 0-4).
     HCO (Division):
Hubbard Communications Office’. It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications.
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC ED's (Secretarial ED's). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PL's are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58)
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     third dynamic:
There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations.
The ‘third dynamic’ is the urge towards existence in groups or individuals. Also referred to as the ‘group dynamic’.


Go to top of this page


Advertisement