Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

L. Ron Hubbard® vs A New Order (2)  or
     Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after
(2)
(About ‘Information’, Primary Rundown, Qual Library and Tech issues.
       Including also various proposals to solution)
(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.


Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after  (page 2)

Disappearance of information directs its attention towards that which was available and in use when L. Ron Hubbard was still seen in public, but later on for one reason or another went out of sight or was discontinued when he was no longer seen in public.
Arrival of new information is about that which was newly introduced when L. Ron Hubbard was not seen in public anymore, but was not in existence or in use when he was still seen in public.
>>> Above are the criteria and all I do here is draw attention to various of these. <<<

Go to “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)” index page



 
Back to Main Index The arrival of new information (3):
  Changes in how new tape recordings are being released, conflicting practices and approaches observed

The original master recordings of Ron's lectures are carefully handled to preserve the vital tech they contain.

“What it Takes to Bring Ron's Lectures to You” is the title of an article published in the promo publication ‘The Path to Truth; Ron's Recorded Legacy of the Tech’ issued by Golden Era Productions in 1993. You find this article on pages 4 & 5. The information relayed in this article is quite significant and speaks for itself, you can consult it in full here (pop-up window). Illustration on the right is also taken from this article.

 
Go back The conflict

It tells in detail about all the trouble that was went through restoring the original recordings, even by getting the original type of recorders “so that their exact recording qualities could be measured and duplicated”. We are being told about the “ideal scene” of to “return the sound to what it sound like before it ever hit the microphone – or even make it sound better than it did in the real universe!” It tells about “state-of-the-art components, some of which were built by GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS technicians” and so on to make that ideal scene a reality.

What we are not being told about however is the editing implemented in these recordings. What is the value of doing so much effort to restore original recordings to as it sounded for those who were present at the actual lectures, and putting “many hundreds of man hours and painstaking application of exact technical principles” into this if you edit out duplicate words, all sounds from the audience, and more seriously deleting various whole paragraphs or parts of sentences from various of these lectures. You see, I personally find it very disturbing to being told about how much effort is done to deliver us a Valuable Final Product, and then find out about what else had been done, which this promo article (nor any other promo or announcements) do not say one single word about!  And this editing can easily be confirmed by consulting the original reel to reel releases from the earlier years. Simply listen to the reel to reel and read the transcripts of the edited version. Various referrals for example to Mary Sue Hubbard appear removed in their entirety, and we are also missing out on sections where L. Ron Hubbard talks about his first-born son ‘Nibs’. Various names of persons are also edited out, this by the way we find is also done in HCOB's and HCO PL's.

It is good to know though that at one time or another any of the recorded lectures have been sold to Scientology public or auditors and various, a copy of almost anything could be produced, usually at the production cost of about $14 for each or $28 per reel (usually 2 lectures, one on each side). There are people out there in the field who have all these things, simply because they purchased these things.

The article ends of with: “The final product of GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS tape production lines is you, the listener, clearly hearing every word that Ron said in the lecture, as if he was right there in the room with you.”.
The question is: “Is this still true if you think about what you may not have heard (as it was edited out), but which was actually said at the time of the actual lecture given?”.
And the closing sentence: “Our ultimate product is your full duplication and use of LRH's technology to move up THE BRIDGE to Clear and OT!”.

I think though that most people would want to have the authentic recordings as they were. And of course improvements can be made of the sound on these recordings. You see, if you leave them pretty much as they were, with the original introductions by L. Ron Hubbard in where he is welcoming and commending various persons and with the original applauds belonging to the particular lecture (instead of a standard clapping which is implemented and the same on every tape), now these things would truly give you a feel of as if you were actually there!

So, editing would be alright as long as it does not interfere with the integrity of the original recording. But one simply should not do things that are not intended to be done and hence violate this very integrity!

 
Go back About various types of tape editing

There are some rules about what can be done with tape editing and what not, and they are pretty clear.

        
Purpose:  To ensure excellent quality reproduction of voice in tape and record production. ...
        
 
No.  1 
Receives master quality tape copy or B master from Tape Master library tape to go into production (whether as tape or record).
 
 
No.  2
Listens to quality of tape.
 
 
No.  3
Edits out all snaps, pops, coughs of audience (where possible) and LRH coughs (where possible). Cuts out any phrases which might in some way downgrade Scientology, Scientologists or Central Organizations.”          LRH
 
 
(from HCO PL 5 Oct 59 “Tape and Record Production Hat”)
 

And then there is the issue of the data that some specific recording contains. This is basically about deleting various passages out of certain tape recordings as these bits of information may not be appropriate for some student on some level. If you are just learning how to subtract and multiply, then you will not at the same also teach this person about the higher mathematics. He will not know where you will be talking about, as it will not be the correct gradient. For example the Student Hat course contains various tapes to be listened to. And these tapes are taken out of a level 6 course which is the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC). Some of these tapes contain some more advanced material, and these bits of information should not be offered to a person just learning about how study is done in Scientology. The tape sets available for this Student Hat course have these passages edited out of them, but then the SHSBS lectures set does indeed contain these passages. As far as I know this is the only course where this kind of editing has been applied to. Anyway this editing was done for a specific target, which is the Student Hat. And since the time that this data had been introduced in the SHSBC it has become the first step to be done before getting trained as an auditor. It is logical that some adjustments had to be implemented for these green persons (various info about this is given in HCO PL 16 Apr 65 “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”). A result of this is also that the unedited version is always available for the more advanced student. It does then not cover nor justify all the editing implemented by Golden Era Productions.


Then what about editing because of political reasons? Following quotations appear to enervate that argument:
        
“I hereby declare Scientology to be nonpolitical and nonideological.
        
 
Scientology is for a free people and is itself on this date declared free of any political connection or allegiance of any kind whatever.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 III “Politics, Freedom from”)
 

        
“Nonpolitical in nature, Scientology welcomes any individual of any creed, race or nation.”          LRH   
(from “The Aims of Scientology” - Sept 1965 - published in The Auditor #10, late 1965)
        


The best known and most distributed lectures were the ‘Philadelphia Doctorate Course’ lectures (originally given in 1952-53). I've discussed these in more detail here (separate window). The irony here is also that on the 2 pages following this Golden Era Productions article we see advertised the new release of these lectures, and this time various phrases disappeared. I give a thorough summary of the most disturbing editing implemented in these tapes at given link.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The arrival of new information (4):
  A closer look at ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ and its relation/difference with ‘Board Policy Letters’ examined

 
Go back A new issue-type introduced in early 1982

“Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form.
(from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type, Scientology Policy Directives”)

This ‘SPD 1’ gave as a reason given for the existence of this issue-type:
        
“Examples of the need for such an issue type are policies by the Church concerning the sales and administration of a new technical breakthrough, or data concerning new Public Divisions courses, or specific policies concerning new magazines that the Church might develop.
        
 
While new policy, not written by LRH, is discouraged, it has been found that occasionally new policy is required. As the Founder has said concerning this subject ‘one cannot totally close the door on change.’”
 
The question is if that is a good enough reason.

Considering:
        
“Where no policy covers, an experienced, quick person can easily extend the idea of general policy to cover it, knowing it isn't covered.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 13 Mar 65 “The Structure of Organization, What Is Policy?”)
        
And:
        
“It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”)
        
Which would indicate that adequate basic policy had already been developed and worked out. Then adjustments could easily be made through the various other issue-types already in existence. For example Executive Directives, which is policy that carry a 12-month validity, but can be reinforced. But existing additional issue-types could be used for such a purpose. So, why does one need an additional policy issue-type for that? And is doing so actually allowed?

More guidelines are found:
        
“Anyone on the I/A [=Issue Authority] lines for these issues must totally make sure that the issue is actually needed, and that it is not covered already by existing HCO PLs. It has often been found that due to the MUs of those concerned, ‘policy’ has been issued that was not actually needed, and already much better covered in existing HCO PLs!”
(from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type, Scientology Policy Directives”)
        
And from a later date (1997):
        
“Scientology Policy Directives are used to set forth internal administrative or Church policy. They are not senior to HCO PLs or HCOBs, or any other LRH issue type, and may not cancel any LRH issue. Indeed, SPDs do not even cover the same subjects as the LRH issues.”
(from SPD 26 Jan 97 “Scientology Policy Directives, Background”)
        
Contrary to what it says in these SPD's as cited here above there exist various SPD's that do discuss matters already “covered in existing HCO PLs”. Furthermore LRH-quotations had been taken from existing HCO PL's written by L. Ron Hubbard and had been incorporated into these SPD's, and where found necessary the original text from L. Ron Hubbard had been adjusted to make them fit. Now, if you do that you definitely risk that it will start to mean something else as words actually had been substituted and so on. And then, if LRH policy on the matter already existed then why, why, why, issuing an SPD about it? Is it acceptable to alter LRH-writing like this?

It is somewhat difficult though to reconcile the SPD issue-type with:
        
If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 5 Mar 72 II “Policy: Source of”)
        
Particularly when various of these SPD's with adjusted texts from L. Ron Hubbard were actually being enforced as “unequivocal Church policy” (cited from ‘SPD 28’ issued 13 Aug ’82). The BPL issue-type generally did not receive this sort of authority or importance added to them. It was policy, but more of an useful nature. Actual policy did already exist on matters, BPL's served to fill in the blanks.
The SPD's seem to aim at a very different treatment. In fact SPD's are being used as if they had the authority of an actual HCO PL. Or even as being senior to actual LRH policy letters. A notorious and persistent example of this is SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings” (discussed in my study “Scientology: Freeloaders vs Ex-staff members”, see Scientology index page or go here, separate page). This particular reference is a prime example of how wrong it can get. 

And here one may wonder, does anything more need to be said?

 
Go back ‘Scientology Policy Directive’ (SPD)  vs  ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL)

If one is so eager to get rid of BPL's, and non-LRH issues (described in detail in chapter: “The disappearance of information (2) - An odd misconception about ‘Keeping Scientology Working’”), then why do we allow SPD's? The argument given to me by some Sea Org members was that these SPD's had gone through the approval lines. But then again, had the BPL's and BTB's not gone through some approval lines as well once upon a time? The response I usually get is that we had squirrels on the lines back then. Now, how do we know that we do not have squirrels on the lines right now? When these BPL's and BTB's were around we still had some person going by the name L. Ron Hubbard going around (or so we are told), but when the SPD issue-type made its entry we don't see him at all anymore. So, which time instance would be more safe?

It appears that these approval lines for BPL's were designed to catch up on errors according to HCO PL 11 Nov 76 II “BPL Appeal Lines”. The reference can be consulted in full here (pop-up window).

HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”, reissue notice of 15 Jun ’70 says:  (underlining is mine)
        
Note: Neglect of this PL has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out, international effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs.”          LRH
        

Practically these SPD's did replace the function of the old BPL's which were discontinued since 1980. Some 2 years later the SPD line was created. The BPL and the BTB issue-type format were established at such a time that the HCO PL and the HCOB issue-types were to be reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only. This was back in January 1974. Following that projects were started to reissue the non-LRH HCO PL's and HCOB's as BPL's and BTB's.
Rather ironically since the BPL was being discontinued we see various HCO PL's being issued that were signed by various International Management terminals during these very early 80's. And so we are experiencing a déjà vu here when we read:  (underlining is mine)
        
“... HCO PL's that have been written by the Board of Directors, or the Watchdog Committee or ED Int are being cancelled as HCO PL's and will be reissued as Scientology Policy Directives, so that the HCO PL line remains an LRH line.”
(from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type, Scientology Policy Directives”)
        

Also the appeal line for the SPD's is identical to the one that previously was in use for the BPL's:
        
“HCO PL 11 November 76 Issue II BPL APPEAL LINE also applies to Scientology Policy Directives.”
(from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type, Scientology Policy Directives”)
        
A large portion of this HCO PL appears quoted in this SPD itself (see various citations of this in following section entitled “Approval Lines - Review - Appeal Line”.


“Hidden Data Line”

An opposing argument to the similarity of BPL's and SPD's is that the latter nicely acts as an actual hidden data line. Once I inquired in AOSH EU to see Scientology Policy Directives. I went around there for a while, but no one could direct me to a single copy of any SPD. They were also not being stored in the Qual Library. In fact very few staff did know about the existence of this issue-type. The routing on the various SPD's may also not include Scientology public. Mostly they seem to be written for staff use only. The BPL's on the other hand were a common issue, available and issued basically to any Scientologist, public as well as staff.

        
“The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and Tapes I do and release.
        
 
All the lower-level materials are in the HCOB's, PLs or on tapes.
 
 
The data line isn't hidden. It's there for anyone to have. That there's lots of it is possibly a source of trouble in releasing it. But it's all on courses on Academies or Saint Hill. You could have a copy of everything in the tape library if you wanted. It might cost a lot, but you could have it.
 
 
There is no hidden data line.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”)
 


It indeed does look like that the previous and revoked Board Policy Letter (BPL) issue-type had been reinstated but was now referred to as the Scientology Policy Directive (SPD) issue-type. Nevertheless they appear to be the same thing! Ah well, at least somewhat similar ...

 
Go back Approval Lines - Review - Appeal Line

        
“The approval line for these issues will be the Flag Network Coordination Council, all Exec Strata personnel, the Authority Verification and Correction Unit, the Executive Director International and the Watchdog Committee for all Scientology Policy Directives.”  (underlining is mine)
        

        
“All Scientology Policy Directives must be reviewed annually in the month of December by a Special Project under the supervision of AVC* and any issues found to be destructive, not effective, or in need of revision or update must be handled.”
        

        
“... if a Scientology Policy Directive, ‘... on receipt in an org is perceived to be erroneous or potentially destructive, the matter must be drawn to the attention of the FR* with CSW*.
        
 
The FR must verify the CSW, and if found correct must add his own observations on the issue, sending the completed package via his FR command channels to AVU [today AVC], Flag, for review and correction or cancellation.
 
 
The issue is not activated in the org until its correction is received, or until AVU advises that the appeal is rejected.
 
 
If the issue is activated and then found to be incorrect, the same procedure is followed.’
(L. RON HUBBARD, HCO PL 11 November 76 II BPL APPEAL LINE)”
(from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type, Scientology Policy Directives”)
 

It is good to have such lines, however they also should be followed up on and actually working.

Since 1992 I have reported the matter of SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings” very extensively indeed. All the listed terminals and various others of whom I thought should know about this have repeatedly been informed about it and have been provided with full documentation. I have however never received the least response of any of these particular listed terminals nor anyone else. Also there have been no changes, according to my knowledge, in regards to Freeloaders/Ex-Staff since.
I have been recommended by various Church individuals to just continue sending my reports and simply nudge them. However I have done that during 12 years and that did do absolutely nothing. So, the time is here that it can not be withheld anymore. If not for other reasons it would be for this Keeping Scientology Working.

The question is: “Can these SPD's be corrected, or is this a line that has been established that is subject to NO change and these simply ARE to be enforced no matter what, them being incorrect, off-policy, a ‘hidden data line’ or anything?”
All this in spite of:
        
“It would also be a Comm Eva offense (crime) to activate a Scientology Policy Directive when knowing it is destructive.”
(from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type, Scientology Policy Directives”)
        

 
Go back L. Ron Hubbard  vs  ‘Scientology Policy Directives’

SPD 26 Jan 97 “Scientology Policy Directives, Background” claims various things about L. Ron Hubbard's involvement in establishing this SPD-line:  (underlining is mine)
        
LRH personally advised and directed Church management to create ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ as an issue type.
        
 
LRH insisted that the Church establish a distinct issue type for policy for such matters. This occurred during the time of the 1982 corporate reorganization to establish the structure of the Church--the structure which LRH advised to lead Scientology stably into eternity. LRH recognized, as part of this, that Church management would need their own type of policy issue in the years to come.”
(from SPD 26 Jan 97 “Scientology Policy Directives, Background”)
 
But we actually can not verify any of this, I have never seen anything from the hand of LRH about all this either. If there is, please direct me to it!

This particular SPD is of particular interest, the full text can be consulted here (pop-up window).

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The arrival of new information (5):
  The ‘new ways’  or  Turning from a self-correcting system into something where others can be given the power to control you?
(‘Enforced Disconnection’ & ‘Declaring people’ since 1983)

These new ways seems to have been implemented in a rather subtle way. The issuance of HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” played a rather large role in this. The revision of this reference was released on the same day (and one day apart) from references that were also active in supporting these new ways of how to go about things. These were HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” & HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” (Limited Distribution).
Here I draw attention to the fact that a certain kind of ways of how to go about matters got changed or were introduced at about the very same time. It is about interference with the right to make decisions concerning your own self-determinism, and before all the right to be able to defend your case effectively. It is about the use of disconnection but it is also what you actually write about people, and how you inform other people.
When I did my comparison research of all the 8 existing versions of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” I found various ambiguities that were introduced in the 10 Sept ’83 revision of this HCO PL. Since their introduction injustice appear to pass by easier, as it seems unnoticeable, gets ignored, is harder to get a grip on, remain uncorrected or are subject to tremendous delays. Today the victim of injustice has been stripped from various tools enabling him to reverse this if a mistake (purposely or out of ignorance) had been made. We have had our witch hunts through history, and all ages have had their form of McCarthyism, let's not start making ground for new ones.

The deal with Scientology is communication, being in communication with your fellow man, being in communication with your past (this is what auditing is all about), and being in communication with all the things around you. If you want to get somewhere with your bicycle, well, then your feet better be in communication with the pedals. And there we have these things called human relations. I personally see that various Scientologists quickly use the tool of so-called disconnection. Rather than handling something that often easily can be resolved by simply talking to some person, one may resort to take the easy way out i.e. look the other way rather than confront and actually just talk to that person. And then you may be start talking to others about your possible grudge, of course with the person that you should have talked to being conspicuous by his absence! I think we all can see the danger that can come from that. No-communication or denial to communicate does not solve anything in the longer run, where continued communication actually can achieve or clear up something. But even communication like in actually ‘getting across’ can not be enforced, it should however be attempted to be used when there is this chance! Scientology is about more communication and not less communication, In spite of that people seem very quick to cut the communication if you bring up some subject. I have seen persons reasoning in ways like: “Hmm, he is critical.”, “Ah, now he argues.”, “Hmm, can he be suppressive?”, “Well, let's be ready to disconnect!”. You may think that I am exaggerating here, but actually I am dead serious about it! Well people, let's be sensible about these things, don't make up ideas, let's communicate when we do have this opportunity! If you do that then at least you will be able to find out if in fact you made an error in judgment, if you do not you may never find out. And who knows, may be some witches will be saved from burning at the stake.

Click at respective below links for consulting my findings about:  (separate windows)
    1) “Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study”
  2) “Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified”

The question is: “Who is in charge, you or someone else?”

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The arrival of new information (6):
  HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”: Collecting information and control

In this chapter it is solely my intention to point out the possible dangers if a good system that works well for our survival would fall into the wrong hands, gets adjusted, or is used wrongly.

 
Go back Report system

If you aim to run some organization, you also need to have some method so that you can find out about these things that need corrective action. Misconceptions and misapplications must be known before you can actually do something about them. What you need is an inflow of information. Now, how do you acquire the information, and how do you verify its reliability? In 1965 a practical line was established for this, we see the issuance of HCO PL 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”. This is basically an effective and simple report system, initially for use of Staff Members for anything that occurred within the organization that needed attention.

“Only in this way can bad spots in the organization be recognized and corrected. For reports other than one's own collect and point out bad conditions before those can harm the org.”          LRH    
(from HCO PL 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”)

The reference lists 21 different kind of reports that can be written. See full listing here (pop-up window).
The last one listed is: Knowledge Report. On noting some investigation is in progress and having data on it of value to Ethics.” And this is the first time we get to hear this name: “Knowledge Report”.

There are some rules for severity and situations:
        
“Unless the staff member is part of a portion or an org that is under a state of Emergency, FIVE such reports can accumulate before Ethics takes any action. But if the report is deemed very serious, Ethics may take action at once by investigating. ...
        
 
The most serious reports, which are the only ones taken up at once, are technical alter-is, non-compliance, any false reports, false attestations, no reports, misdemeanours, crimes and high crimes. The others are left to accumulate (except in Emergency when all reports on that portion or org are taken up at once).”          LRH    
(from HCO PL 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”)
 

And of course, if you receive something like this you have the right to query or make a request for withdraw, as you may have information that the writer of the report has overlooked or was not aware of. These rights that you have are laid out in more detail in HCO PL 15 Dec 65 “Ethics Chits” (please consult this reference for details).

And you do not even have to write an Ethics Chit about it, just send your observation to the Ethics section and write on the top of it ‘Things that shouldn't be’:
        
“If you see something going on in the org or incorrect that you don't like, and yet do not wish to turn in an Ethics chit, or indeed don't know who to report, WRITE A DESPATCH TO THE INSPECTION OFFICER.
        
 
Tell him what you have noticed and give him what data you can.
 
 
The Inspection Officer will then investigate it and make a report to the right executives or turn in an Ethics chit on the offending persons himself.
 
 
Don't just natter if there's something you don't like.
 
 
Tell the Inspection Officer. Then something can be done about it.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Aug 65 “Things That Shouldn't Be” - full text of the policy letter is given)
 

It appears that this report system has been implemented for reason of to simply reverse non-survival situations, and to see to it that the same errors or other are not repeated. The line established is in no way harsh, forced upon or unjust.

 
Go back HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”  vs  HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review”

Something changed with the issuance of HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”. It says:
  “And with this PL, Knowledge Reports are enforced as follows:  
         1. 
Anyone who knew of a loafing or destructive or off-policy or out-ethics action and WHO DID NOT FILE A KNOWLEDGE REPORT becomes an ACCESSORY in any justice action taken thereafter.
        
  2. 
Forbidding anyone to write a Knowledge Report makes the person forbidding it and the person accepting this illegal order both accessories to any later action taken.
 
  3. 
Failing to write down a disclosed crime in a worksheet or a report makes the person failing to do so an ACCESSORY to the crime.
 
  4. 
Failing to file a knowledge report written by another makes one an accessory to the contents.
 
  5. 
Removing knowledge reports from files makes one an accessory to the contents.
 
  6. 
Failing to advice the International Justice Chief of serious charges in knowledge reports makes one an accessory to the reported outness.
 
  7. 
Knowingly false statements made in knowledge reports, when proven false beyond any reasonable doubt with intent to cause trouble, may become the subject of Chaplain's Court with damages forwarded. ...
 
  8. 
Any person who knew of an outness or crime and failed to report it and thus became an accessory receives the same penalty as the person disciplined as the actual offender.”
 
 
(from HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”, its revision from 26 Aug ’82 added the word Knowingly, given in this type style)
 

I will let these sentences speak for themselves, but it seems rather harsh this time. It speaks a lot about “accessory to the crime” and such. It's like having this sword of Damocles hanging above your head all of the time.
Question: “Why was there all of a sudden need for the issuance of this. Was the previous Ethics Chit report system not adequate enough? Why would it not have been adequate enough?”

One consequence is that it can be interpreted from these sentences that Knowledge Reports have to be written, no matter what. Even if some situation was actually handled prior to reporting it to the Ethics section. Because you may become “accessory to the crime” if it appears later that it was not handled. How would you know, well, better write your report then!
One problem may arise though, and that is the existence of HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review”. This reference lists 36 steps of “Ethics actions in degree of severity”, it starts with “... inspecting it silently” and ends with (if it ever gets to that point) “Expulsion from Scientology”.

Below I quote the first 9 of them:
         “1. 
Noticing something non-optimum without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently.
        
  2. 
Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person.
 
  3. 
Requesting information by Ethics personnel.
 
  4. 
Requesting information and inferring there is a disciplinary potential in the situation.
 
  5. 
Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.
 
  6. 
Talking to the person derogatorily.
 
  7. 
Investigating in person by Ethics.
 
  8. 
Reporting on a post condition to Ethics.
 
  9. 
Reporting on a person to Ethics.”          LRH
 
 
(from HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review”)
 

We can see that the first 8 steps do not require any report written on the matter.

Feeling obliged to write reports on everything you see concerning your fellow staff mates, well, what kind of working atmosphere does this create? It may very well be that I am exaggerating, but there really is a lot of attention on that people are writing their reports. This can also be seen from the Religious Technology Center (RTC) website. It seems to have a lot to do about writing your reports. On its start page we see already on the top of the page the mention of “Send a Report to RTC” (see here, external link). If you click on that link you get to a form where you can enter all of your details you with to report. There is also the page for “Matters of RTC Concern” (see here, external link) (links last checked: 10 Apr 2013). It is all about reports, and not much more. Why does it need all these reports? HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports” was by the way released shortly after that RTC had come into being (incorporated 1 Jan ’82). The urge to write reports and send to RTC was instigated at least as early as 19 Jul ’83. A form carrying this date and issued by RTC was entitled: “Keeping Scientology Working Alert Form”. It started of with a definition of squirrel, then the form asks various questions like “Name of the squirrel/squirrel group”, “Where are they located?”, “Who is involved in the activity?”, “What are they doing that is squirrel?”, and so on. This outline is still followed on the RTC website to this day.

Well, I suddenly realized that HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports” actually made a difference, which realization caused me to write these lines. In the period after its issuance the Knowledge Report system is far too often used as a tool to get even with other persons. Per my personal experience it seems not always being used as a means to help the fellow staff mates and/or public. I have also met various persons that were of the opinion that one has to report every little thing that seems not totally alright. Then in the media the Knowledge Report system is often referred to as some kind of tell-tale system, or simply playing Judas. This could turn out like this sometimes, although not as a rule. Realize that people always seem to find ways to misuse something that was originally developed with a good intent.

 
Go back Control factor  vs  Creation of a ‘snitch’ system?

        
“IT IS A FAILURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEMBERS TO CONTROL THEIR FELLOWS THAT MAKES A GROUP HARD FOR ALL TO LIVE AND WORK WITH. ...
        
 
And get a REAL group in return that, collectively, can control the environment and prosper because its group members individually help control each other.”
(from HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”)
 

From the above the Knowledge Report system could be perceived being a tool that is used to keep others in line. A justice action then that is requiring control. The harshness of the action and the control implemented actually lays the basis for and is rather likely to call into being snitches or informers. Such does not forward a group spirit, rather the contrary.
In addition one does not get a “REAL group” when one has to “control” one another. A group consists of people that share a common purpose and its members work together towards an agreed upon goal. If some member fails to do so, he then stops being a real member of that group. If that occurs then one should inquire if that member actually shares the common agreed upon purpose. If it is found that he does not, he then should leave the group. The tool of implementing “control” is not going to correct that sort of thing. All you can do is file a report if an observed unethical behaviour in some person persists, but only if the previous actions as listed in HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review” have failed.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:
        
“The purpose of justice is to clear the organization and environment.
        
 
One cannot make clears in an uncleared environment. Justice is the auditor of the group.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 12 Apr 65 “Justice”)
 
But he also wrote:
        
“I have concluded that man can not be trusted with justice.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 “Ethics Penalties”)
        
And:
        
“Just because the world is injust is no reason we must ever be.”          LRH
(from ‘LRH FCO 1205R’, ca 1970)
        

Then would “control each other” be a good thing to have?

A very relevant question may very well be: “Who actually wrote or compiled HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports” ?”

 
Go back A note about HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write-ups”  (also issued as HCOB same date and title)

O/W = Overt act/Withhold. An overt can be defined as a bad deed or something you didn't do that harmed someone else. A Withhold is simply not telling about something because you may believe that it would hurt you, or results in you receiving punishment if it was disclosed.

HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write-ups” itself gives as reason for it being issued:
        
“In recent past years, people were apparently writing up their O/Ws as an action done outside of a formal auditing session, and they were being nagged on the subject. some abuses were occurring because of it, which could happen if the specifics of the action were not known.”
        
I can add to this that prior to receiving auditing it is suggested that you write down any of these things as this would save you on auditing hours, and thus will save you some money. If you chose to do so, you were send to the Ethics Officer, where you then were to study this HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write-ups”, after which you will start writing these things down. This Ethics Officer would then verify if you have followed the correct format as laid out in the reference.
The thing that is new is that it is not particularly handled anymore as part of the auditing session, but it became an action done outside of it.

There exists actually a reference that puts limitations to doing this or may even outright forbid it:
        
“Lists of withholds required of a crew member or staff member without proper sessioning are now illegal.”          LRH
        
Interesting is also:
        
“Challenging people out of session as ‘having withholds’ is illegal.”          LRH
         (both above quotations from HCOB 2 Jan 71 Illegal Auditing”)
        
It has urged some to figure that the O/W Write-up form was purposely instigated to be used as a tool for gathering information on a person. Simply because O/W Write-ups are done outside a formal auditing session the information gathered through them could be used against the person. Then it is reasoned that as they are in the person's own handwriting, that they even could be used to discredit the person in a court of law. Thus turning to a means to put a control over the person.

The references of how to go about this writing up these so-called O/W's are covered in the Scientology Axioms [first published in “The Creation of Human Ability - A handbook for Scientologists” (1954)]. The main axiom is also quoted in its entirety in HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write-ups”:
        
“AXIOM 38:
        
 
1: 
STUPIDITY IS THE UNKNOWNESS OF CONSIDERATION.
2: 
MECHANICAL DEFINITION: STUPIDITY IS UNKNOWNESS OF TIME, PLACE, FORM AND EVENT.
1: 
TRUTH IS THE EXACT CONSIDERATION.
2: 
TRUTH IS THE EXACT TIME, PLACE, FORM AND EVENT.
 
 
Thus we see that failure to discover Truth brings about stupidity.
 
 
Thus we see that the discovery of Truth would bring about an As-is-ness by actual experiment.
 
 
Thus we see that ultimate truth would have no time, place, form or event.
 
 
Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask a truth.
 
 
Lying is an alteration of time, place, event, or form.
 
 
Lying becomes Alter-is-ness, becomes Stupidity.
 
 
(The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case's own or another's lies).
 
 
Anything which persists must avoid As-is-ness. Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.”          LRH
 

This writing down of these things, so to say confess your bad deeds, could in fact be a very good thing. The Catholic Church and various also have something like this in use. It's just good to come clean. If you do not, you may lay the basis for a motivator. A motivator can be defined as something that will justify your bad deed. See, every person likes to be right and considered by others to always do right, but as long as a bad deed is hidden from all others, it may evolve into something that will be justified by repeating this bad deed. In Scientology this is called the Overt-Motivator-Sequence. If you get rid of the overt (bad deed), you will also get rid of the Motivator.

It suffices to just tell someone about it. The priests have this obligation of confidentiality, they may not share this with anyone else. The same goes for Scientology. Although it says near the end of HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write-up”:
        
“The original of the O/W write-up must go into the person's pc* folder, regardless of whether or not any copy is additionally given to the MAA* or Ethics Officer.”
        
I recall that prior to this if the overt was deemed of a more serious nature or required the attention of the Ethics section, simply a report was written by the auditor and send to the Ethics Officer, meaning not a copy of the whole thing.

        
“ETHICS REPORTS 
        
 
When an auditor finds an ethics situation with a pc, he should note it for the C/S. It is, however, illegal to try a pc on data revealed in his sessions. For this reason, a report is not written to Ethics nor is any data turned over to Ethics on the matter. But the auditor must make mention of the ethics situation on his Auditor's C/S so that the C/S is informed.
 
 
Sometimes one finds another person's offenses than the pc's in getting off withholds. These are reported to Ethics for any needed investigation, with a copy to the folder.
 
 
The only exception to the above is when a pc is receiving an HCO Confessional. In this case, a Knowledge Report of the overts and out-ethics disclosed in the Confessional is written to HCO. A copy of the report is always left in the pc folder.”
(from HCOB 10 Nov 87 “Miscellaneous Reports”)
 

Above reference is found in ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes (1991 release): ‘Volume 1’ on pages 850/51; ‘Volume 4’ on pages 261/62; ‘Volume 5’ on pages 296/97 & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes (1991 release): ‘Volume XIII’ on pages 158/59. It appears that we really can't miss out on this reference. It is attributed as deriving from L. Ron Hubbard, what bothers me however is the date of the reference (almost 2 years after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard).

The contents of these pc folder's are considered confidential and may not leave this folder, or used for other purposes. Data as contained in Ethics folders go more easily around. Anyway the data as contained in these Ethics folders can and have been used for severe Ethics actions. In that respect, how confidential are these data about overts/withholds today?

If these lines are this unclear, sensitive personal information can be used as a means to control someone else. Then is this a way of just getting information about others or is it something that will help your fellow man to clean things up within him/herself?
I say: “There is good control and their is bad control, you figure it out! Scientology is about that YOU understand YOU, and when you do that then you ARE in control!”


Relevant information is also found in my study “The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology”, chapter “Sec Checking (2): ‘False Purpose Rundown’ (FPRD) (Jun 84)”, see in particular section entitled “A thin line between that which is revealed in auditing sessions and may turn actionable on the person”, or click here (separate window).

 
Go back Today's reality

Today Ethics seems to have turned into something that seems determined to find fault with people. It can be quickly replied to that if you do not like something (critical) or don't want to do a particular thing that you get to hear: “What are your overts?”  I have worked in such atmospheres within the organization and actually this can become quite annoying, of course this is not happening everywhere. But there is this tendency, remember that sword of Damocles. It does happen that when you have said or done something that is actually quite innocent, that the next day you receive a report about it. What happened with the ethics levels as found in HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review”? You can just talk to a person, remember! Ethics did not used to be like that in the earlier days! Ethics was also not given this much attention back then as it is given today. Things could be tough, and confusing, but one did not go around reporting every silly little thing, and in particular have an eye sticking out and purposely looking out for ‘faults’. But we did also not have some Religious Technology Center telling us all the time that you have to write your reports, and always send a copy to them. Another angle of this is if these reports are really getting the required attention, are in fact the things that you are reporting about being handled? So, if you have reported, then ask yourself that question.


        
“The Purpose of Ethics is
        
 
TO REMOVE COUNTER INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
 
 
And having accomplished that the purpose becomes
 
 
TO REMOVE OTHER INTENTIONNESS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
 
 
Thus progress can be made by all.
 
 
Many mechanisms can exist to mask a counter intention.”          LRH    
(from HCO PL 18 Jun 68 “Ethics”)
 

 
Facilities not made available for general use

Back to Main Index Source Information Retrieval  (SIR) - Searchable computer database

Not so many actually know about the existence of this. This system is what it says it is: ‘Source (=LRH) Information Retrieval’.
        
“Executives now have access to all available LRH writings via de computer, and can call for and retrieve any of these Source references in a matter of seconds.”
(from ‘KSW News 21’, [1st half 1987])
        

It was part of INCOMM™ (International Network of Computer Organized Management’). INCOMM was born on July 11, 1982. Per ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) its purpose was to “establish and operate a major international management computer system which assists in the standard application of Scientology policy and technology and as a result facilitates rapid expansion”.
The booklet ‘The Command Channels of Scientology’ (1988) tells further:
        
“INCOMM manages, operates and maintains the Central Computer Bank. The Central Computer Bank is a large computer facility which provides management with many different types of computer programs. These programs increase management's effectiveness so it can better help your org expand.”
        

As a future perspective:
“FUTURE  
        
Real computers will be applied to Scientology management. They are being programmed based on OEC* policy and HCOBs and will have something to operate on which is very sane, logical and prosurvival. The potentials of the whole track computer will be harnessed to the tremendously powerful administrative policy of Scientology to help get that policy IN and increase production.”          LRH    
(from HCO PL 23 Nov 85 “INCOMM”)
        

This ‘Source Information Retrieval’ system basically contained anything ever put down in writing including transcripts of all recorded spoken word by L. Ron Hubbard (material written or spoken by others were not included on this system). It had different entries, such as LRH advices, tape transcripts, HCOB's, HCO PL's, LRH ED's, OOD's (Orders of the Day) and so on. You could type in some words or part of phrases and the system would turn up with any match in any reference. A very useful system as it gave you the context in which these words or phrase had been used (one sentence up and one sentence down), so if you were looking for some specific LRH reference about something then you were likely to find it, and pretty quick too. You were also able to read whole tape transcripts and anything else on this system if you wanted to.
Not everyone in fact had access to this system. It was not available for public, and then only to some staff. Various executives had access to it, and some who could utilize this system to their post duties in the organization (usually HCO personnel and similar). It was also so that one only had access to some part of the database (this relating to their post duties). Very few had access to the full arsenal of the system. For a while I was one of these people. In 1989 I was working on a project compiling courses (checksheets) for staff posts. It was thought that the system would be useful when working on such a project, and indeed it was.

So this was back in 1989, and the system already at that early stage was very extensive indeed. I do not recall that there were references that I could not find. A couple of times however I came across some spelling errors, which I reported so it could be corrected. The system then was not completely fault free yet. Now, such a system would be very usable for anyone using this technology, staff as well as public. They would then not be forced to search through all those thick book volumes and their indexes to find some reference. Yes, undoubtedly this would save lots and lots of time and it would also be very convenient.

Something like this exists already for Jiddu Krishnamurti (released January 1992):Jiddu Krishnamurti - Complete Published Works (cdrom)

“We are pleased to announce that many years of transcription, collation, editing, development and testing is complete. The Text Collection and Index is now available. For the first time, the text of all Krishnamurti's teaching, comprising the equivalent of two hundred individual books, is brought together in one format, stored on a single CD disc.
Krishnamurti had many different meetings over the years; public talks, dialogues, seminars, question and answer sessions, and conversations. The Text Collection contains all his teachings over a fifty-three year period. It includes not only all his books, but also as yet unpublished transcripts of audio and video tapes and even early verbatim reports which were never made generally available.
Such a large body of text needs a means of locating what is required. Over the last two years, a special computer indexing program has been developed. Every word is indexed, freeing the user to locate any topic, phrase, name, or word within seconds. An entire text can be read, or, the Index will automatically extract and highlight relevant passages on any topic. A special system of evaluation ensures that texts of greater significance are sorted and presented first.
Contents:
Early Verbatim Reports (1933-1967) - 3.3 million words
Edited Publications - 2.9 million words (books and booklets 1953-1988)
Transcripts of recordings - 4.1 million words (audio and Video (1965-1980)”

(from promo Krishnamurti Foundation Trust)

It is to be noted that this was a ‘protected’ searchable database, you could not copy the text to somewhere else and you could not print it out.

Now the question then is why something like this has not been issued for LRH material? We know now that a fully working mgmt series cdromdatabase needed for such an initiative was already existing in 1989. Anything which is in those book publications and on that database could be compiled in such a searchable database could very easily be transferred to cdrom-format. For example one for administrative matters (including all HCO PL's), one for (technical issues (including all HCOB's), and one for magazine articles and miscellaneous writings, or something like that. All what has been released is one cdrom and this was only available if you purchased another new release of 3 management policy volumes (issued 2001). On this cdrom accompanying these 3 ‘The Management Series’ volumes you would find the policy letters from volume 0 (basic staff volume) of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ series, together with those 3 management volumes. It had “... a search function to find any reference in seconds. Comprehensive subject index as well as alphabetical and chronological listings.”. At present this is still all what has been made available on cdrom.

So why not facilitating the access to the policies and writings of L. Ron Hubbard as has already been done for Jiddu Krishnamurti, now 12 years ago? Why is this not done yet? The advantages would be undeniable, or would some think that for some reason they would not be or does not want this to happen? Some may say that I am I being too critical about things here. But then, we have to ask ourselves:
        
“Is such a database on cdrom desirable to have?”
        
The answer to that would be:
        
“Yes!”
        
Then we ask:
        
“Do we have such a database available on cdrom for use for Scientology public?”
        
The answer is:
        
“We do not!”
        

We could elaborate on that...

We ask:
        
“Why don't we have such a searchable database available for use? In particular for technical references such as HCOB's and tape lectures such as SHSBC!”
        
Proposed answers:
        
“Is it because inconsistencies would be found in the collective references that are in use THIS day, and that nonetheless are ALL considered valid? Because clashing data would be found in these, and that would surface so very easily IF there was such a database available? Probably so...
But could it also be so that it today is made more difficult to find out if a quotation has been used taken out of context? May be that too, because nowadays quotations from L. Ron Hubbard that we find in the various promo, magazines and other are given without the source where it was deriving from.”
        

 
Epilogue

Back to Main Index Overview, things to consider, and various proposals to solution

 
Go back What are we going to do with the Qual Libraries?
 (includes SIR system)

The answer to that is actually quite obvious. We have the directions of L. Ron Hubbard how to tackle this one. In present time however many of these original materials have become fairly rare, and have been given an antiquarian value. Another problem is that we will not find originals of all of these in adequate amounts to fill up every Qual Library on this planet. So, what solution can we propose? Well ..., scan all of the original materials with a scanner, place a computer in the Qual Library, and then put together some kind of index system so that you can search. When found what you are looking for you can read the scanning on the computer screen. If some want to print out something, then it should be made possible for the student or researcher to do so (naturally with a fair exchange for each print-out). The larger Public Libraries offer such a system to their visitors, and this can be realized pretty easily. You create a master of this system, after which it can distributed to all Scientology organizations around this planet.
The question that has to be asked here is: “Why is there made no effort of any kind to physically realize this?”. In fact the opposite is happening. Now see, we have these directions from L. Ron Hubbard how to go about this. So, if this is what you think is the proper thing to do, then let your voice being heard!

And then when you are at it, you could place a second computer in the Qual Library. And this computer can be used to install the SIR system. The remimeo and BPI (Broad Publication Issue) and similar should be available for all Scientologists to search. Non BPI and various should only be accessed via a logging into the system with a password for those who have the permission. We have already a working system like this since quite some time. The question to ask here is also that: “Why has the SIR system not been introduced on a broad scale?”. Once again, if you are of the opinion that making such a system available to students and Scientology public, then let your voice being heard!

You see, if you facilitate the access to all of this material in such a way, you will then also find the information that you are looking for and that pretty quick. This will most definitely also improve your level of understanding tremendously. Where issuing these present series of publications about L. Ron Hubbard and the history of those earlier days most definitely have their use, it is indispensable to actually being able to consult the authentic material that was issued at that time. Once I asked an employee (staff) that was working in the Qualifications Division of an Advanced Organization: “Do you have a stock somewhere where I can consult earlier versions of various references?”. To my astonishment I received the response: “We don't keep old stuff.”. And I thought that this was just great!
Another observation that I made was that the younger staff has a problem to cope with that not all information is actually found in these present book publications. And I thought that these persons did not even seem to realize that the organization that they were working for actually had a history. A history in where many Scientologists actively helped developing technical matters and policy. Once I had a Sea Org staff asking me for a reference wherein L. Ron Hubbard has appreciated handling and procedures developed by others (as in querying that he had ever done that). And I thought: “Doesn't this guy know anything?”. I makes me feel sad that some do not have any of this historical knowledge. Although it is not surprising actually if you do not make this early material available in the Qual Library!

Well, we need to increase the awareness of these people about these things!

 
Go back How to ascertain that something is really deriving from L. Ron Hubbard?

I think there is only one way to ascertain such a thing. We have to put it out into the open. We are hardly being shown any originals, and so some person can issue something and claim that L. Ron Hubbard wrote that. The reality of the matter is in fact that quite a bit of material published in the past received the signature of L. Ron Hubbard underneath it, this then only to be denounced in later years.
On this page and various of my other pages I show clearly that questionable practices have been going on in regards to attributing references to L. Ron Hubbard. In addition there is also some questioning in regards to the actual authenticity of various epoch-making references published during the early ’80's. You see, this is not about being critical and questioning things, this is about to ascertain that in fact we will continue to have the correct technology! That is to say, we have the responsibility to ask questions and to receive verifiable documentation if some things get changed, or if new ways of how to go about things are being introduced.
Per the information that I have the bulk of all policy letters, technical bulletins and such were in fact handwritten. Then if we look at the fiction writing legacy of L. Ron Hubbard they in fact appear machine written. Now, would there be a reason for this being so? Could it be that L. Ron Hubbard had foreseen that there would be some necessity of verification of his authorship for various? This may or may not be so.

Some will have to understand that the responsibility is not given to some isolated persons, no, this is given to each of us individuals! I repeat each individual! Here we have to be reminded about what it said in the reissue notice of 15 Jun 1970 as found in HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working” which tells us:  (underlining is mine)
        
Note: Neglect of this PL has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out, international effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs.”          LRH
        

You may if you wish forward your views to:
        
Religious Technology Center International
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90028 U.S.A.
Phone: (323) 663-3258
Fax: (323) 667-0960
        

 

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.
     AOSH EU:
Advanced Organization Saint Hill Europe’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training, located in Copenhagen, Denmark.
     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.
     AVC (AVU):
Authorization, Verification and Correction Unit’. It is the point at which all Staff, Flag Bureaux and other evaluations and resulting plans, programs, projects and orders are authorized and verified for issue. The unit has the responsibility of catching and handling all errors in such traffic before they are issued.
     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.
     C/S:
A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc. (HCOB 23 Aug 71)
     CSW:
Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
     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.
     ED Int:
Executive Director International’.
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
    FCO:
Flag Condition Order’. Sea Org* issue-type reserved for ethics matters. Equivalent to Ethics Order (Condition Order) as used in lower classed Scientology organizations.
     FR, Flag Rep:
Flag Representative’. The Flag Rep has the primary duty of safeguarding that those actions necessary to the delivery of Scientology by an area or org are implemented and continued and to prevent the destruction of the org by omissions, alter-is or counter-intention and to keep Flag abreast of the existing scene so that efficient operation can be directed. The purpose of the Flag Representative is to find and report situations to Flag and to obtain compliance on orders from Flag. It being understood that such orders result from valid evaluations based on Flag Rep reports, routine reports and always with due attention to the actual statistics of the activity.
     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)
     MAA:
Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in the Sea Organization (senior Scientology organization). See further at ‘Ethics Officer’.
     ‘The Management Series’:
This is part of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volume series in where the references are instead categorized by subject in a numbered series of issues. See further at ‘The Organization Executive Course’ in vocabulary.
     OEC:
Organization Executive Course’. Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
    P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     ‘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).
     pc folder:
preclear folder’. The preclear is the person receiving Dianetics or Scientology processing. The folder contains all information relating to the processing the person is receiving.
     PTS, PTSness:

potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Qual Library:
Qualifications Library’. Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction).  1. There is a Qual Librarian, whose duties are essentially those of a librarian, collecting up the materials, logging and storing them safely, making up cross reference files so that the material can be easily located. (BPL 21 Jan 73R, Use the Library to Restore Lost Technology)  2. Now that takes an interesting librarian because he's the Technical Information Center. (7109C05 SO, A Talk on a Basic Qual)  3. Qual is in the business of finding and restoring lost tech. (BPL 22 Nov 71R, Qual Org Officer/Esto)
     Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PL's and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)
     Sea Org (SO):
Abbreviation for ‘Sea Org(anization)’. This is the senior organization within Scientology that runs the Advanced Organizations and also see to it that Class IV organizations (lower level services) do function well. If needed they may send out missions to correct if things don't run smoothly.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
     ‘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).


Go to top of this page


Advertisement