Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: ‘Security Checking’ - A chronology (2)  or
     How ‘Confessionals’ were regarded as the years passed by

(‘Sec-Checking’ 1959-77: Beginnings, abolishment and Integrity Processing)
(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.

        
“1.
We have no interest in the secrets and crimes of people and no use for them.
        
 
2.
Security checking is often done without regard to the point where the person feels better and so became overrun.
 
 
3.
Security checking is often done in disregard of the state of a person's case.
 
 
4.
Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the ‘security’ furnished is often a false security.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”)  


Scientology: ‘Security Checking’ - A chronology  (page 1, index page)

A complete overview of all the phases of so-called Sec Checking as developed, practiced, used and ordained within the Church of Scientology.

 
Index:

Introduction
(page 1)
         - ‘Security Checking’ and ‘Confessionals’, their differences explained and misuse
- Technical specifics
 
Pre-studies and findings
  1959/62: Boundaries of the overt-withhold mechanism identified & prelude
 
Security Checking abolished
  1968:   “Security Checks Abolished”  (Aug 68)
  1970: “HCOs may not do Confessionals or ‘Sec Checks.’”;
“HCO may only do meter checks.”
 (Nov 70)
  1972: Development of Expanded Dianetics (Ex Dn or XDN)  (Mar-Apr 72)
 
Matters are getting reversed
  1972:
Implementation of Integrity Processing Series & Forms  (Dec 72)
       - ‘Integrity Processing’ versus ‘Sec Checking’
- A rather arguable accredited authorship...
- Integrity Processing Series & Forms (Dec 72)
- Reissue of Integrity Processing Series (May 75)
         (Includes:  Some inconsistent historical claims  &  Who was responsible for Integrity Processing?)
  - Correction Lists (Mar 72)  vs  Integrity Processing Lists (Dec 72)
- Final notices
  1974: “HCO does do Meter Checks. HCO may also need to ask questions”;
Officially reinstating Sec Checking & 1968 HCO PL cancelled  (Sept 74)
  1977: “‘Sec Checking,’ ‘Integrity Processing’ and ‘Confessionals’ are all the exact same procedure”  (Jan 77)
 
The David Mayo episode (Sr. C/S Int. 1978-82)
  1980/81:
Establishment of the Happiness Rundown (HRD)  (Nov 80-Mar 81)
(page 2)
  1982: A package of changes - Brief overview and authorship  (6-10 Mar 82)
           1): “Anyone who refuses a Confessional ... should be turned over to the Ethics Officer”  (6 Mar 82)
           2): “Confessionals Included in Expanded Grade 2 Processes”  (7 Mar 82)
           3): “SHSBC checksheet has been revised to require that SHSBC students give and receive a successful Confessional”  (8 Mar 82)
           4):
No-Interference Area outruled?  (8 Mar 82)
       - Interfering with the ‘No-Interference Area’, gradiently extending its actions as the years went by before finally settling itself (Mar 82 - Apr 83 - Oct 83 - Mar 84 - Jul 85 - Aug 90)
- The transitions of HCOB 23 Dec 71 “The No-Interference Area” (publication history)
- ‘New OT VII’ and the ‘6 month check line’ (since 1982)
           5): “Eligibility for OT Levels” vs Confessionals  (9 Mar 82)
           6): “Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required”  (10 Mar 82)
 
A matter of ‘confidentiality’  
 
1984 1):
Written confessionals (O/W write-ups) send to person's auditing folder  (Mar 84)
           2):
Establishment of False Purpose Rundown (FPRD)  (Jun 84)
       - First mention of FPRD & introduction  (includes notes on ‘Expanded Dianetics’)
- ‘Senior Security Checker’ versus ‘FPRD’
- Further annotations on the FPRD & studies
  1985:
“Overts disclosed in ... Confessional ... are ... subject of Knowledge Report to HCO and are actionable on the person.” & “Evidence of a crime...” (“gotten off in routine auditing”) “...knowingly withheld by a pc until he is in session is actionable by HCO.”  (Jan 85)
       (A thin line between that which is revealed in auditing sessions and may turn actionable on the person is getting thinner and thinner)
  
Epilogue
 
Reflections
         - Finding the criminal vs Case benefit for the individual
- Publication history of HCOB/PL 30 Jul 70 “The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals” - A satire



 
Back to Main Index Introduction

 
Go back ‘Security Checking’ and ‘Confessionals’, their differences explained and misuse

This is another of these matters that have been given a rather negative media presentation of Scientology overall. It is this thing referred to as Security Checking (usually shortened to Sec Checking). It is a term that we recognize from for example in regards to safety precautions that are taken in various companies. These companies of course want to protect their products that may have cost a lot of money to research. These companies then also would usually require you to sign an agreement in where you promise to not reveal company secrets and more such things. If you do violate that it then may result in you being sued by that company. This however is not really what Security Checking within the Church of Scientology was about.

The purpose for the information found in this study is simply to fold out what the original outset was, and more interestingly, what it, through time, turned to be. One should mind here that the term Security Checking actually implicates something done for security reasons. As opposed to the term Confessionals that would have been intended for case benefit of the person. So essentially Security Checking and Confessionals although they use the same auditing technique they have a distinctly different purpose. However one will find in this chronology that each of these terms tend to being used interchangeably at will! I have found that one within the organization may refer to Confessionals when in actual fact it's outcome is used for security reasons, someone intends to find something that can be used against you.
An important difference between the terms is also that information gotten from a Confessional is classified information and may not leave the folder it is kept in. On the other hand Security Checking is commonly done by order of the Ethics Division of the organization, and the information gotten will be send to that unit and they may use it against the person. It is unfortunate that at present the use of the terms are seriously confused within the organization! In the church history we see the expression ‘Security Checking’ getting changed to ‘Confessional’ (1970), then to ‘Integrity Processing’ (1972) only to have it later changed again to ‘Confessional’ (1977). Then we see that, as an example, that BPL 9 Feb 77R “The Handling of Confessionals Course Checksheet” was replaced with HCO PL 16 Jun 84 I “Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course” (underlining is mine). If you switch it around like this then in the final end it just gets rather hard to distinguish what the difference in purpose and area of use would be. This would thus indicate that there is an incorrect use of these terms themselves. Which is interesting, as this way it can also be misused so very easily.

The reality today within the Church of Scientology is that it has become sort of standard practice to start new auditing actions with this confessional procedure (that you have to pay for). Questions are asked “Have you... this? Have you... that?”. If the auditor and/or the C/S finds that any of the answers given require attention of the Ethics Division then a report will be written and send to this unit. This easily it will have left your ‘confidential’ pc folder. Are these actions explained as a security check ordered by the HCO Division? They are not. Nonetheless they leave your pc folder. Something like this was strictly forbidden during the 60's and 70's.
What follows from this is that with this procedure, introduced during the early 80's, that you can exert minute control over the clients.You can have them send to Ethics, there they then have to comply with certain actions and/or demands. If there is no compliance to this from the client then this person's auditing is suspended immediately. Now, guess what the clients will do?

 
Go back Technical specifics

The matter of getting off overts and withholds for the case benefit, in regards to the Grade Chart, would have been dealt with in Grade II, incidentally Grade IV. If this wouldn't have done the trick it would have been addressed with the conditional action Extended Dianetics which was developed during March/April 1972. Nonetheless we see the appearance in December of that year that on a grand scale starts with that which is called for Integrity Processing, which was later (in May 1975) claimed to have been a “new technology”. In regards to processing for the case benefit however this would have been a thus apparent superfluous cause of action. Interesting it gets in January 1977 when we are informed regarding that: “In an effort to get around what was thought to be a public relations scene, the name ‘Security Checking’ was changed to ‘Integrity Processing.’. Here it is thus admitted (just 2 years later) that it was not a “new technology” after all! Which basically admits that the term Integrity Processing was an actual misnomer. But then Security Checking had been cancelled previously by HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”. There was thus here an apparent violation of this policy ongoing!

One can further observe in this chronological overview that as soon as matters were going in a reverse direction that the liberties assumed by the organization and HCO were getting more and more restricted and demanding as the years passed by. The actions permitted were stepping up by a gradient, and everything went into the direction of more and more control, and less freedom for the Scientology parishioner.

Probably an essential difference between Sec Checking for security reasons and Confessionals for case benefit is that typical Sec Checking focuses on just one flow which is “F 2, FLOW TWO, doing something to another.”, whereas case benefit addresses all flows:
        
“F 1, FLOW ONE, something happening to self.
  F 2, FLOW TWO, doing something to another.
  F 3, FLOW THREE, others doing things to others.
  F 0, FLOW ZERO, self doing something to self.”          LRH

(from HCOB 4 Apr 71 “Use of Quad Dianetics”)
        
Focusing on just this one flow could have the consequence that not all mental charge on incidents that have been contacted is gotten rid of or run out. Which in turn increases the potentiality that the person gets an overrun, or cultivates by-passed charge, and thus will get upset. You may after all just be running the wrong flow. This is a problem with the in 1984 released False Purpose Rundown (FPRD). It just runs this one flow. This FPRD as well had been promoted as a “incredible technical breakthrough!”, which is thus a serious misnomer, technically it was thus rather a downgrade (it was extracted from Expanded Dianetics (XDN) that runs all the flows). (see for details chapter on FPRD)

Another vital technical aspect would be the running of an Earlier Similar. The typical procedure of Sec Checking would for, as it says, Security Checking. In essence it is just not interested in case gain, someone just tries to find out something about you. What you have been up to, and that is not deemed permitted for some reason at some place at some time. Earlier Similars is all about case gain. You need to run these as otherwise the person will still be stuck in some restimulation as the mental charge in an earlier similar incident has not been released.

So, there is a self-explanatory factor present here as this one flow is all about finding incidences where you have done something to another. Something thus you could later be forced to face the consequences of, have it used against you, or subject you to outer control, if confessed! Well, you just can't use the other 3 flows for that, now can you. Therefore an auditing action, claimed to be for case benefit, and not running all flows should at least raise some eyebrows! Where it concerns not running Early Similars (if there is one) we know it is not for full case gain (you can have a temporary release at the most).
Either of these circumstances point a finger at that it would be for security type of reasons (contrary to what any person may claim), and are not aiming at full case benefit and you moving on the Grade Chart! Mind that any of this has been (re)introduced since the early 80's. Anyway, with this rule of thumb you can easily and quickly determine which is which.

 
Pre-studies and findings

Back to Main Index 1959/62: Boundaries of the overt-withhold mechanism identified & prelude

Its limitations outlined and noted as early as 1960:
        
“Before I would permit you to believe that the overt-withhold mechanism was a total way of life, I would point out that it applies only to a strata of existence and that it stems from failures to help. ...
        
 
The reason we run O-Ws is that most pcs are on O-W by Transfer, which is to say, when they kick George in the head they get a headache themselves. This makes them think they are George. We use O-W since it explains phenomena found at a low humanoid level.”          LRH
(from HCOB 22 Dec 60 “O-W a Limited Theory”)
 

Research had been ongoing during December 1959 to February 1962 about matters relating to responsibility, justification, overt act and withhold. One could even point a finger at the incident that may have urged looking into these matters. Having a look at HCOB 19 Jan 60 “Casualties” may give you some clues about that.
Anyhow this was a time period that can be referred to as a research into the possibilities, finding out the pro's and contra's of the sort of processing that is referred to as Sec(urity) Checking. We find a fair variety of HCOB's explaining these matters, and some additional data can be found in various HCO PL's and even HCO Information Letters issued during that time period.
Various forms were compiled during 1961-62, issued as HCO WW Security Forms (HCO PL's & HCOB's) and some other issued as HCO Information Letters. We find some of the former included in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume IV, 1960-1961’ (1976 release).
A list of all these can be consulted in link here below:  (pop-up window)
    Security Checking: HCO WW Security Forms & HCO Information Letters (issued: 1961-62)
The intent with these particular lists was not so much as to find fault with the person, but rather to unburden him for his own benefit. For example we can read in HCO Info Letter 23 Feb 62 “Sec Check on Money” in where the person who send it in remarks: “Many people are unable to have money because of overts and withholds upon money. With a Sec Check upon money, we can unstick these blocks and have more money circulating more freely in our universe.”.

 
Security Checking abolished

Back to Main Index 1968: “Security Checks Abolished”  (Aug 68)

HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished” provides for 7 clearly circumscribed reasons why they had been abolished. I list all of them because of their significance here below:
         “1. 
We have no interest in the secrets and crimes of people and no use for them.
        
  2.
Security checking is often done without regard to the point where the person feels better and so became overrun.
 
  3.
Security checking is often done in disregard of the state of a person's case.
 
  4.
Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the ‘security’ furnished is often a false security.
 
  5.
There is public criticism of security checking as a practice.
 
  6.
The existence of lists of crimes in folders often makes it necessary to destroy the folders which may contain other technical data which is constructive and valuable.
 
  7.
If a person is a criminal or has overt acts which affect his case, and speaks of them to an auditor of his own volition, the auditor is bound by the Auditor's Code not to publish, use or reveal them.”          LRH
 
        
[Consult this reference in full and in its original format here (pop-up window). You may further also consult the “Code of Reform” (1968) here, separate window]
        
These are rather clear-cut and not be mistaken about. A last sentence in this reference though however makes the following indicative comment:
        
“Nothing in this policy letter alters standard grade processing or rudiments.”          LRH
        
This is not actually to be taken very lightly. It would propose the idea and concept that “standard grade processing or rudiments* would actually be sufficient. And why wouldn't it?
* rudiments (ruds):  1. Setting the case up for the session action. This includes ARC (communication) breaks, PTPs (Present Time Problems), W/Hs (Withholds), GF (Green Form) or O/R (Overrun) listing or any prepared list. ((HCOB 23 Aug 71)  2. The reason you use and clean rudiments is to get the preclear in session so you can have the preclear (1) in communication with the auditor and (2) interested in his own case. The purpose of rudiments is to set up a case to run, not to run a case. (HCOB 19 May 61)
Also do mind that meter checks will continue to be in use. All that this involves is putting a person on an E-meter, noting down the Tone Arm (mental charge), state of the needle and attitude of the person, end of check. The person is not spoken to during the check. (ref.: HCO PL 2 Apr 65 “Meter Checks”)

 
Back to Main Index 1970: “HCOs may not do Confessionals or ‘Sec Checks.’”;
“HCO may only do meter checks.”
 (Nov 70)


Then 2 years later we have this reinforced and particularly specified to HCO, see HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”. It says in its first 2 paragraphs:
        
“HCOs may not do Confessionals or ‘Sec Checks.’
        
 
HCO may only do Meter Checks. This consists of putting the pc on a meter and noting down the TA, state of needle and attitude of pc.”          LRH
 
And the following 2 picked paragraphs in this reference clarify matters further:
        
“Real criminals may have bad meters but crimes are often so unreal to them that they do not read (meters needle read only on things within the reality or borderline reality of a person). This permits unskilled Sec Checking or Confessional actions to pass right by the culprit. ...”
        
        
“An R/S* still means crimes. All the other data is true and should be known but POLYGRAPHS, LIE DETECTORS, METERS ONLY REGISTER AT THE REALITY LEVEL OF THE BEING, and the reality level of a criminal is too bad for reads to occur in a majority of cases. Thus the guilty are falsely freed and the innocent are subjected to annoyance and upset.”          LRH
        
* R/S: Rock Slam.  1. A crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches, happening several times a second. (E-Meter Essentials p. 17).  2. As a meter representation, is the result of innumerable committed overts in a certain direction, and when you've got that certain direction isolated, that is to say the items against which the overts were committed isolated you then have of course a rock slam. (SH Spec 203, 6210C11)
They appear not very workable for these purposes.

All in alignment with one of these points listed in HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”:
         “4.
Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the ‘security’ furnished is often a false security.”          LRH
        

 
Back to Main Index 1972: Development of Expanded Dianetics (Ex Dn or XDN)  (Mar-Apr 72)

        
“Expanded Dianetics:  This level usually comes after Grade IV but can go wherever it will be most beneficial to the individual and his progress. Developed in recent years by L. Ron Hubbard, its results are freedom from cruel impulses and chronic unwanted conditions and ability to act in an optimum manner without restraint. This level is available in most organizations but not all, as it requires specially trained staff.”
        
 
“Expanded Dianetics Course:  ... Trains a person to understand and handle irrational behavior in others and chronic unwanted conditions. A graduate of this course can audit a person to produce the results just described.”
 
            (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition), page 10 & 12)   

This is a conditional action and it was all for the benefit of the person. We thus can't call this for Sec Checking, it basically goes deeper into a person's case to address and handle that which the Scientology Grades failed to satisfactorily relieve in a person. It could be a recommended action by the C/S, but it could also be requested by the person.

The principles of this were later used as a base for the False Purpose Rundown (FPRD) that was released in 1984. There are however some specific differences. This FPRD could easily be seen as a quickie action as it didn't use the full arsenal of tools provided for by Expanded Dianetics. I address this in chapter “1984 2):” in this chronology.

Various further information about Expanded Dianetics can be found here (separate window).

Go to index

 
Matters are getting reversed

Back to Main Index 1972: Implementation of Integrity Processing Series & Forms  (Dec 72)

 
Go back ‘Integrity Processing’ versus ‘Sec Checking’

In December of 1972 we had these Integrity Processing Series and Forms making their entry. It was rather sudden and unexpected due to it being a practice that was not directly supported by the at that time valid references and the status quo concerning these matters! No doubt it will have been thought here that HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished” did not prohibit Integrity Processing.
A somewhat important notice though has to be made here about Integrity Processing. That what it practically could turn it into a Sec Checking action was the actual use of it. For example, a staff member does something inexcusable or sorts, suddenly he is ordered to undergo Integrity Processing (there are lists for that). This is not for case gain purposes; they want to find something. Typical Sec Checking procedures however are only interested in finding that something, it typically doesn't run Earlier Similars. The Integrity Processing routine however instructed: “Go earlier similar to F/N on any reading form question.” (from HCOB 5 Dec 72 “Procedure”) which means it will/is likely to get you some case gain. Although do mind that it is an action that will not move you on that Grade Chart. Either way, how it is used should determine where this is at! Does the list address an area where you feel insecure about, then feel free to go ahead, no doubt you will get something out of it. Integrity Processing was rather popular at the time.
The impression has been attempted to get across as if it would be something rather different from Sec Checking practice! Interesting here is the much later issued HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that was however rather clearly identifying Integrity Processing and Confessionals as the very same thing! It even judged that it was in error that Sec Checking was renamed into Integrity Processing. See at chapter “1977:” in this chronology (see main index on this page).

 
Go back A rather arguable accredited authorship...

The Integrity Processing series of issues was worked on and introduced at such a time that L. Ron Hubbard boarded a plane (4 December 1972) and was not to be seen during some 9½ months. It is rather strange in itself and suspect to issue such series of references that were all about Confessionals/Sec Checking but then calling it something else... Did the cat leave and now the mice were playing on the table? Or was this a planned operation?
Make of it what you will, but Sec Checking for stated purposes and reasons was abolished 4 years earlier! (as per HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”) You see, he (L. Ron Hubbard) leaves and other people are suddenly writing and issuing this Integrity Processing and get it implemented on a rather grand scale. A numbered series of issues of which none indicated they had been recently written by L. Ron Hubbard.

Investigating the original releases reveal various things about the actual authorship of these series. It appears that pretty much all of them indicated that they were written or compiled by one Brian Livingston. Initially the bulk of the issues in the series thus noted as author:
     “‘Lt. Brian Livingston, Training & Services Aide’”
Then just 2 months later in January 1973 they got reissued and this notice instead read:
  “Compiled from LRH briefings and materials by Lt. Brian Livingston, Training & Services Aide”
So, did someone slip here? Mind that these reissues did not receive any customary revision or reissue notice informing about this! You can recognize them though as they carry a second set of typing initials “nt:rd” (the ‘nt’ actually stands for Nancy Tidman, a sister of Annie Tidman, the later Annie Broeker; ‘rd’ who retyped it stands for Rosemary Delderfield). Either way this approach is a bit well unaccustomary to not note a change on each of the individual reissued references themselves. You see, (1) there are rules for that, and (2) you need to be able to keep them apart!  Each of these corrected references should have indicated near the top something like: “(Reissued 22 January 1973 to correct the signatory section.)”. As far as I could establish this is actually a first for that the rules that were in use at that the time are not being followed here.

What we further see is that an attempt for explanation was forwarded through HCOB 22 Jan 73 “Integrity Processing Materials, Source of” that in its first paragraph states: “Integrity Processing was researched and developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1972.”. However, if that be correct then why does the second paragraph state: “The issued HCOBs of the Integrity Processing Series were all compiled from LRH briefings and materials.”. One can perceive a contradiction in these two sentences. The question to ask here is, what briefings, and more particularly when were they held? There is a difference from life briefings from recent days, and those from days past deriving from now archived materials?
Consult HCOB 22 Jan 73 “Integrity Processing Materials, Source of” in full here.

Basically all that we can verify about dates is that some of the issues in the series state that its information had been taken from HCOB's dating to 1960-64. Not a single reference in the series gives any indication of any involvement from L. Ron Hubbard that can be dated to 1972-76. In spite of that it was stated (underlining is mine): “Integrity Processing was researched and developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1972.”. Of course we could try and ask Brian Livingston about where the information comes from, but I don't know where he is these days.
Any which way you look at this, it does give an indication that L. Ron Hubbard had lost the control over the issue line.

 
Go back Integrity Processing Series & Forms (Dec 72)

        
“HUBBARD INTEGRITY PROCESSING SPECIALIST COURSE,  purpose:  to train the student to the level of an Integrity Processing Specialist who knows and can apply the tech flublessly and has the ability to increase a person's personal integrity and trust in himself and others by freeing him of past overts, withholds and missed withholds. The graduate of this course is awarded the provisional Hubbard Integrity Processing Specialist Certificate. (BPL 24 Dec 72R)  Abbr. HIPSC.”
        
            (from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976))   

During 2 December 1972 / 11 June 1976 we see the following being released:
  
    Series:     When:     What:
Integrity Processing Series #1-21 and related 2-24 Dec 72  #1-20 and related
22 Jan 73, 8 & 16 May 74  #21 and related
     
Integrity Processing Forms #1-12 24 Dec 72  #1-5
23 Feb-24 Oct 73  #6-10
21 Apr 75 & 11 Jun 76  #11-12

Sec(urity) Checking practically may be divided in 2 areas of use. These are for actual Security matters and there is the Benefit for the Case of the Individual as per regular auditing. The problem may be to keep these separated if some use, of in essence confidential information, would be resorted to.
As pointed out Sec Checking abolished the lot of them for reason given that there were setbacks involved. In regards to Benefit for the Case of the Individual we had already Expanded Dianetics (XDN) that amongst other already addressed ‘hidden standards’ and ‘responsibility’ that was previously released in April 1972. Did we still need Sec Checking? So what actually called for Integrity Processing and what was its aim?

Defining references release history:  (pop-up window)
    Integrity Processing Series 1-21 and related (issued: 4-23 Dec 72 (#1-20), Dec 72/Mar 77)
See ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Auditing Series, Volume IX, 1965-1975’ (1976 release) on pages 261-293.
Forms and lists release history:  (pop-up window)
    Integrity Processing Form 1-12 (24 Dec 72 / 11 Jun 76)
The first 5 forms are listed in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Auditing Series, Volume IX, 1965-1975’ (1976 release) on pages 294-306. These volumes do not contain Forms 6-12, the reason for that is because they were for internal use in the organization. They were not intended for use by the public.

 
Go back Reissue of Integrity Processing Series (May 75)

(Includes:  Some inconsistent historical claims  &  Who was responsible for Integrity Processing?)

The defining reference BTB 4 Dec 72R, Integrity Processing Series 1R “Definitions” added the following text in its revision dated 13 May 1975:
        
“DEVELOPMENT  
        
 
In the early ’60s LRH developed the technology known as Sec Checking. As issued it was used for two purposes: as a general processing tool to clean up a pc's overts and withholds and as a security tool to detect out-ethics persons and security risks.
 
 
In 1970 this technology was refined and issued under the name of Confessionals.
 
 
In 1972 a complete update was done of basic O/W tech and the earlier procedures of Sec Checking and Confessionals. A new technology emerged—Integrity Processing.
 
 
Recently Integrity Processing has been reviewed as to its workability and most optimum usage by LRH and certain revisions have been made.”
 
I find no data that in 1970 or thereabouts “this technology” would have been “refined”. There are no references from L. Ron Hubbard nor others about these matters in this time period in this regard. Quite the contrary in fact as we do have this reference from L. Ron Hubbard issued that year that actually limited the use of confessionals rather considerably. This is HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”, which basically is abolishing confessionals to be done by HCO. The advice given is “HCOs should learn Investigatory procedures”  LRH.  
This 1972 “update” had no involvement of L. Ron Hubbard that could be confirmed, and this is not stated in this reference either. Thus this “Integrity Processing” appears, per the indicators and the data at hand, to have come about, to have been worked out and pushed entirely by others.
It is claimed that “Integrity Processing” was a “new technology” which is a serious misnomer! This is rather clearly confirmed by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that says: “There should be no further confusion in this matter. ‘Sec Checking,’ ‘Integrity Processing’ and ‘Confessionals’ are all the exact same procedure and any materials on these subjects is interchangeable under these titles.”.
The line “Recently Integrity Processing has been reviewed” must be referring to the time that this BTB was issued as this paragraph was newly added in this revision, thus May 1975. The bulk of the references in these series appear to have been revised on 13 May 1975. Here the BTB does make the claim that this was done “by LRH” in regards “to its workability and most optimum usage”, I was however unable to find anything that would confirm any involvement of the person L. Ron Hubbard for this later reissue in May 1975.

 
Go back Correction Lists (Mar 72)  vs  Integrity Processing Lists (Dec 72)

        
“CORRECTION LIST,  1. a list of prepared questions on a mimeod sheet which is used by the auditor for the repair of a particular situation, action, or rundown. (BTB 7 Nov 72 I)  2. the various lists designed to find by-passed charge and repair a faulty auditing action or life situation. (HCOB 28 May 70)”
        
            (from ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (1975))  

Correction Lists are of an expertise nature (your skill in regards to applying the procedures correctly), whereas Integrity Lists are of a personal nature. These are not the same.

We saw amongst other the release of the following:
    
  
  Reference:   Series:   Title:
HCOB 27 Mar 72 I Study Correction List 1 “Student Correction List”
HCOB 27 Mar 72 II Study Correction List 2 “Course Supervisor Correction List”
HCOB 27 Mar 72 III Study Correction List 3 “Auditor Correction List, Auditor Recovery”
HCOB 27 Mar 72 IV Study Correction List 4 “Case Supervisor Correction List”
HCOB 27 Mar 72 V Study Correction List 5 “Executive Correction List”

Only the 2nd one appears to have been an LRH original. The release history of each of the above can be consulted here (pop-up window).

Compare consecutively with:
    
  
  Reference:   Series:   Title:
HCOB 24 Dec 72 V [Integrity Processing Form 5] “Student Integrity List”
HCOB 24 Dec 72 IV [Integrity Processing Form 4] “Supervisor Integrity List”
HCOB 24 Dec 72 III [Integrity Processing Form 3] “Auditor Integrity List”
HCOB 24 May 73 [Integrity Processing Form 8] “Case Supervisor Integrity List”
BTB 21 Apr 75 Integrity Processing Form 11 “Flag Representative Integrity List”
BTB 11 Jun 76 Integrity Processing Form 12 “LRH Communicator Integrity List”

In essence what reason was there to put together such Integrity Lists if there were already Correction Lists available? One has to consider that a so-called auditor is as said placed above his reactive mind. If you use cramming for correction his skill will show result, this would be in total disregard of his personal problems or own case. This is what I always used to hear, then in regards to this, why do we have Integrity Progressing Lists and why the excessive use and attention on Integrity Processing/Confessional Lists?

 
Go back Final notices

The bulk of the references that we find in the Integrity Processing Series & Forms appear to have been compiled or written by ‘Brian Livingston’. Where it has to be commented here that various later BTB reissues from the mid-70's either removed his name and turned it to just mention of the composer initials ‘BL’, or his name and initials disappeared all together. The question is why. In 1983 then we find him listed in ‘SO ED 2192 Int’, 27 Jan 83 “List of Declared Suppressive Persons”, that lists 607 names who were declared during late 1982 and early 1983, we also find a ‘Vicki Livingston’. We also find him (but not Vicki) listed in ‘Flag ED 2830’, 10 Sept 91 “Suppressive Persons and Suppressive Groups List”. Well, it means that he was not in so-called good standing anymore with the official Church of Scientology for whatever reason.

Security Checking as such had been abolished in 1968. Why then do we see an upsurge of Confessional auditing procedures during Dec 72-Jun 76? What justified it? Why was it done on the sly? (calling it something else) Why does it coincide with the exact time that L. Ron Hubbard boarded a plane and was not to be seen or heard from for about 10 months? These are obvious and logical questions to ask. There are simply no LRH references that condoned or asked for such a reinstatement since December 1972. After all HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished” did not even get cancelled until a whole 2 years later in HCO PL 13 Nov 74 “HCO May Do Confessional Lists”.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index 1974: “HCO does do Meter Checks. HCO may also need to ask questions”;
Officially reinstating Sec Checking & 1968 HCO PL cancelled
 (Sept 74)


September 1974 saw an extension to what HCO is allowed to do issued in a revision of HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals” issued as HCO PL 15 Nov 70R (Revised 21 Sept 74) “HCO and Confessionals”. Compare here below:
        
“HCO may only do meter checks. This consists of putting the pc on a meter and noting down the TA, state of needle and attitude of pc.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”)
        
Was changed into:  (revisions indicated in script)
        
“HCO does do Meter Checks. When meter checking the public or a large group of staff this consists of putting the pc on a meter and noting down the TA, state of needle and attitude of pc. When meter checking a small number of staff on a specific investigation HCO may also need to ask questions to get data on Crimes or Whos or specific events.
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 70R (Revised 21 Sept 74) “HCO and Confessionals”)
        
An interesting additional side note is that the original version and title of this HCO PL were restored at a later date. As such it was included in ‘The Organization Executive Course’, see ‘Volume 1, 4 & 5’ (1991 release). It must have been restored somewhere between 1980-91. This however was not the end of this merry-go-round. This HCO PL 15 Nov 70R (Revised 21 Sept 74) “HCO and Confessional” got reverted back once again on 16 July 1998. The revision notices on that said: “It was ... revised in 1974 at LRH's directions to include specific data on HCO Meter Checks. This revision was incorrectly cancelled by another with the data on meter checks deleted.”. Annotations on this: (1) the original 21 September 1974 revision said nothing about “LRH's directions” and indicated no other person that would have revised it using these directions; (2) the focus in these revision notices are put on that “data on meter checks”, the real issue is in fact that it allowed HCO to do more than just meter checks, i.e. “may also need to ask questions”.
Anyone have a copy for me of HCO PL 15 Nov 70(R) “Confessionals” (reissued and restored between Sept 74 and 1991), then please contact me!

Then 2 months later in November 1974 we get the reversal to Sec Checking sort of authorized by HCO PL 13 Nov 74 “HCO May Do Confessional Lists”. Indeed noteworthy is that this also cancelled the HCO PL that had abolished Sec Checking earlier in 1968, it notes: “Cancels HCO P/L 26 Aug 68, Security Checks Abolished”. It further says:
        
“The right to do Integrity checks is given to HCO.
        
 
Any data, HCOBs, tapes relating to ‘security checking’ or ‘Integrity Processing’ may be done by HCO.
 
 
The practice of doing only meter checks is no longer required.”
 
With reason given:
        
“THE MAJORITY OF THE TROUBLES ORGS HAVE, TEND TO VANISH, WHEN HCO DEPT 3 USES CONFESSIONALS AND INTEGRITY LISTS CORRECTLY AND OFTEN WHENEVER TROUBLE MOUNTS UP IN THE ORG. ...
        
 
When such checks went out, HCOs tended to disappear.
 
 
So the tech and use of checks are vital.”
 
It was thus deemed that “doing only meter checks” was not being sufficient. Mind that in the above here then is referred to actual Sec Checks.
Although HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals” did say:
        
“Overts disclosed in sessions may not be used for justice purposes. Therefore only crimes discovered by routine investigation are actionable.”          LRH
        

Either way it notes underneath this 1970 reference in the Organizational Executive Course volumes (1991 release): “[Editor's Note: LRH later gave HCO the right to do confessionals, providing that they are delivered and C/Sed by persons trained and qualified to do so. See HCO PL 13 Nov. 74, HCO MAY DO CONFESSIONAL LISTS, on page 638 in this volume, and HCO PL 6 Mar. 82R, CONFESSIONAL TECH POLICIES, on page 642.]”.
This ‘Editor's Note’ evidently refers to: “Too many cases, too many case programmes, have been fouled up by non C/Sed Sec Checking or Confessionals in the past for the practice to continue.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”). But this 1970 reference also concluded:
        
“No meter or Sec Check or Confessional is sufficiently valuable to use in detection of crime. The state of the meter itself is of value since it tells one whom to investigate.
        
 
Thus neither Tech nor Qual should assist investigations but should work on the case against proper C/Ses to get off the overts and withholds for the case benefit.”          LRH
 
And thus advised:
        
“HCOs should learn Investigatory procedures when looking for criminals. Confessionals and Sec Checks will fail them and they also mess up cases. Investigatory procedures are quite good enough.”          LRH
        
But this too was to be reversed years later in 1985. See in chapter “1985:” in this chronology).

 
Back to Main Index 1977: “‘Sec Checking,’ ‘Integrity Processing’ and ‘Confessionals’ are all the exact same procedure”  (Jan 77)

Various interesting clarifying notices are found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”:

        
“E: SEC CHECKING AND INTEGRITY PROCESSING  
        
 
Sec Checking means, unfortunately, ‘Security Checking.’ That it was so misnamed in its origins obscures the fact that Confessionals have been part and parcel of religion nearly as long as religion has existed. ...
 
 
In an effort to get around what was thought to be a public relations scene, the name ‘Security Checking’ was changed to ‘Integrity Processing.’ This was also a PR error because the actual truth of the matter is it originated as ‘Confessional’ and should have simply been changed back to ‘handling of confessions.’ ...
 
 
There should be no further confusion in this matter. ‘Sec Checking,’ ‘Integrity Processing’ and ‘Confessionals’ are all the exact same procedure and any materials on these subjects is interchangeable under these titles.
 
 
The materials when all recollected and consolidated and reissued will be under the title of ‘Confessionals.’ But even before that reaches you, you had better determine to become an expert in it, since an auditor's inability to handle this is a fast route to ‘how to win enemies and wrongly influence people.’”
 

Most interesting here in paragraph 2 is that it refers to a “PR error”. Thus saying that Sec Checking should have continued to be referred to as Sec Checking back in 1972. Mind however that previously in 1968 Sec Checking got actually ABOLISHED for various clearly circumscribed reasons that were listed in HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”. Basically HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” tells us here that the previously given justifications and reasons were not true!

However in regards to this HCOB serious inconsistencies have surfaced, in particular because of the things that have been found the attributed authorship has been questioned. A thorough analysis of this reference can be consulted in the link here below:  (separate window)
    “Analysis of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” or
     A prelude to a deliberate ‘change of direction’?”

 

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.
     ASHO:
American Saint Hill Organization’. A higher level Scientology organization residing in Los Angeles.
     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.
     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:
Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.”He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     Earlier Similar (E/S):
Whenever an auditor gets a read on an item from rudiments or a prepared list it must be carried to an F/N. If you know bank structure you know it is necessary to find an earlier item if something does not release. What has been found as a read on a prepared list would F/N if it were the basic lock. So if it doesn't F/N, then there is an earlier (or an earlier or an earlier) lock which is preventing it from F/Ning. (HCOB 14 Mar 71R)
     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)
     Expanded Dianetics (Ex Dn, XDN):
(1) “its results are freedom from cruel impulses and chronic unwanted conditions and ability to act in an optimum manner without restraint.”;  (2) about the course: “Trains a person to understand and handle irrational behavior in others and chronic unwanted conditions.” (What Is Scientology? (1978), p 10 & 12)
     FPRD:
False Purpose Rundown’. A specific auditing action aiming at disclosing hidden ‘false purposes’ of which the person him or herself is not aware of, but is undermining this person's own survival in various ways. The FPRD is basically an extension of Expanded Dianetics.
     Grade Chart or Gradation Chart:
Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. On the right side of the chart there are various steps called the states of release. The left-hand side of the chart describes the very important steps of training on which one gains the knowledge and abilities necessary to deliver the grades of release to another. It is a guide for the individual from the point where he first becomes dimly aware of a Scientologist or Scientology and shows him how and where he should move up in order to make it. (The Auditor 107 ASHO)
     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’.
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     ‘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).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional.
     overt-withhold mechanism:
‘overt-motivator sequence’:  1. If a fellow does an overt, he will then believe he's got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator. (Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress, Lecture #2, 6012C31)  2. The sequence wherein someone who has committed an overt has to claim the existence of motivators, the motivators are then likely to be used to justify further overt acts. (The Phoenix Lectures glossary)
     O/W:
Short for ‘Overt/Withhold’. See at ‘overt-withhold mechanism’ in vocabulary.
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     PR:
Short for ‘Public Relations’.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     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)
     Rock Slam (R/S):
1. A crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches, happening several times a second. (E-Meter Essentials, p. 17).  2. As a meter representation, is the result of innumerable committed overts in a certain direction, and when you've got that certain direction isolated, that is to say the items against which the overts were committed isolated you then have of course a rock slam. (SH Spec 203, 6210C11)
  Rock Slammer:  
It means it's somebody who gets a rock slam when you ask them: “Consider overts against Scn” and that broadens out of course against Ron, against the organization or against an auditor. (SH Spec 198, 6210C04)
     R/S:
An abbreviation for ‘Rock Slam’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’.
     SO ED:
Sea Org(anization) Executive Directive’. This is basically an ED (temporary policy) issued by the senior echelon within the Church of Scientology.
     ‘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).
     Withholds, W/Hs:
Something a person did that he isn't talking about. Basically, it is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival. (from Marriage Hats booklet)
     XDN or Ex Dn:
Short for ‘Expanded Dianetics’.  See at that entry in vocabulary.


Go to top of this page


Advertisement