Scientology: L. Ron Hubbard vs Alterations (introduction)

L. Ron Hubbard vs Alterations (introduction) or
How to deal with them if they happen to come your way

(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.

	“A bulletin gets altered, a tape gets pulled off the line, some vital action is shifted. Somebody comes tearing in with a brand new idea that seems to be absolutely vitally essential, and the first thing you know, why we have trouble of one kind or another. And tech fails. And it suddenly ceases to give the results which it should attain. ... These are the danger points of the past and of the future.”
	L. Ron Hubbard
	(from Class VIII lecture #5 “The Standard Green Form and Rudiments”, given on 28 Sept 68)

Notice: This page is meant to be an introduction to some other pages which discuss observed alterations in LRH policy in detail, but even its application. In my opinion it is important to understand the why behind all things, and which rules one is to follow. I have attempted to collect on this page various quotations from L. Ron Hubbard himself that somehow relate to this matter. It was he who developed this technology, so it should be him who has the first and last word about it!

Index:

	“Keeping Scientology Working”
	References about allowed alterations
	Signatures on references, how to go about it
	“Seniority of Orders”
	Hats versus illegal orders or cross orders
	What to do if alterations come your way or How to detect them?
		(“How to defeat Verbal Tech Checklist” & “Orders, Query of”)
	“Hidden Data line”
	“What makes tech correct?”
	Appendix: Will you always know if some reference has been edited?

“Keeping Scientology Working”

(HCO PL 7 Feb 65 (Reissued 15 Jun 70, 28 Jan 73 & 27 Aug 80) “Keeping Scientology Working”)

There are a couple of references wherein L. Ron Hubbard relates to us that he does not appreciate changes in his technology. Without question this is the most reputable one. It starts of as follows (this paragraph has been added to the reissue from 15 Jun ’70 and is placed directly following the heading of this policy letter):

“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. ‘Quickie grades’ entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this policy letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not ‘entirely a tech matter’, as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.” LRH

The following has been added in the reissue from 27 Aug 1980 and is following directly the above paragraph:

	“SPECIAL MESSAGE
	THE FOLLOWING POLICY LETTER MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.
	IT WAS TRUE IN 1965 WHEN I WROTE IT. IT WAS TRUE IN 1970 WHEN I HAD IT REISSUED. I AM REISSUING IT NOW, IN 1980, TO AVOID AGAIN SLIPPING BACK INTO A PERIOD OF OMITTED AND QUICKIED FUNDAMENTAL GRADE CHART ACTIONS ON CASES, THEREBY DENYING GAINS AND THREATENING THE VIABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY AND OF ORGS. SCIENTOLOGY WILL KEEP WORKING ONLY AS LONG AS YOU DO YOUR PART TO KEEP IT WORKING BY APPLYING THIS POLICY LETTER.
	WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT.
	NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU.” LRH

Alright, now we know that he stresses this very much, also this policy letter was to be “made part of every study pack as the first item and must be listed on checksheets” (together with HCO PL 17 Jun 70 “Technical Degrades”).

What was it actually about? Well, it listed 10 points which summarized it all.

	“Getting the correct technology consists of:
	One:	Having the correct technology.
	Two:	Knowing the technology.
	Three:	Knowing it is correct.
	Four:	Teaching correctly the correct technology.
	Five:	Applying the technology.
	Six:	Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.
	Seven:	Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
	Eight:	Knocking out incorrect applications.
	Nine:	Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
	Ten:	Closing the door on incorrect application.” LRH

And then it says: “Seven, Eight, Nine and Then are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area.”.

Explanation:

	“Seven is done by a few but is a weak point.
	Eight is not worked on hard enough.
	Nine is impeded by the ‘reasonable’ attitude of the not-quite-bright.
	Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity.”

Now how should we define correct technology? A technology is basically a method or a way how to apply something. Before you have a technology you have figured out these guidelines, you may have tested these and you have time after time acquired a desired result. The whole point of this Keeping Scientology Working is then to leave the technology as it is, completely unaltered in any way, and if you do that you will have ensured that it will continue to give that desired result.

Alright then, most of the remainder of this Policy Letter runs off examples of where things went wrong, and what actions were taken to reverse the scene. This could be some references not applied or may be altered in some way. Every time when the misapplication was detected, and correct technology was enforced things went well again.

Another citation from the same policy letter:

“Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can only assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.” LRH

References about allowed alterations

All clear enough so far? Alright, there are some instances where LRH allows alterations. The instructions however for how and when to do that are pretty exact. There are a few references which give some details about them.

In HCO PL 4 Mar 65 II “Technical and Policy Distribution” it says:

“When re-releasing an old policy letter, always blue pencil out everything gone old and contradicted by later policy letters. You can still salvage a lot that still applies–a surprising amount. But try to cut out the contradictions with our modern policy where they exist. After all, we were children when we first tackled teaching and Admin. As we grew, we became wiser. But even our Admin childhood has wisdom in it and in some places even more fire and interest.” LRH

HCO PL 21 Nov 62 “Reissue of Materials” says:

	“It is forbidden to reissue Scientology technical data in bulletins and policy letters, by a Central Org or office, over some other signature than mine.
	If you excerpt tapes or notes, do so over my name, not somebody else's.
	Materials for dissemination to the public can be of course rewritten and published so long as no confusion as to origin is generated.” LRH

Which limits alterations of references written by L. Ron Hubbard pretty much.

	*“Lines for the amendment of Policy already exist as per other Pol Ltr and until an amendment is legally and completely passed the old policy must be followed.**
	HCOBs cannot be amended.” LRH (from HCO PL 18 Oct 67 III “Policy and HCOB Alterations, High Crime”)

For tape editing we find HCO PL 5 Oct 59 “Tape and Record Production Hat”. The purpose of this reference was: “To ensure excellent quality reproduction of voice in tape and record production. ...

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

Further information about the editing of tapes you can find at the below link:
	About various types of tape editing (separate window)

Signatures on references, how to go about it

There exist some specific rules of how signatures on references are to be used. It is good to at least be aware of their existence.

	“Only when I have personally written a bulletin, a policy letter or a Sec *ED should it be signed ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.**
	When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive director’.
	When I have not seen or okayed a policy letter or a bulletin or a Sec ED but it is published by the authority of a held post such as HCO Sec*, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (actual name of person issuing) HCO Sec (or other title)’.
	The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.” LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)

And:

	“Any Policy Letter I have not personally written must bear the signatures of:
	1. The actual composer
	2. Each passing agency or identity required to make it legal
	This may mean as many as five or six names may be signed to policy letters I did not personally write.” LRH (from HCO PL 20 Oct 66 “Signatures of Pol Ltrs”)

“Seniority of Orders”

	“No Aides Order or Flag Bureaux Data Letter or Executive Directive, Directive or Base Order of any type or kind, written or verbal, may alter or cancel any policy letter or HCOB. These remain senior.
	HCO Policy Letters are senior in admin. HCO Bulletins are senior to all other orders in tech.
	Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters. Only HCOBs may revise or cancel HCOBs.
	Any practice by which junior issues such as directives abolish networks or make off-policy changes can only result in the destruction of networks, orgs and tech.
	This is therefore a HIGH CRIME policy letter and it is an offense both to follow or obey or issue any verbal or written order or directive which is contrary to or changes or ‘abolishes’ anything set up in HCO Policy Letters or HCOBs, including the downgrade of ‘that's out-of-date’ or ‘that's been cancelled’ without showing the HCO PL or HCOB which revises or cancels.
	HCO PLs and HCOBs are proven by time and are the senior data on which we operate.” LRH (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

Hats versus illegal orders or cross orders

There is hats on one side, and there are orders on the other side. Generally they do not go well together. Orders come around when there is an absence of hats.

A hat is defined as:

	“HAT – A term used to describe the write-ups, checksheets and packs that outline the purposes, know-how and duties of a post. It exists in folders and packs and is trained in on the person on the post.
	HAT TECHNOLOGY
	‘Hats’ developed in 1950 for use in Dianetic orgs as a special technology. The term and idea of ‘a hat’ comes from conductors or locomotive engineers, etc each of whom wears a distinctive and different type of headgear. A ‘hat’ therefore designates particular status and duties in an organization.
	A ‘hat’ is a specialty. It handles or controls certain particles in various actions and receives, changes and routes them.
	A ‘hat’ designates what terminal in the organization is represented and what the terminal handles and what flows the terminal directs.
	Every hat has a product.” LRH (from HCO PL 22 Sept 70 “Hats”)

From this follows that if you wear the assigned hat, orders will be superfluous.

From the same policy letter:

	“HAT CONTENT
	A hat must contain
	A.	A purpose of the post. ...
	C.	A write-up of the post (done usually by people who have held it before relief and when so done it has no further authority than advice).
	D.	A checksheet of all the policy letters, bulletins, advices, manuals, books and drills applicable to the post. (As in a course checksheet.)
	E.	A full pack of the written materials plus tapes of the checksheet plus any manuals of equipment or books. ...
	H.	The product of the post.” LRH

You have all the materials to perform the duties of the hat and thus produce the products.

Now about illegal orders:

	“Your functions will be found in PLs and HCOBs.
	If anyone tells you your job is different than stated in such issues, please realize that there are no orders senior to such issues and an ‘illegal order’ is defined as one contrary to existing issues. Accepting an illegal order is actionable.
	*What one gets comm eved for is in the PLs and HCOBs.**
	You can't be comm eved for failing to follow an illegal order. You sure can be for departing from policy issues. ...
	Similarly a ‘senior’ giving you orders contrary to your hat is knocking your hat off. He may have no idea what your hat is. If you follow such an illegal order and fail to follow the policy in your hat, you could be for it. ...
	You have policy to keep things straight. If policy doesn't cover, request clarification. If you are doing something other than your hat, sooner or later it will catch up to you. ...
	I count on you to wear your hat as laid down by PLs and HCOBs.” LRH (from ‘Flag Order 2740’, 12 Feb 71 “Hat Knock Off”; issued also as an HCO PL on 28 Sept 80)

‘Flag ED 367-1’, 10 Sept 73 “Ethics: Illegal Orders” summarizes:

“orders that are off-policy and contrary to existing orders and policy issued by a senior authority, or orders issued without a proper passed evaluation”

(as quoted in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976))

Are you getting the gist of it? It is quite simple really.

And if you don't agree with some order, you then send a Orders, Query of as per the HCO PL of the same name. (see next chapter)

What to do if alterations come your way or How to detect them?

So how are we going to respond if confronted with an alteration not following the above guidelines, or are they some steps which we could follow in order to establish if in fact we are dealing with an off-policy alteration?

Below reference I have found being rather useful.

HCO PL 9 Feb 79R II “How to defeat Verbal Tech Checklist”

	“1.	If it isn't written it isn't true.
	2.	If it's written, read it.
	3.	Did the person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order it?
	4.	If you can't understand it, clarify it.
	5.	If you can't clarify it, clear the Mis-Us.
	6.	If the Mis-Us won't clear, query it.
	7.	Has it been altered from the original?
	8.	Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech order.
	9.	IF IT CAN'T BE RUN THROUGH AS ABOVE IT'S FALSE! CANCEL IT! And use HCOB 7 Aug 79, FALSE DATA STRIPPING, as needed.
	10.	Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow it.” LRH

A key-point may very well be: “Has it been altered from the original?”

Alright then, now we have the tools how we are going to deal with such! The next thing is to actually use this information, for if we do not use that what we know will make the knowledge entirely useless!

HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of” may also be found useful at times:

	“It occasionally happens that an order is issued or a policy is enforced or is found to exist which if put into effect in a certain area would result in loss or destruction. ...
	Instead of putting the order into effect, he should query the order with: A. The name of the issuer and the exact order. B. The reason it would result in loss or destruction if put into effect. C. A recommendation resolving the problem the order sought to solve.
	Non-Compliance as a method of avoiding a destructive order is very risky. It is far, far better, in writing, to make the above submission.
	Going ahead and putting the order into effect even though it means loss and destruction without advising anyone is itself very destructive.
	Sometimes a policy is interpreted incorrectly so that if one put it into effect fully as interpreted, loss and destruction would result. ...
	The very meaning of policy can be shifted by re-interpretation. When this is done and seen to be destructive anyone following the re-interpretation is just as guilty as the mis-interpreter. The correct action is query.
	Even ‘You're fired’ can be an incorrect order and can be queried if done as above. ...
	IT DOES NOT RELIEVE ONE OF RESPONSIBILITY WHEN ONE EXECUTES A DESTRUCTIVE ORDER. The one who follows it is in fact far more guilty than the issuer since the one following it is right there, able to OBSERVE whereas the issuer may not be.
	The query should go to the issuer as ABC above. It is still insisted upon and still is destructive send it and all particulars to the nearest Sea Org* unit. Label it DESTRUCTIVE ORDER and ask for help in handling. Refuse meanwhile to put it into effect. ...
	This policy mainly applies to new, nonroutine orders or attempted changes.
	Placing an org or person in an incorrect condition comes under this policy.” LRH

Please note that when having done this query that the order or that what one expects you to do is not carried out or in effect. The query does not need to be approved by someone! One does this totally on one's own self-determinism.

The reference can be used in various areas. You yourself have to figure out how to go about it and come to your own judgement.

“Hidden Data line”

	*“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 HCOBs, 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’”)

“What makes tech correct?”

	“What makes tech correct? When it doesn't get results it is incorrect. When it gets the expected result it is correct.
	My own writings and researches are based wholly upon things that got and get results.
	When another, through misunderstood words or other reasons, ‘interprets’ or changes the original tech, it has been the general experience that results are not obtained.” LRH (from HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)

Appendix: Will you always know if some reference has been edited?

The below quoted reference would indicate that this would be so the case.

“When an HCOB or Policy Letter is revised, its original date is preserved. The word Revised follows the date. If it is cancelled again and substituted for, it would be ‘RA’.” LRH
(from HCO PL 2 May 72RA “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”)

But to be frank about it, today unfortunately you will not know that for sure. Which obviously would seriously violated this long since established rule from May 1972. (be it noted that prior to this established rule references were simply given a new reference date if revised)

Now, you still would find out about actual revisions or changes if you would consult the original mimeo print-off of a reference (i.e. with a few exceptions). But the version of these same references that are found in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ and ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes have entirely skipped these notices. Thus if particular references do not have the ‘R’, ‘RA’ etc. indications you would not know about it, till you consult the original mimeo print-off of that release.

This thus will interfere with the intent of this May 1972 HCO PL that says: “This brings a standard to reissues and helps the reader trace back earlier issues.”.

But you may object and say: “But you will find out about that in the Qual Library of the organization!”. Not so anymore, as these days these Qual Libraries only present the latest and newest published (i.e. in book form) publications.

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.
     Comm Ev:
‘Committee of Evidence’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Committee of Evidence:
1. A committee of evidence is not a court. It is simply a fact-finding body with legal powers, convened to get at the facts and clean up the ARC breaks (breaks in communication) caused by rumor. (HCO PL 27 Mar 65) 2. A fact-finding body composed of impartial persons properly convened by a convening authority which hears evidence from persons it calls before it, arrives at a finding and makes a full report and recommendation to its convening authority for his or her action. (HCO PL 7 Sept 63) 3. A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 28) 4. A Committee of Evidence is considered the most severe form of ethics action. (HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III) 5. A Committee of Evidence is convened by the Office of LRH through the HCO Secretary and is composed of staff members. Its purpose is entirely to obtain evidence and recommend action which the Office of LRH then modifies or orders. (HCO PL 10 Apr 65) Abbr. Comm Ev.
    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).
     HCO Secretary:
Today this is called the ‘HCO Area Secretary’. Usually referred to as ‘HAS’. The HAS is in charge of the HCO Division (Div. 1) of the organization. He has the function of establishing the organization.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
‘L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC EDs (Secretarial EDs). 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)
     Mis-U(s), MU(s):
‘Miss Understood(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     misunderstood(s) - Mis-U(s) - MU(s):
Refers to a word or words that have not been properly understood, and therefore one is unable to duplicate, understand or apply.
     ‘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 PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs 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).
    Pol Ltr:
‘HCO Policy Letter’. See at entry ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
     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)
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AOs) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
     Sec ED:
‘Secretarial Executive Directive’. A Sec ED is an early LRH ED. An Executive Directive that is written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs 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).