 Scientology pages index | Contact
Scientology: The establishment of the RTRC, the unit that
wrote LRH's technical issues (a chronology 1973-82)
 (The history of the ‘LRH Tech(nical) Research and Compilations Unit’) |
 |
(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.
| |
“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’. ... |
|
| |
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.” |
|
| |
L. Ron Hubbard |
|
| |
(from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”) |
|
Part of: The arrival of new information (1 & 2) -
The printed materials: New rules of the game & Summary of changes
This page here focuses on the creation and history of this unit that was set up to write references for L. Ron Hubbard. This unit then had these references published, having them carrying the signature of L. Ron Hubbard, thus giving the false impression as if L. Ron Hubbard had written them.
Go to “Scientology: The printed materials and the changes that the original setup has been subjected to during 1973-86”
index page
Index:
Prologue and the early stages...
 Foreword
RTRC stands for ‘L. Ron Hubbard Technical Research and Compilations’. It is a unit that had its focus thus on the technical issue line.
Since 1978 there have been initiatives for a book compilation unit, which primary job was to transcribe lectures given by L. Ron Hubbard, that then could be issued in written and indexed chronological form in the ‘The Research and Discovery Series’ of books. Ten volumes were issued 1980-89, it covered lectures given Jun 50 to Feb 52. This unit also took care of any reissues of books.
Here the question was also raised to have an issue compilation unit that then would help L. Ron Hubbard with the putting together of new compilations. The obvious question to ask here however is, why there would be any need at all for something like that? See, that about a book compilation unit, transcribing and so on, we can understand all that, but an issue compilation unit? What for? Everything had already been written down and was issued, and at that a whole 8 years had passed after it was announced by L. Ron Hubbard that that work was actually finished!
“So technical progress has been: ...
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”
This is quite an achievement.” LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
The point here is that if there were some things that still needed attention it certainly did not require a whole unit of people! L. Ron Hubbard could very easily take care of that all by himself.
Pierre Ethier about Mimeo section, dictaphone recordings and RTRC
(Includes: “starting from about 1971 ...”; “From 1973 onward ...”; Pierre Ethier about an overly zealous approach exercised by “current leadership of the Church”)
“So depending on the viewpoint, LRH did write or didnt
write those. This is where common sense and most
important, knowledge of fundamentals becomes
important, because anything that is correct will align
with the tech. ...
Contributions by others were mainly
at the level of explanations, compilations and
technical details, never at the level of fundamentals.”
“Policy on
tech lines has always put Inventing tech as the worst
possible heresy.”  Pierre Ethier (Cl. XII Aud)
| The quoted selections in this chapter are from a long message that I received from Pierre Ethier, a Class XII Auditor that prior to becoming an auditor apparently worked in the Mimeo Section at Flag (Clearwater, Fl). I forward these passages as is. As, for obvious reasons, it is hard to get specifics confirmed from other sources or persons, this will remain an isolated relay of happenings. Some parts do fit in, but not everything. But it is interesting enough to reproduce it here. |
| I would say that this person made various factual observations, and these most likely are rather correct. But mixed in the tale we also find various evaluations that may turn out to be rather incorrect. I also speak here from my own background working at Flag Mimeo. |
“starting from about 1971 ...”
| |
“About Authorship of bulletins: To make a long story short LRH was a busy Man. His tendency to micromanage everything and to literally run all of Scientology management and Orgs took a tremendous amount of his time. So starting from about 1971, he would give briefings and orders and get the bulletins written by others. Sometimes the instructions were rather general such as ‘Revise Cramming Series so and so’. ‘There should be a sign...’ Sometimes he would dictate virtually the entire Bulletin, or other times (in particular for checklists or longer compilations or for checksheets) he would give a general order. The task of the RTRC Unit (LRH Research and Compilation Unit) was then to write the issue complety [sic, completely] in accordance to all written HCOBS, orders, advices and other points. This was a very complex task and required a lot of work. At any rate final approval was ALWAYS GIVEN by LRH. His actual handwritten signature was required on the document to allow it be printed and the a copy of the first mimeo run was ALWAYS SENT TO HIM by messenger who was always waiting in mimeo. (I worked in Mimeo Flag myself, before I became a Flag auditor). |
|
| |
From 1971 onward over 50% of the bulletins were written that way.” |
|
| Well, if L. Ron Hubbard had announced that the tech was competed in 1970. It would actually mean that a burden already was taken away! So, even if the claim of L. Ron Hubbard wanting to micromanage everything would be true, it would just not make much sense that he in “about 1971” would start to “give briefings and orders and get the bulletins written by others”. It would make one wonder how he micromanaged everything prior to so “about 1971”. The claim about micromanaging by the way is not positively confirmed either, other then some people making some claims. |
| The text says: “The task of the RTRC Unit ... was then to write the issue complety [sic, completely] in accordance to all written HCOBS, orders, advices and other points. This was a very complex task and required a lot of work.”. One of the reasons why L. Ron Hubbard in the past could get so much work done was because he was well organized. When he wrote and issued references, this without anyone else writing them for him, it didn't need any particular changes made after they were written. If references were reissued in the earlier years it was mostly because of minor issues, like typo's, exchange a word here or there. Only occasionally we saw more extensive changes or cancellations. So, why did an L. Ron Hubbard from the early ’70s suddenly needed a unit of people to sort out all the specific details, “a very complex task and required a lot of work.”, and to write out his references for him? This would be an apparent change of working operation that simply would have been uncalled for, that is if it is L. Ron Hubbard we are talking about here. L. Ron Hubbard wrote down things ‘right’ the first time. This is evidenced if we follow the publication track of references from the earlier years, and is also confirmed by the people he worked with back then. |
That this would have been ongoing since “about 1971” is just not very plausible at all and is also not confirmed by what we see in the publication record of references from that time. You are not going to change your operating basis when there was this little left to do. That doesn't make any sense. L. Ron Hubbard was the organizer, this is not the same as micromanaging. That what was needed to have things run self-functioning and self-sufficient was the setup of the administration. L. Ron Hubbard was aware of that as early as 1962, then it was announced “It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.” LRH (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”).
“From 1973 onward ...”
| This message continues with: |
| |
“From 1973 onward 90%, and from 1976 onward everything was recorded on a dictaphone. Only access to the original recordings would tell what were his actual words. To make things more complicated, these dictaphone tapes can be a hodge podge of 20 or more subjects. For example, on a tape he starts by telling someting [sic, something] about NOTs, then the next section is about letter writing, how to run a course, then orders to the Flag Bureaux, Instructions about his clothing and room requirements, data on the cramming series, more data on NOTs, etc. There is a literal mountain of those tapes in existence. Some of them have even been destroyed for various reasons. (mainly legal worries).” |
|
| The matter of these “dictaphone tapes” and “ recordings” and that they then would contain a “a hodge podge of 20 or more subjects” may not be so logical either, that is if we are dealing here with the person L. Ron Hubbard, who in the previous years appears to have been very well organized. If you send out a “hodge podge” its sounds more like you are making a mess of things. It was rumoured also that L. Ron Hubbard was able to typewrite very fast, why then “dictaphone tapes”? The matter is that the publication record has to reflect this, and it doesn't. This is in part because that during 1973 indeed very few technical references were being published, and in part that the organization had been setup according to policy letters. |
There is a also a problem with this particular time period as L. Ron Hubbard was absent for about 10 months this during 4 Dec 72-mid Sept 73, so where is the “hodge podge” of things then coming from? If the 1973 refers to Sept 73, where L. Ron Hubbard was returning, then he had turned rather lazy. The person was talking on “dictaphone tapes” and produced a “hodge podge” to be sorted out by others. About what exactly, as there was really not much left to do or publish at this stage?!
It would be interesting if any of these dictaphone recordings would come out in the open. Got some? Then please contact me!
Pierre Ethier about an overly zealous approach exercised by “current leadership of the
Church”
| |
“One of the thing [sic, things] that is a [sic, at] the top of the list of Priorities of anything published or revised bearing LRH signature is to ‘remove what may prove to be an embarassment [sic] to LRH’. The idea is that an admission of any error or mistake, no matter how small or insignificant would undermine LRH. This idea is applied with a vengeance by current leadership of the Church and scapegoats are continually located to explain any contradiction or faux-pas. Also the criteria for ‘embarassment’ has been tremendously been raised higher over the years to the point that the name of any Scientologist has been deleted from tapes or bulletins, lest they later be declared or some such, or if further experience demonstrates that a revision of the bulletin is necessary. |
|
| |
This has gone as far as removing minor stumbles or flubs in LRH auditing demo tapes. Even some acknowledgements have been altered from later revisions to ‘make them sound better’ and more in alignment with more recent HCOBs.” |
|
Prologue to the birth of an ‘LRH technical issue compilation unit’ (1973-79)
(The organization and setting up of a standard line for falsely signed references?)
| In 1973 a rather strange HCOB was issued. This was HCOB 30 Jul 73 “Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials”. It was issued at a time when L. Ron Hubbard was missing in action (4 Dec 72-mid Sept 73), then where is it coming from? It was rather lengthy at that. It was an overview or summary of the status quo of the materials. The technical research was previously announced completed (1970) as was the administration of it all through policy letters (1970). But in this new HCOB we get the message that there were “new advances” to have. The HCOB was introduced through an article in ‘Advance! 20’, Aug-Sept 73, in its “To the Reader” section as: |
| |
“We are proud to bring you in this issue of Advance! an extraordinarily new article by L. Ron Hubbard entitled, ‘Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials’. This is truly an epochal statement by Ron. He sums up where we have arrived so far with Scientology and points the direction of new advances. He indicates there are 15 levels above OT VII just waiting for more people to fully obtain OT VI and OT VII.” |
|
| Right, and because of these “new advances” and these “perhaps 15 levels above OT VII fully developed but existing only in unissued note form” we then may be needed compilation units? It surely sounds like a prediction the work was not done after all. Which all in itself is strange as it was very clearly announced as completed as of 1970! It presented a dichotomy. |
| A lot more was in the making as we learn from later years, among other a complete overhaul of the Bridge and technology was forthcoming during 1978-81. And not stopping there as a five-year project was launched in 1986 to meticulously review all materials resulting in the release of the new red and green vols in 1991. You surely need compilation units for all that. |
Warning signals, can we still trust the issue line? (1974)
There are indications since at least 1974 that we can't particularly trust it anymore. As a rather crude example there is HCO PL 31 Aug 74 II “Fast Flow Training Reinstated” that factually limited (invalidated) the use of the Primary Rundown and that was issued signed with just “L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER” to only have it cancelled and replaced a little over 2 years later by BPL 18 Oct 76 “Successful Training Lineup” that stated that it “was written for LRH and not by him.” But nonetheless replicating the exact same guidelines as the apparently falsely issued 1974 HCO PL was forwarding! This occurrence is particularly noteworthy. So, did someone slip up here? (more info and scannings here, separate window)
This is the earliest occurrence of a reference published with such an evident false signature that could be confirmed. For some reason it took more than two years to acknowledge it, and when it was uncovered, the information relayed in the falsely signed reference was maintained! If something should make you worry, then it would certainly be something like this.
New rules of the game ... (HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)
“It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it. If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by _____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.” (attributed to LRH)
(from HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)
| A contradiction? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
“It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it.” |
|
versus |
|
“If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by _____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.” |
|
It was since about mid 1976 that the mention of assistants increased considerably. It thus appears the practice was already in use prior to HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” having been released. So to say it solved a problem by endorsing it, after it already had been put to use.
| The use of assistants continued to increase throughout 1977-81. There are really not many references released during that time that do not carry “assisted by”. And this would mean that they factually wrote these issues. So since this time how could be assured that L. Ron Hubbard actually wrote something. If it mentions “assisted by” it is rather certain he was not involved at all. |
| Since Jan 82 we see some decrease in the use of assistants in references. Does that however mean that we can trust L. Ron Hubbard actually wrote them? It can disputed for various reasons. For one we have had Robert Vaughn Young that admitted in court he wrote references that were then released as having been written by L. Ron Hubbard. An other reason is that various of these newly written references created problems on the lines and injustices and were out of character for the person L. Ron Hubbard. Why would you promote for example a misuse of the practice of disconnection (HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”), after you had cancelled it 15 years earlier, or create a snitch system (HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”). I address this in detail elsewhere on my pages. |
A problem is that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” created a confusion as to authorship. It introduced a deliberate obscuring of the actual authorship of references. Why would would an actual author of a reference be noted as an assistant, and instead L. Ron Hubbard as the author? These are just not very good indicators!
| Because of this a question has been raised who actually authored HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. It does appear there is quite a bit of information found in this reference that certainly does not add up. A detailed overview can be consulted here (separate window). |
It is to be noted that it was HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that opened up the doorway for the creation of an LRH issue compilation unit that was to write LRH references for L. Ron Hubbard.
The advance of the compilation units (1977-79)
The earliest occurrence then that I could locate and that possibly would refer to such an issue compilation unit dates to Dec 77. The reference is HCO PL 3 May 72R (Revised 18 Dec 77) “Ethics and Executives”, in the signature area it notes “L. RON HUBBARD, Founder, Revision assisted by Pat Brice, LRH Comps Unit I/C”. Composer initials given are ‘PB’.
During Jun-Oct 78 we see the New Era Dianetics series being issued. Most of these however appear to be reworks of the old Standard Dianetics series of issues dating to 1969. Sometimes only the occurrences of Standard Dianetics in the text had then been exchanged with New Era Dianetics, and sometimes we see more extensive changes. It's just that they had been receiving a new HCOB issue date (Jun-Jul 78). It would be more than likely here that some technical compilation unit had been occupying themselves with this, which however is not noted on any of these newly released references themselves.
| In below three isolated releases we see that the assistants have returned, we note also that they make mention of LRH tech compilation entities as follows. |
| First we have HCOB 30 Oct 78 “Courses—Their Ideal Scene” that lists “As assisted by LRH Tech Comps Pjt Ops”, with initials ‘MM’ (this stands for Merrill Mayo). This is just noted as a project and to that effect we find a variety of other references during that time that make notice of “As assisted by Technical Project I/C”, all signed with ‘MM’. With just this one occurrence of the mention of Comps. There should be no relation to that unit. |
| Next we have HCOB 24 Sept 78RA (Revised 21 Feb 79) I “The End of the Endless Int Repair Rundown” that lists “Revision as assisted by LRH Tech Comps”, with initials ‘LRHTC’. This sounds like a unit, but appears to be an isolated release. It would take another 14 months before a next reference will be issued referring to an LRH technical compilation unit. |
| A third one is HCOB 30 Aug AD15R (Revised 30 Dec 79) “Art” listing “Revision assisted by Maggie Sibersky, LRH Comps I/C”, initials ‘MS’. |
RTCU, RTC, Mission Issues Revision & Flag Compilations Bureau (1980-82)
The LRH technical issue compilation unit that would later become known as the RTRC would first manifest itself as the RTCU or RTC.
[please note: do not confuse this RTC with Religious Technology Center, here it refers to LRH Technical Compilations, which is a very different entity indeed]
RTCU and RTC (May 80-Nov 81)
A very first mention of RTCU was made in HCOB 21 May 80 “Purification Rundown Case Data”. In the signatory section we find “As assisted by LRH Technical Compilations Unit”, initials given ‘RTCU’. This release carries a whole 19 pages (legal size) of text. Signed with L. Ron Hubbard, but not actually written by him. It was written by this compilation unit. More releases carrying RTCU did follow from here on out.
Starting with HCOB 28 Jun 80R (Revised 28 Jan 81) “Student Correction List Words” we find that in the initials this RTCU is now listed as just RTC, dropping the U. It says: “Revision Assisted by Research & Technical Compilations Unit”, initials thus ‘RTC’. Another one was BTB 3 Feb 77 “FES Checklists” turning it into HCOB 29 Jan 81 I “FES Checklists and Summary”, reissuing it with a few revisions. From here on out it will list predominantly RTC excepting only a few releases that still did list RTCU, it may or may not have been in error. A last occurrence we find in Nov 81.
At that we even find a reference that had previously been issued as BTB 8 Jan 73 “Study and Education Tape Amendment”, that we see reissued as HCOB 21 Jan 81 “same title”. But in this occurrence we do not even even find a noted assistant. It just miraculously turned into a fully to L. Ron Hubbard attributed reference, just like that! Voilà! And this wasn't an isolated incidence.
Mission Issues Revision (Dec 79-Dec 80) - cancelling BPLs, converting BTBs
| In the period Dec 79-Oct 80 we see an avalanche of HCO PLs published, I count 42 of them, that for the most is cancelling BPLs, sometimes however replacing them. One of these (Jan 80) is cancelling as many as 21 BPLs. Most of them cancel just one and a couple of them a few more. During Dec 79-Aug 80 they say “Assisted by Susan Krieger, CMO Mission Issues Revision I/C”, signed ‘SK’. During Sept-Oct 80 it drops CMO and they say “Assisted by Susan Krieger, Mission Issues Revision I/C”, initials ‘SK’. Three of them (Jan, May 80) say “Assisted by Dan Osborne, Mission Issues Revision 2nd”, initials ‘DO’. Two of them (Sept-Oct) say “Assisted by John Nelson, Mission Issues Revision”, initials ‘JN’. The very last one (Oct 80) signs with ‘MIR’. |
| Then during Jun-Dec 80 we see the release of an array of HCOBs. I counted 24 in this time period and some of them are lengthy. All of these were re-releases of old BTBs that had been patched up and were now been released as an HCOB, given a new issue date and cancelling these BTBs. They were signed with “Assisted by Mission Issues Revision”, initials ‘SK’. Some say “Assisted by Susan Krieger, Mission Issues Revision (I/C)”, initials ‘SK’. Most of them from Dec 80 are initials ‘MIR’. One of them (Jun 80) says “Assisted by CMO Mission: Issues Revision 2nd”, initials ‘DO’ (we know already this is Dan Osborne). |
| This particular mission appears to have had the task to first cancel BPLs (Dec 79-Oct 80) and was later including to convert BTBs into HCOBs (Jun-Dec 80). |
| This time around, it they were conversions from either BPLs or BTBs, none of these original references were written by L. Ron Hubbard. They had all been written by other persons during the early ’70s. This re-release simply stripped mention of all of the previous authors. Then later in 1991 when we saw the release of the new ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes we find that it had removed also the information about the original BTBs from these references. When we then consider that since that time the original Qual Libraries with old issues had been dismantled, this left us with no clues about the true original authors. Robbed from this information, we had thus no other option than adopt that L. Ron Hubbard had written them (carrying his signature), when he had not. |
Another compilation mission that run Aug-Nov 80 involved re-issuing Orders of the Day (OODs*) articles/notices from the seafaring days (1969-74) into HCO PLs, HCOBs and or Flag Orders. “Compiled and issued by Sherry Anderson, CMO Compilations Missionaire”, initials ‘SA’. A total of 73 references were released.
Flag Compilations Bureau (Dec 80-Apr 82); Mission Issues Revision revisited (Jul 81-May 82)
| Both these compilation units run somewhat simultaneously and are overlapping each other. We also find they have matching contributors, names or initials that are recurring in each of these units. For example we see Susan Krieger appearing at least 46 times in Mission Issues Revision (Dec 79-Dec 80) issued references, and makes a reappearance in Flag Compilations Bureau releases. There was quite some activity ongoing with units or persons active writing or revising references that then received an L. Ron Hubbard signature when he had not written them. Apparently there existed a variety of such units. Mind that these are just the main compilation units that are addressed in this study on this page. |
| We also do see rather many individuals doing these things, they are then indicated in the signing area with their post and usually their name and/or initials. In the same we see an avalanche of compilations of particularly new HCO PLs issued by the “Boards of Directors”, “Watchdog Committee” and various other denominations, here we don't see any mention at all of L. Ron Hubbard in the signing area. There was really a lot of writing and issuing of references during particularly 1980-82, lacking however a direct proven involvement of the person L. Ron Hubbard. |
| This “Flag Compilations Bureau”, and its variations in name like “Compilations Exec Manager Flag”, “Flag Compilations Bureau Exec Manager” and “Compilations Bureau Flag” was found in 27 references during Dec 80-Apr 82. Contributors were “Susan Krieger”, initials ‘SK’ (14x); “Bill Morey” (name 1x listed), initials ‘BM’ (6x); “Joann Milan”, initials ‘JM’ (4x); and the anonymous ‘CBF’ (1x) and ‘FCB’ (2x). |
| Then a revisitation of “Mission Issues Revision”, one occurrence of “Mission Issues Revision Project” and two with “Mission Issues Revision WW”, we count 24 references during Jul 81-May 82. Contributors were “Joann Milan”, initials ‘JM’ (17x); “Marsha Rock”, initials ‘MR’ (2x); “Bill Morey” (assumed), initials ‘BM’ (2x); ‘SW’ (name not listed) (1x); and the anonymous ‘MIR’ (2x). |
| There is even a joint signature for both these units found in two references, this in Jul & Oct 81. Obviously these units are some sort of joint operation. |
| Both these units carried out a mixed task this time, from BPL and BTB conversions, new HCO PLs to revisions, reissues of Flag Order, advices, Aids Order, despatch and OODs. |
| There will be more references that these compilation units would have been involved with in given time periods. This may very well involve other issue-types such as Flag Orders. Either way I listed the HCOB's and the HCO PL's that I caught, enough to support and give a good overview what was done, how it was done and when. |
Unlikely ‘written by LRH’ references (an array of references with false signatures?)
(A few examples from 1983)
| And occasionally we come across references where it is indeed very unlikely that L. Ron Hubbard would have written or issued them. For example we see HCOB 11 Apr 83 “Cancellation of Destructive Issues”. You see, L. Ron Hubbard never had involved himself with these sort of issues, it was delegated to be done by other persons. |
| Then the occasion of that this concerns 6 references being cancelled that were “false” and “incorrect” and further stating: “... the fact that I [L. Ron Hubbard] neither wrote nor approved these issues”. Nonetheless they all had previously been issued under the exact same conditions as all the other references that were released. We find that 4 of them were though issued as “Assisted by Snr C/S International”, initials ‘DM’ (David Mayo). The remaining 2 references were issued with no mention of any assistant. In particular these last 2 thus had been issued with an indeed very obvious false signature. Astonishingly enough these references (well, 5 of them) were in circulation for 2½ years before anyone detected them. (these references are listed here, separate window) |
| Either way we have 6 references here, all issued under the L. Ron Hubbard name, and here they were exposed in official church issues for not having been written by him. So, can we actually still trust that issue line? It really would seem like that we could not at that time and not either at a later time, as 8 years later, during 1991-93, we have so-called HCO Admin Letters cancelling a total of 282 HCO PLs and HCOBs where rather many of them had not been written nor were seen by L. Ron Hubbard, although they had been issued under his name. (more about that here, separate window) |
| Another obvious release that can not possibly have been compiled by L. Ron Hubbard is HCOB 12 Apr 83 “List of Keeping Scientology Working Series”. L. Ron Hubbard has never released such things before, this was always delegated to staff personnel! Nonetheless this HCOB carries his signature! |
| HCOB 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs” is another such impossible release. L. Ron Hubbard was never involved in releasing such. |
Then we have HCOB 7 Aug 83 “Robotic TRs”. A text that admittedly has been written by David Mayo. (see for details here, separate window) But here we still see it listed in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, carrying the signature of L. Ron Hubbard underneath it, and in use till this very day as such.
The ‘LRH Tech Research and Compilations Unit’ established
RTRC (1982- )
(Includes: Notice on the 1991 release of the ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes)
| A first mention of RTRC that could be located is found in HCO PL 5 Nov 82 “Introduction to Scientology Ethics Checksheet”. It reads “Re-revision assisted by LRH Tech Research and Compilations Unit”, initials ‘RTRC’. |
| It appears used very sporadically, again used in Aug 83. The next two are found in HCOBs issued in Jan 84. Then one in Nov 84, although they forgot to list RTRC in the composer initials, but from there on out they appear regularly. |
There is one occurrence from Jul 83 there it says “Revision assisted by LRH Compilations Bureau”, initials ‘RCOMPS’. It corrected some typos.
One would actually wonder here if this unit would be that active at all in this time period? We find these assistant notices for this unit only very sporadically. On the other hand we find a variety of references being released under the name of L. Ron Hubbard with a rather questionable attributed authorship. Is this unit writing these references but fails to add their assistance to them? It's the impression that one does get.
Then starting with June 1986 these RTRC assistant notices appear steadily mostly though in references that received corrections, revisions or reissues. These were a preparation of a fully reworked new release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes which was finalized in 1991. Interesting with this release is that it removed about any and all revision notices that ordinarily would be found near the top of the references, it also removed all composer initials. It is robbing you from this information. It effectively removed the history of the reference. The original mimeo print-off version of the same references however still did list them. As time went on these original mimeo print-offs were not in reach for the Scientology parishioner as they were removed from the Qual Library. The door to the means of understanding how a reference came about and developed was herewith closed! One may however wonder why this is, as it directly violates original guidelines from L. Ron Hubbard.
It would appear that these projects were carried out with the help or use of the RTRC unit.
The members of RTRC, setup and method of operation; Where is L. Ron Hubbard?
Introduction and bewilderment
| |
“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”) |
|
I guess I have never understood why one should need such an unit at this point in time. I just couldn't figure what its members were thinking either. Why should someone figure that L. Ron Hubbard needed help or assistance to write the technical references that he intended to write himself? He always had done that himself previously. And he did that at a time he had a really busy schedule with writing, lecturing and so on. Now he had the time, but he is not writing them himself anymore? Does this make any sense at all? And then that these references were issued under his name, published as if he had written them!? Without even naming the person that in reality had written or compiled the writing? Well, hadn't these compilers assisted? Again, what were some people thinking here?
Dan Koon ca. 2010 |
|
The head of the unit I hear was Phoebe Maurer who had been a long-time Sea Org member. She apparently had been the one constant in the unit until she died in 1986. From 1987 onwards the two central people in the unit were Dan Koon and Sue Koon. Dan Koon stayed on until 1997.
I have been in contact with 3 of its previous members. And I did have correspondence with them. There appears to be hanging some sort of secrecy over the whole thing. All of them had left the organization, nonetheless 2 of them wanted to remain anonymous, and 1 of these denied me to publish any of the information he had relayed to me. Now, they had left, why should they care? A 3rd person (Dan Koon) didn't seem to bother that much about maintaining anonymity. He did at one time (when he was writing under a pseudonym), but not for some time now.
Either way I have been assured that everything was based on LRH orders. And that they did their very best to comply to the best of their ability. Those persons working in the unit I am told had to be sincere, dedicated, conscientious, and took great pains to be sure what they were assembling was complete and accurate. It also appears that its members received an extensive training in LRH materials. That is of course all very nice, but why are they writing references for L. Ron Hubbard? Was he incapacitated in some way? He wasn't in the heydays, the active days, but now when there is really not much to do anymore he (L. Ron Hubbard) needs this unit? So, what wére they thinking?
Working through a liaison
| |
“There was a messenger at the time who was a Class VIII auditor and she was the main liaison between LRH and RTRC. She'd take the tech traffic to LRH and go over it with him and take his notes or taped conversations on the topic back down to RTRC and go over it with them, pass on LRH's further instructions, etc. In this way, a little unit formed up that was able to assist LRH with his technical research. ... |
|
| |
People were added to RTC who were good auditors and who could write and they assisted in compilation and piloting of the rundowns that came out of this era. LRH was pretty much all over the lines in those days. Any technical compilation written in that period was directly seen and reviewed by him.” |
|
| This reveals an interesting part of the setup of the unit and how it operated. Here it makes mention of a liaison of one of the unit's members with L. Ron Hubbard. So, it wasn't that some L. Ron Hubbard was working directly together with all the unit members in the same space. We learn here that basically one person communicated with L. Ron Hubbard and went back and forth with instructions, orders and so on. So, the other members of the unit can basically only assume it was coming from L. Ron Hubbard. See, the point here is that you would get a lot more done if an L. Ron Hubbard worked from within the group, to achieve that queries and misinterpretations could be cleared immediately, there and now with L. Ron Hubbard himself. It actually baffles me that such a non-viable working condition would have been accepted by its members! You could simply have arranged regular meetings, but no, we work through a messenger, a liaison. |
The compilation process
| Dan Koon relates further: |
| |
“The basic aspects of a compilation were: a) research, b) compilation, c) piloting (if needed) and d) administration (meaning the submission itself—how to write the CSW (completed staff work), how to assemble everything so it could be reviewed expeditiously). |
|
| |
Say, for example, there was an order to compile HCOB (Hubbard Communication Office Bulletin) X. The research guys would find everything they could find on that subject, down to getting people at the org in London or Washington DC to go look through the boxes in their attics to find anything LRH had said about the matter. Sometimes they'd put together several boxes of junk (uh, research data) that the compiler would then pore over for days to get a grip on what LRH intended for the issue to include. Then he or she would write the issue. If it was an auditing action, the thing would get piloted and the issue or rundown was modified based on the pilot results. Once everything was done, a submission would be assembled summarizing the research, notating with a verified LRH reference every single point made in the issue, a summary of pilot results and everything neatly tabbed, blah, blah, blah. The point being that people took the work very seriously.” |
|
| I myself recall Nadine de Normanville that during the late ’80s was working her way through on these missions at Flag (senior Scientology organization located in Clearwater, Fl.). She was scanning through auditing folders of persons that had been C/Sed by L. Ron Hubbard. She was locating any originals, these were then xeroxed, the copies made were then placed in the folders, and the originals were send up to some place at Scientology International (Los Angeles). |
| I also recall David Foster, a registrar in Division 2 at Flag. He had an extensive collection of personal messages and telexes that he had received relating to his post from L. Ron Hubbard during thus many years. Then during the late ’80s missionaries were there and xeroxed these materials and sending the copies up to Los Angeles. |
Apparently missionaires had been going around rather scrutinously getting any piece of materials from L. Ron Hubbard. The question is why one would want to have such material. You see, if you actually have the person L. Ron Hubbard there one does not particularly needs to collect all that old material. If you are involved with developing new rundowns, work out processes and all that, then you take it from that point forward. Meaning, you just won't go backward!
| But you really would need such old materials if you want to compile LRH references, if you do not actually have the person L. Ron Hubbard there. See, one should regard some factors of logic here! |
| Now, why would Dan Koon write: |
| |
“Sometimes they'd put together several boxes of junk (uh, research data) that the compiler would then pore over for days to get a grip on what LRH intended for the issue to include. Then he or she would write the issue.” |
|
| If you have L. Ron Hubbard present, you ask him directly what he wants or intends! As mentioned before, regularly held meetings of the unit members with L. Ron Hubbard would have facilitated matters rather tremendously. It would not seem however that L. Ron Hubbard was actually around. |
Approval lines (‘Boards of Directors’ of the ‘Religious Technology Center’)
Another mind-boggling ingredient.
| |
“The submission would then go to RTC*  for authorization. For tech submissions this meant it would go to whoever was Snr C/S Int, then to Inspector General for Tech (Ray Mithoff) and then Chairman of the Board (DM.* ) Submissions for policy letters went to IG Admin (Marc Yager) and the OSA* submissions to IG Ethics (Marty Rathbun).” |
|
* RTC = Religious Technology Center. * DM = David Miscavige. * OSA = Office of Special Affairs. |
| The simple question to ask here is why L. Ron Hubbard would need to be authorized by Religious Technology Center? It would though be logical if it was not L. Ron Hubbard that had written them, but on the other hand had L. Ron Hubbard not already approved the work done by the RTRC unit? Who needs RTC approval if L. Ron Hubbard already had approved it? |
| This Religious Technology Center (RTC) was incorporated 1 Jan 1982. For which reason then do we not see an RTC authorization indicated on these references? It would have been proper and standard to do so. |
| We find however that directly prior to this (during Feb 79-Dec 81) that we see notices added to references that read “Approved & Accepted by the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES of SCIENTOLOGY”. |
| It should be rather obvious here that these ‘Boards of Directors’ here are the same entity as that ‘Religious Technology Center’. More details about this in a previous chapter in the study “Scientology: The printed materials”. Click at link here below to consult: (separate window): |
| |
“Changes in the issue authority and approval lines for HCO PLs and HCOBs” |
Confidential ‘Central Office of LRH ED’ “How to Write an LRH Issue”
| Pierre Ethier also made me aware of: |
| |
“There is an actual confidential COLRHED (Central Office of LRH Executive Directive) named ‘HOW TO WRITE AN LRH ISSUE’. I have read it during my days at Flag.” |
|
| He worked in the Mimeo Section at Flag (Clearwater, Fl) in the early ’80s prior to becoming an auditor. I remember that at Flag Mimeo we had a whole variety of these COLRHEDs, I however have no personal recollection of this one referred to. If it was confidential it wouldn't have been in this ring binder that we had, but I know we didn't have it either in the locked filing cabinet where we stored amongst other confidential, limited edition and CMO* (senior org) EDs sort of references. It probably was taken when the main stock of Flag Mimeo relocated itself at Flag Bureaux (Los Angeles) in 1984. The Flag Mimeo stock was after that recompiled from so-called mimeo returns. (more info here, separate window) |
Since I received this message I have had several other persons confirming the existence of a writing like this (including two previous RTRC members), but it does not seem to have been part of the extensive hatting information that the RTRC members received. Nonetheless there is an expressed (vague) memory of an issue like this factually existing.
If an actual copy would surface one day, and we can verify its contents, then what will we think of this? Why should one need to have guidelines that would educate you about how L. Ron Hubbard would write a reference? I would then conclude that something would not be quite right here!
Will any person out there be able to provide me with a copy of this reference? Then please contact me.
L. Ron Hubbard versus RTRC
(Includes: How does the RTRC go together with the SO #1 Line?)
The question is still why we are having some unit like this RTRC? L. Ron Hubbard wasn't around, he wasn't even available! Why otherwise would Dan Koon write: “Say, for example, there was an order to compile HCOB (Hubbard Communication Office Bulletin) X. The research guys would find everything they could find on that subject, down to getting people at the org in London or Washington DC to go look through the boxes in their attics to find anything LRH had said about the matter.”.
It is an observed fact that at least prior to 1974 that there was no such unit in existence. Sure, prior to that year pilots were run, research auditors were used to test run some new procedure, but it always had been L. Ron Hubbard that was calling the shots, who was in control, who had the final word, who was closely involved. He was in communication, he was actually in reach and available. But with this RTRC we get into “they'd put together several boxes of junk (uh, research data) that the compiler would then pore over for days to get a grip on what LRH intended for the issue to include”. I would have asked the damn guy (L. Ron Hubbard), what do you want, what do you mean, establish a firm communication line in where everything can be clarified!
How does the RTRC go together with the SO #1 Line?
| How does this RTRC unit go together with for example SO #1 Line, the letter write unit that was answering all the letters that were written to L. Ron Hubbard. In where it was claimed he did all of the answering himself in person!? Something which factually would have been a sheer and utter impossibility because of its volume, which L. Ron Hubbard already clearly confirmed in HCO PL 17 Sept 65 “Executive Letter Unit” and additionally in a personal message that was printed in ‘The Auditor 59 (UK)’, [ca Jan 71]“A Message From Ron”. |
| In spite of this it continued to be promoted at later times within the Scientology organization as if L. Ron Hubbard took hand of all that all by himself. A claim that thus comes with a consequence, see here (separate window). |
The thing is that if he took hand of all that mail send to him (as is the claim) could he not have chosen to also at least set some time aside to get involved with the unit that was writing his technical bulletins for him? Now, which of these would you figure would carry more importance? Replying to the (mostly) silly responses of people writing to ‘Ron’ about their personal success stories and other such things or would you see to it that you establish a firm foundation of technical bulletins? Why does this question even have to be asked?! Either way the operating basis of the RTRC unit would give the impression that no L. Ron Hubbard, with the capacity-knowledge-skills of the early years, was actually available. Per the description of their working procedures as laid out by Dan Koon any and all confirmation for anything is to be had from going through and collecting from old materials from L. Ron Hubbard! So, what does that tell you? Wakey-wakey!
Apparently
Dan Koon didn't see anything, and no one of his working partners in the RTRC unit saw anything... What more is there to tell really?
The position of Dan Koon
| Most of the inside information of the RTRC unit comes from Dan Koon. He described the whole set up and the working order under his then pseudonym Joe Howard in 2009. |
| The question that still required a more definite answer is how one could accept such a set up as the RTRC outfit. What was the motivating factor, why would you submit to that? |
This is the closest I came to get an answer from Dan Koon why he accepted that task to run the unit, that wrote L. Ron Hubbard his references for him, this under the given conditions, outset and demands.
| I posted this in a Facebook group on 22 Jun 2020. |
| |
“RTRC, ‘L. Ron Hubbard Technical Research and Compilations’.
How can anyone think that writing LRH issues and then issuing them under his name would be alright to do?”
“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’. ...
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”)
[an Internet link was provided to this page]
|
|
| Dan Koon responded with: |
| |
“Well, for one thing LRH himself ordered and directed it. As I have said earlier, LRH had people writing issues for him from the early days of Dianetics. He himself never thought it was his game only. He always invited people in to assist him in his work, of whom many, many people contributed over the years.” |
|
| My reply: |
| |
“As Tommy Staahl also earlier wrote: ‘Hard to prove..’
RTRC is different as here people wrote issues for LRH that were issued under his name as if he had written them. It violates the 1959 HCO PL. Now, if LRH ordered and directed that to be violated then that would earn him a cramming order, or does it not?
I vividly remember those missions at Flag that were sifting through folders and papers to collect every little piece of LRH writing and send it up-lines, Nadine de Normanville who scanned through pc folders, David Foster who had lots of telexes and stuff, and so on. Who cares about all that old stuff if you have LRH there who now had lots of time on his hands? (who now wrote science fiction?) What is all this?  ”
Joe Howard: “Say, for example, there was an order to compile HCOB (Hubbard Communication Office Bulletin) X. The research guys would find everything they could find on that subject, down to getting people at the org in London or Washington DC to go look through the boxes in their attics to find anything LRH had said about the matter. Sometimes they'd put together several boxes of junk (uh, research data) that the compiler would then pore over for days to get a grip on what LRH intended for the issue to include. Then he or she would write the issue.”
[published by Dan Koon under his pseudonym, 15 Jan 2009] |
|
| I received no reply to this from Dan Koon. And thus later in the thread I then reiterated and wrote: |
| Dan Koon replied: |
| |
“Because L. RON HUBBARD ORDERED IT! Would YOU, Michel Snoeck, refuse a direct LRH order? Would you really? I doubt it.” |
|
| To which I replied: |
| |
“Then you indeed know very very little about me... At that, you only talk about a person that you believed to be LRH. This individual's behaviour is seriously suspect.
You are also mistaken about the purpose of a hat. A person that carries his/her hat does not receive orders.
I queried an order once from Ron Norton (CO FSO), he gave me right.
So, does that mean that you were the humble follower?”
[my comment, there is a specific Flag Order that directs that a person wearing his hat does not require or should even accept orders, particularly not if it goes against basics and existing policy, this FO was written by L. Ron Hubbard; other references, HCO PLs, already directed that following illegal orders can be punishable] |
|
| Dan Koon replied: |
| |
“Oh, wow. Ron Norton. Norton was a complete pud. This conversation is pretty much done.” |
|
| I answered: |
| |
“Ya think? No one dared really to go against him at Flag, because people figured, ‘Ow, RON NORTON!’. Anyway I queried Msnairies with the same. An LRH or any other person would not have been any exception. ...”
“At Flag he had a repute to not get cross with him. He also could get angry. A ‘pud’ would not achieve the results he has had. Even Int Msnaries that came to Flag revered him.” |
|
The above clarified the question I had urging me to compile this chapter. We know why Dan Koon did as he did, because he was simply ordered to do so. And if a person, that you believe to be L. Ron Hubbard (even if you never even meet the person), then you follow that order, no questions asked! He also expected or assumed that everyone else would or should do the same.
| I got another response in the same thread from a Jonathan Burke. It read: |
| |
“Michel, it sounds like you have a hidden standard on LRH’s personal decisions on his work. What would LRH had to have done in order for him to represent what you think he should have been?” |
|
| I replied: |
| |
“Follow his own policy, ya think?  ”
[of course I referred to HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”: “The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not.”] |
|
| Jonathan Burke responded: |
| |
“Well at that point you become a critic..... Try walking in his shoes. You know, pan determinism and all...” |
|
| I replied: |
| |
“Are ya kidding me? Walking in his shoes? If I were to walk in his shoes I would persist in following my own policies!  What makes you think he is above following his own policies?  ” |
|
| Jonathan Burke responded: |
| |
“Based off of his successes at the time, I’d say he had more margin than you for error. It’s far easier to be critical if [sic, of] the dead than the living.” |
|
| I replied: |
| |
“Yeah, for example take all these mass attestations for Clear at that time, all these people standing in line, that was really an unprecedented and utter successful action!  ” |
|
| And: |
| |
“‘Based off of his successes at the time, I’d say he had more margin than you for error.’
- Then you pull these successes out of your magic hat. Matters were not going all so grand, and particularly not the early 80s.
‘It’s far easier to be critical if [sic, of] the dead than the living.’
- What are you implying here? Is it my fault someone is dead? Suddenly I may not criticize? Then I would tell if that person was alive and in reach, I would deliver my critique as easily to that person, if it must be standing right in front of that person! Ever heard of this thing personal integrity? I am not for sale, not for anyone... You brought this up, are you for sale?” |
|
And that was the end of it, a strange surreal notion was forwarded.
| And yet another person was responding. He responded to Dan Koon's
answer, I guess he came for his defence. Dan Koon had written: |
| |
“Because L. RON HUBBARD ORDERED IT! Would YOU, Michel Snoeck, refuse a direct LRH order? Would you really? I doubt it.” |
|
| And this other guy responded: |
| |
“‘Traditional Sea Org Ethics labeled Non-Compliance as Liability and a False Report as Doubt.’ (HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 APRIL 1972 - ETHICS)” |
|
| I replied: |
| |
“Nonsense... Are you aware of the HCO PL ‘Orders, Query of’? I regularly used it at Flag. I queried Int Mission I/Cs and those lower in rank if the situation called for it.” |
|
This did not get through to the person. He instead persisted in quoting more from his chosen HCO PL. I didn't bother responding anymore.
Reflecting...
Writing an LRH issue, is it at all possible?
Of course we are facing a moralistic dilemma, but... is it possible? Quite frankly I don't think it is. You can of course scan through snippets of papers, already published references, but are you getting to the gist of what the be written/compiled new reference is going to have to be about, do you have the insight required? Anyway and for that purpose you create a group of people? Writing LRH issues? Technical issues?
That Pierre Ethier asserts that there even existed a confidential Central Office of LRH ED titled “HOW TO WRITE AN LRH ISSUE”, doesn't that make you wonder?! But why-why-why the deception?
As I said already there is the moralistic dilemma, a line one should not cross for a variety of reasons. But written new LRH issues from snippets of paper? You figure out if that would be possible!
Vocabulary:
..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA’, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published.
If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
AD..:
‘After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979.
audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
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 PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs 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 HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked.
C/S:
A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc. (HCOB 23 Aug 71)
Clear:
1. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16) 2. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111)
CMO:
‘Commodore Messenger Organization’. A senior entity within the Sea Organization of the Church of Scientology.
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.
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 EDs are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading.
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 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)
OODs:
‘Orders Of the Day’. A type of ship's “newspaper” containing an item from the Commodore, the daily schedule for that day, news and notices, as well as orders necessary to administration of the ship's business. A copy of the OODs is delivered every morning to each in-basket on the ship. It should be read each day carefully so that you keep informed of what is going on around the ship and in the various divisions. (FO 2674)
org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
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).
OSA:
‘Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
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)
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)
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.
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).
World Wide:
Located in London, England. The corporation that (in the early days) owned and controlled Scientology organizations. Currently under the advices of the Sea Organization. (HCO PL 9 Mar 72 I)
WW:
Short for ‘World Wide’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
Copyright © 2015, 2019, 2024 Michel
Snoeck. All rights reserved.
This page revised:
28 July, 2024
|
|
