Scientology pages index  |  Contact

The dawning of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) and      new management (1982-83)  (A coup d'état?) (Witch hunts from the early ’80s or the hunt for squirrels* and unlicensed field auditors)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w / i n t r o d u c t i o n :   M i s s i o n   s t a t e m e n t ,   o v e r v i e w ,   r e s e a r c h   s p e c i f i c s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   L R H K e e p i n g   S c i e n t o l o g y   W o r k i n g ,   f u n d a m en t al s S c i e n t o l o g y   i n   m e d i a   a nd   I n t e r n e t   ( +   f o r u m s ,   W i k i p e d i a ) S c i e n t o l o g y :   I t s   t r u e   h i s t o r y   e x p o s e d ? S c i e n t o l o g y   Q & A   ( F A Q ) E x t e r n a l   l i n k s M a t e r i a l s   w a n t   l i s t R e c o m m e n d e d   l i s t   o f   m a t e r i a l s 2) R e s p o n s e s   ( w i t h   a n n o t a t i o n s ) : A p p r e c i a t i v e   r e s p o n s e s   t o   m y   p a g e s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 1 )   f r o m   c h u r c h g o i n g   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 2 )   f r o m   o u t - o f - c h u r c h   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d    ( 3 )   f r o m   a n t i - S c i e n t o l o g i s t s 3) T o p i c s   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   i n t e r e s t : (a): G e n e r a l   t o p i c s H o l y   S c r i p t u r e s   v s   S c i e n t o l o g y L R H   v s   D i c t i o n a r i e s L R H   v s   t h e o r y   o f   e v o l u t i o n L R H ' s   w o r k s   o f   f i c t i o n (b): O r g a n i z a t i o n a l   t o p i c s A   p r i n t i n g   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   m a t e r i a l s   o f   S c i e n t o l o g y S c i e n t o l o g y   M e m b e r s h i p :   H A S I   v s   I A S L R H   v s   p r i c i n g   p o l i c i e s T h e   c o p y r i g h t s   i s s u e   a n d   l i c e n s i n g (c): T e c h n i c a l   t o p i c s H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   a )   G e n e r a l H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   b )   D e t a i l e d ‘ C l e a r ’   d e f i n e d N E D   f o r   O T s T h e   ‘ P r i m a r y   R u n d o w n ’ 4) C o n t r o v e r s i a l   t o p i c s : M i s t a k e n   i d e a s   o f   ‘ E t h i c s ’   c l a r i f i e d T h e   F a i r    G a m e   L a w P r a c t i c e   o f   D i s c o n n e c t i o n S e c u r i t y   C h e c k i n g F r e e l o a d e r s   v s   E x - s t a f f   m e m b e r s T h e   ‘ R e h a b i l i t a t i o n   P r o j e c t   F o r c e ’   ( R P F ) 5) C h a n g e s   i n   t h e   f l o w   o f   ‘ i n f o r m a t i o n ’: (a): A l t e r a t i o n s   ( L R H   o r   n o n- L R H ? ) L R H   v s   A l t e r a t i o n s N o n - L R H   t u r n s   i n t o   L R H ?   &   P r o p o s a l   t o   s o l u t i o n T h e    ‘ C r a m m i n g   S e r i e s ’   -   L R H   o r   n o t   L R H ? B a s e d   o n   L R H   p u b l i c a t i o n s (b): G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w L R H   v s   A   N e w   O r d e r   ( i n t r o d u c t i o n ) → A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d    o r g a n i z a t i o n a l   m a t t e r s S e t u p   o f   t h e   p r i n t e d   m a t e r i a l s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ) T h e   R T R C ,   t h e   u n i t   t h a t   w r o t e   L R H   i s s u e s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 2 ) T h e   d a w n i n g   o f   R T C   a n d   n e w   m a n a g e m e n t   ( 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 ) → T e c h n i c a l   m a t t e r s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   t h e   e v e n t   o f   l o s i n g   a   B r i d g e ) A n a l y s i s   o f   H C O B   “ T e c h   C o r r e c t i o n   R o u n d - u p ” L o s t   B r i d g e :   T e c h   c h a n g e s   d u r i n g   1 9 7 8 - 8 2 T h e   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   o r i g i n a l   O T   V I I I ‘ G o l d e n   A g e   o f   T e c h ’   ( G A T )   a n a l y s i s D r i l l i n g   i n   S c i e n t o l o g y (c): T h e   m a t t e r   o f   D a v i d   M a y o S t o r y   o f   D a v i d   M a y o ‘ S O   E D   2 3 4 4   I n t’   a n a l y s i s T r a i n i n g   d r i l l s   ( T R s ) M a y o   r e f e r e n c e   l i s t 6) C o n s p i r a c i e s   -   I n   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ' s   f o o t s t e p s S c i e n t o l o g y   v s   a   N e w   W o r l d   O r d e r → W h e r e   i s   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ?   ( c h r o n o l o g y   o f   S c n   h i s t o r y ) W h e r e a b o u t s   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   c h r o n o l o g y T h e   e r a   o f   a d o r a t i o n ;   P r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   i n t o   a r t i s t r y :   M u s i c   &   F i l m → W h e r e   i s   h i s   w i f e   a n d   f a m i l y ? S t o r y   o f   M a r y   S u e   H u b b a r d T h e   l a s t   s t a n d :   T h e   G u a r d i a n   O f f i c e 7) S c i e n t o l o g y   u n d e r   a t t a c k (a): A   p r e m e d i t a t e d   s e r i e s   o f   o c c u r r e n c e s ?   ( ’ 8 0 s   c o n s p i r a c y ) I n t r o d u c t i o n   &   R o n   D e W o l f G e r r y   A r m s t r o n g   ( ‘ a f f i r m a t i o n s ’ ) R u s s e l l   M i l l e r    ( ‘ B a r e - F a c e d   M e s s i a h ’ ) A   r e l i g i o n   c r e a t e d   f o r   t h e   m o n e y ? (b): B a t t l e s   f o u g h t   a n d   t h e   i n t e r n e t   ( 2 0 1 6 -   ) L e a h   R e m i n i :   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   t h e   A f t e r m a t h   ( T V   s h o w )

>> 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.

	“SOLVE IT WITH SCIENTOLOGY
	If the Org slumps during this transition period, don't engage in ‘fund raising’ or ‘selling postcards’ or borrowing money.
	Just make more income with Scientology.
	It's a sign of very poor management to seek extraordinary solutions for finance outside Scientology. It has always failed.
	For Orgs as for pcs ‘Solve It With Scientology’.
	Every time I myself have sought to solve finance or personnel in other ways than Scientology I have lost out. So I can tell you from experience that Org solvency lies in More Scientology, not patented combs or fund raising Barbecues.”
	L. Ron Hubbard
	(from HCO PL 24 Feb 64 “Org Programming”)

 
Index:

		Foreword (from non-profit to for-profit?)
	The establishment of the RTC and new management
		A new management dawns (an array of new corporations, Feb 79-Nov 84)
		The ‘Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology’ vs The RTC
			- ‘Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology’ (May 73-Dec 81) - ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) (Jan 82- )
	And the things that came with the RTC (and it's new management)
		Brief overview and summary of the chapters
			(Includes: How do you get people to stay?)
		The road to expansion? - ‘LRH ED 339R Int’ aka ‘Birthday Game’ (Mar 82)
			(How to expand your organization 5.4X to old Saint-Hill size)
			- The claimed object of the ‘Birthday Game’ was expansion (or was it control)
				(Includes:  The ‘Birthday Game’ vs ‘The Solution to Inflation’, what lines them up? (1976- ); ‘LRH ED 339R Int’, the Birthday Game for 1982/83; Why are ‘Birthday Games’ run like ‘Sea Org missions’? Is it bad control? (a comparison))
			- Observations - issue-type and Mimeo matters
			- Authorship
				(Includes:  A plausible scenario of occurrences?)
			- Unusual solutions?
				(Includes:  The times they are-a-changin’...)
		A mandatory 10% tithe placed on any and all auditors (Apr 82)
		An internal ‘snitch’ system established (Jul 82)
		Rough ethics and ‘scare’ factor enforced en masse (Oct 82)
			(The infamous US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco, held 17 Oct 82)
		Squirrels and unlicensed auditors tracked down by the RTC (Mar 83- )
			- A manhunt on ‘squirrels’, inside and outside of the orgs, spearheaded by RTC
				(RTC perfecting and taking advantage of the ultimate ‘snitch’ system)
			- Are all those that practice Scientology without a license deemed squirrels?
				(A war at hand... but why? - Restricting the freedom of the auditor)
			- Paving the way for ‘RTC licensed auditors only’?
			- The hunt for squirrels à la (in the manner of) L. Ron Hubbard!
		Practice of Disconnection reinstated; Change of rules for Declares (Sept 83)
	Aftermath
		After the new administration settled in... (1984- ) vs A “New Order”
		Résumé, coincidences and reminder...

RTC logo

These years 1982-83 were times that matters turned rather hectic. Suddenly you could be assigned to lower conditions for no apparent reason and without the means of any proper ethics gradient applied or having your rights taken in consideration. Amongst other we were here on the hunt for supposed squirrels. You could receive this stamp rather quickly, and as it appeared far too quickly.

Scientology wasn't doing particularly well during 1982-83. There was a lack of income. We also see that the new regime is ridding itself of an avalanche (many hundreds) of old-timer Scientologists and tech trained people, this for mostly made up reasons. Was the new regime getting rid of people that could oppose them or they considered being or becoming a threat?

The funny thing here in fact is that the Scientology initiative are all said to be for non-profit. But how are you going to defend that position if you start hunting people that are practicing Scientology procedures out there in the field, and then demand them to pay for licenses and all that when US law does not even support that?
The indications that we find though is that starting from so about 1979 to 1982 that the organizational outset and focus appear to have shifted from non-profit to for-profit. Coincidentally at least since 1982 we don't either see the line “The Church of Scientology is a non-profit organization.” printed in the books anymore. Something that used be found in all books. Therefore the logical and sensible question to ask is did Religious Technology Center (formed Jan 1982) represent the transformation to a for-profit organization? It would mean it has all the symptoms of a business opportunity.

A new management dawns (an array of new corporations, Feb 79-Nov 84)

The early ’80s were obviously hectic times for the Church of Scientology organization wise. Reason was that a new management was put in place. We see that the till then familiar Worldwide (WW) was replaced with International Management (IMEC*), internally in the organization commonly referred to as simply Int Management or simply Int. These were the Senior Executive Strata under control of the Executive Director International (ED Int). This ED Int was something new.

It was said that this “International structure” was “established” by L. Ron Hubbard (see ‘International Scientology News, Issue 27’, May 2004, on page 19), and the “reorganization of the Church's corporate and management structures” was “authored” by Mr. David Miscavige (according to their website, external link (last checked: 13 Nov 2019).

Prior to this however L. Ron Hubbard had divided the control to various networks. The Sea Org*, Guardian Office and the service organizations were separate entities where each had different rights, duties and purposes. One of the purposes for example of the Guardian Office was to send out missions to orgs to handle flaps on the lines, but the Executive Director of the local service organization still had the right to factually cancel their orders. They had thus no carte blanche. The local service organizations each had their own so-called Advisory Council (AC), Executive Council (EC) and Financial Planning (FP) that for example other allowed them to set their own prices for services and make various decisions on their own volition.

With this new management put in place since 1982 this balance of powers was essentially gotten rid off. From this time forward it was the very top of the pyramid that could control and micromanage all of Scientology and on an international level. What we see happening is that the local organizations were not allowed to decide anything themselves anymore. Prices were now set internationally and not by the individual service organizations, herewith violating the policy letters on AC, EC and FP. Orders were now issued from the top and simply had to be complied with.

The Scientology organization and its various units and entities did not run like that during its first 32 years of existence. Therefore, was it really L. Ron Hubbard that “established” this new “International structure”?

Date: Corporation: late 1979  International Watchdog Committee (WDC) is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Church. WDC does not manage. It is an inspection and police organization which inspects the actual management units of the Church and sees that they are established and functioning. [Later we find this was placed directly under Religious Technology Center (RTC) in the command channels of Scientology.]   22 DECEMBER 1979 International Management (Int Mgmt) is the top echelon of the Church. It has the responsibility of providing strategies and tactical plans for each sector of Scientology. It is where the directions for the different sections are coordinated so as to forward the overall expansion of Scientology. International Management comprises several units, each with its specific responsibility and duties. The top level of this echelon is the WATCHDOG COMMITTEE. International Management Executives Committee (IMEC) This echelon is senior to all other management bodies save only the Watchdog Committee and Boards of Directors and is org boarded directly below Watchdog Committee. 2 FEBRUARY 1981  Bridge Publications, Inc (BPI) incorporated. Responsible for the publication and distribution of books for USA. 13 OCTOBER 1981    Author Services Incorporated (ASI) incorporated. These were involved with dealings concerning L. Ron Hubbard's literary legacy. This is a for-profit corporation. 23 DECEMBER 1981  Scientology Missions International (SMI) incorporated. 28 MAY 1982 (executed 27 May 1982)  Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) incorporated. From the incorporation papers: “Specifically its purpose is to espouse, present, propagate, practice, ensure, and maintain the purity and integrity of the religion of Scientology.”. In practice however it meant that CSI answers to RTC that in turn answers to CST. CST owns the copyright registered as ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’. 24 NOVEMBER 1982  International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors (I-HELP) incorporated. Licensing body for Field Auditors (annual fee and 10% of gross income). Provide for guidance and help to operate successfully in the field.

Neither of these are particularly insignificant.

“The Church of Scientology of California is reorganized and is no longer the Mother Church. The Mother Church will be the Church of Scientology International, which will include ecclesiastical management units such as Senior Management, IMO and ITO (International Management & Training Organization).” (from HCO PL 25 Nov 81 I “Corporate and Other Changes”)

• ‘Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology’ (May 73-Dec 81)
• ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) (Jan 82- )

 
‘Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology’ (May 73-Dec 81)

The later in 1982 established Religious Technology Center (RTC) in principle acted already as the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. The term had been in use as early as May 73 and a last time in December 1981. The month following we then see this RTC formed. A coincidence? This should not be very likely, they are obviously the same entity. This is actually interesting as it points at that the managing entity of RTC had already been realized and was operating at least as early as 1973.

It becomes then an incriminating observation that we see that the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology was used to establish a mandatory 10% tithe for Dianetic Counselling Groups. It becomes even more incriminating that in the revision of that same reference that was released 9½ months later and this time was adding any and all Field Auditors for that 10% tithe. That it this time around was even setting aside L. Ron Hubbard whose name was removed from the signature area and initials from this reference. This revision was just signed “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY” (p.s. in error it had dropped in this release the ‘S’ following Board). Composer/typing initial accordingly list ‘BDCS:dr’. L. Ron Hubbard was thus completely absent from this revision.

It was the RTC that was to become that controlling micromanaging entity that was issuing these licenses required that were allowing you to operate as a field auditor.

Commonly it is figured by the Scientology parishioner (inside the Church of Scientology and those active outside of their reign, Free Zone, Ron's org, etc.) that it was all formed and established in 1982. The only differences may have been that the actions taken were more detailedly circumscribed, and that the unit finally was given a name. Later on things like trademarks and such were placed in the unit. Essentially and in effect it is rather obvious that it would be the very same entity, an RTC in the making you may wish to say.

 
‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) (Jan 82- )

	“NOVEMBER 1, 1981
	The Church of Scientology International was founded, signaling a new era of Scientology management. A strong standardized corporate structure was required to facilitate the rapid expansion of Scientology and maintain high ethical standards in a widespread international network of churches. This followed a series of Sea Org inspections that discovered that the Guardian's Office (which had been established in 1966 to protect the Church from external attacks and care for its legal matters) had become entirely autonomous and corrupt. The Guardian's Office had been infiltrated by individuals antithetical to Scientology and had become an organization that operated completely apart from the day-to-day activities of the Church. Their secret actions in violation of Church policy had resulted in eleven members being jailed for obstruction of justice. Sea Organization executives overthrew the Guardian's Office and disbanded it. Part of the measures taken to ensure a similar situation could never recur was the formation of the Religious Technology Center on 1 January 1982. L. Ron Hubbard bestowed the trademarks of Scientology to RTC, whose purpose is to safeguard the proper use of the marks and ensure they remain in good hands and are properly used.”

Ain't that interesting, the RTC coming into being because of the Guardian Office! We may add here that this RTC in turn had to answer to Church of Spiritual Technology (CST). We find however that the Church of Scientology does not reveal or mention that anywhere in any published material! The Scientology parishioner does thus not know about CST. The existence though of CST and that it stands for however can easily be verified, we have the incorporation papers for that, and if for example you go in to the U.S. copyright database website at www.copyright.gov/records you will find that the materials of Scientology are all copyrighted in the name of this CST. So, RTC does not actually own any of the copyrights (the subject matter or if you like the spiritual legacy), they only own some of the trademarks and service marks (which are graphical designs). RTC executes with the permission of CST. The RTC is the outward face. Why however is the Scientology parishioner not informed about this?

Brief overview and summary of the chapters
(Includes: How do you get people to stay?)

The establishment of the new regime, Religious Technology Center, and all its sub-corporations made for a rather significant change in how the organization functioned, how matters were dealt with and how its parishioners were being treated. Up till that time it was created to be self-sustaining and basically correcting itself. There was freedom. The new regime established meant control, rigid control. And self-determinism was no more. Now someone was going to tell you what is allowed and what you may or may not do. With whom you may talk or have contact with and with whom not. Now, what was Scientology all about again?

In the years before this new management was set up all the various Scientology organizations operated essentially independent. It was the ED (or the Executive Council (EC)) of an organization that had the last word, and things could not happen without the approval of the ED. Missions send to orgs also could not operate if the ED did not approve of it. This independence, as the years went by, was abandoned. The local organizations had to totally submit to the authority of this new management that was situated in Los Angeles. The ED (and its EC) was simply bypassed.

Prevalent installments of particular interest and mind-set in this particular time frame (1982-83) were:

It is sort of hard to look past that this was the mind-set that was forwarded.

RTC and the new management were rebuilding everything and setting up an indeed very tight control, particularly over its parishioners. The question is if it was all for the better?

How do you get people to stay?

As the environment within the organization become more and more constraining, demanding and unpleasant. It caused people to leave. How do you solve that, how do you keep them around? One of the ways this was tried was through persistently claiming the only place were the original technology was delivered and received was the organization. Essentially this started at the US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco, held 17 Oct 82, and rather harshly. People were threatened there en masse. First you flag for example with “The upper OT levels, Solo NOTs, new OT 8, new OT 9, 10, 11 -- these levels are amazing. They are amazing beyond your belief. These things are all there and it's a very bright future.” and next you say that if you do not as you are told “you particularly won't get anymore OT levels, nothing, if you persist.”. One should keep in mind that it was the organization that determined what was the correct technology and what was squirrel. Anyway is this a comforting and nice way to keep people around. Does this increase faith in the organization? Do only which we approve and tell you to do, and if not, “You won't have any certificates, you won't get any auditing and I can see to it that you won't.” and “I can tell you you won't have anything left. Nothing.”

It was rather brutal at this particular conference, but it has ever since been a standard ingredient to tell, particularly via recorded live events (of which there were many), but even promotional materials, to ensure that the parishioner fully understood, and would never forget, that “We are the only ones that have standard technology and materials!” And you better believe it ... Through the years I have seen many parishioners that had adopted this as their stable datum. Afraid to say something, because one might lose this road to total freedom. I thought this was rather frightening, as this does not present a free being to have this fear. It also does not display a faith in the kindness and justness of the organization. I myself could open up my mouth, usually saying something others were only thinking, and immediately I saw fear in the people around me. That you can observe is a really tremendous obedience, more sensitive matters (having to do with upper management) are simply never questioned. You have to ask yourself, that if an organization operates like this, that creates this atmosphere, can they deliver you that freedom?

• The claimed object of the ‘Birthday Game’ was expansion (or was it control)
          - The ‘Birthday Game’ vs ‘The Solution to Inflation’, what lines them up? (1976- )
          - ‘LRH ED 339R Int’, the Birthday Game for 1982/83
          - Why are ‘Birthday Games’ run like ‘Sea Org missions’? Is it bad control? (a comparison)
  
• Observations - issue-type and Mimeo matters
• Authorship
          (Includes:  A plausible scenario of occurrences?)
• Unusual solutions?
          (Includes:  The times they are-a-changin’...)

 
The claimed object of the ‘Birthday Game’ was expansion (or was it control)

• The ‘Birthday Game’ vs ‘The Solution to Inflation’, what lines them up? (1976- )
• ‘LRH ED 339R Int’, the Birthday Game for 1982/83
• Why are ‘Birthday Games’ run like ‘Sea Org missions’? Is it bad control? (a comparison)

Published 1987

The general concept of the Birthday Game was to have the various Scientology organizations sort of battle with each other in where rewards could be awarded to those who could show the greatest expansion. The example to follow was the old Saint-Hill in England, in where statistics in a distant past (1965) had 5.4Xed under the leadership of L. Ron Hubbard. So, how to have your organization expand by 5.4 times? To motivate you even more it was presented as the LRH Birthday Game. After all, as it apparently was figured, what greater present could you give to L. Ron Hubbard?

 
The ‘Birthday Game’ vs ‘The Solution to Inflation’, what lines them up? (1976- )

The time chosen for having the first Birthday Game is interesting as such as it falls in the same time frame as the initiative for raising the prices for services on a monthly basis that was called The Solution to Inflation. Coincidentally they were both forwarded through the LRH ED issue-type. Each of them would have considerable consequences in the years to come, one for Scientology parishioners and one for staff.
The Birthday Game would grow to be a burden particularly for staff (increased workload and control), where The Solution to Inflation as time progressed would be a burden for the parishioner (making services gradually much more expensive).

Compare here:  (initiatives started)

‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation”    & ‘LRH ED 288 Int’, 5 Nov 76 “Birthday Game for ’77-’78”

‘LRH ED 288 Int’, 5 Nov 76 “Birthday Game for ’77-’78” ‘LRH ED 293 Int’, 23 Oct 78 “78-79 Birthday Game” ‘LRH ED 293R Int’, 23 Oct 78 (Reiss 13 Mar 79/Corr 9 Apr 79) “.. 79-80 Birthday Game ..” ‘LRH ED 310 Int’, 5 Jan 80 “1980/81 Birthday Game” ‘LRH ED 326 Int’, 13 Mar 81 “*** 1981/82 Birthday Game ***”

Are both these initiatives and their series of releases a coincidence? They should not be as they came about in this narrow a time frame (just a few months apart). Now The Solution to Inflation did forward an unusual solution that as it progressed became a huge problem violating basic policies on prices for services. The Birthday Game as well was offering an unusual solution as policies always had been around for expansion, it does not need nor require a Birthday Game to get expansion achieve this 5.4X for an org.

The approach for the 1982/83 Birthday Game however changed. No new LRH EDs were issued to keep the initiative up, the LRH ED for the 1982/83 game was interpreted as an advice of sorts for forthcoming Birthday Games.

The Solution to Inflation and the Birthday Game initiative, what lines them up? They both have their focus on generating income (aka money), and this quickly, and as it seems through whatever means.

More about The Solution to Inflation, its repercussions and conflicting information can be found at link here (separate window).

 
‘LRH ED 339R Int’, the Birthday Game for 1982/83

At this time thing were really taking off. The Birthday Game initiative grew now to be a huge entity. A question that arises is why this did happen? Well, it does appear that the previous five Birthday Games (1977-82) hadn't been that effective as the Scientology organization was facing hardship and decline.

The whole of Scientology was certainly not doing very well 1982-83. The printing of various of the Scientology magazines were having problems and were issued only sporadically, simply because of lack of funds. Then we see that the new management kicked out old-timer Scientologists massively for made up reasons and gargantuan unjustly. It is estimated that about 500 well-versed tech people were leaving. One would ask if L. Ron Hubbard would have applauded such things? For sure this does not increase your expansion if you do such things?

Some caveats however did present itself in the set up. It was figured that a fair fighting chance was and should be given also to smaller orgs to enable them to compete with larger orgs. It would appear, in later years, that even orgs that had isolated stats could win awards, which is essentially silly, because an overall statistic of well doing and expansion should be calculated. I remember an org that won awards because of having highest statistics for just book sales, and these were very well presented, but this org really wasn't doing so well overall. I was a parishioner in this org therefore I knew very well, but the other statistics were just not shown. What a happy bunch of people I saw, their org won, although some sceptical faces were seen as well!

There is another observation to be made. Ever since the Scientology organization has continued to play this Birthday Game. The management of the organization also has been claiming greatest expansion ever for many years (each year) in a role. However the rigid control exercised by the international management has been relentless till this day in regards to Birthday Games and anything else. Now, if you have a routine working that produces expansion, then would you still need this rigid control? There is an additional problem, many people witness they are faced with organizations with very little public in them, empty basically. It comes down to what was the real observed result of the Birthday Games? In the end, was the initiative for the Birthday Game for expansion or was it for control?

One does get the impression that the Birthday Game initiative is like a CMO mission that just never ever retires! (see next section here under)

 
Why are ‘Birthday Games’ run like ‘Sea Org missions’? Is it bad control? (a comparison)

Birthday Games are a sort of missions that are run by a Senior (CMO) Sea Org level management with Class IV org staff as its missionaries. It is obviously the wrong line of command. Also mind that Sea Org missions are time based (the one exception is a Garrison mission). A Sea Org mission is send out to revert a particular non-survival situation at some org, some place, or to establish something. If that was achieved, the missionaries returned to their base and debriefed. May be they were send on another mission or they (usually) returned to their original post in the Sea Org. Any Sea Org staff could be pulled of post called by CMO to run a mission for some period of time. Thus of a temporarily nature, whereas Birthday Games run the whole year, till the next Birthday Game was launched directly following.

 
Observations - issue-type and Mimeo matters

“Because of staff insistence, it is no longer legal for other people than myself to write LRH EDs. The line can be abused and so, as the birthday game LRH ED you have was written by others, the boards of directors have requested that I write one personally to supplant it.”          (attributed to ) LRH

Why is this strange? Well it is because:

“LRH EDs – L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directives, earlier called SEC 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 blue ink on white paper with a special heading.”          LRH (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70R (Revised 23 Jun 75) “Issues – Types of”)

See, the issue-type format of the LRH ED was already designated to have been written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard and him alone. So, what is it talking about in this “Note”? Are we to assume L. Ron Hubbard had forgotten about that, how could anyone forget about something like this.

In 1983 we saw the publication of ‘The Original LRH Executive Directives’, it contained all the publicly released LRH EDs. We see that all of them are indicated as having been written by L. Ron Hubbard.

“HCO PL – Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter. Written by LRH only. This is a permanently valid issue of all third dynamic, org and administrative technology. These, regardless of date or age, form the know-how in running an org or group or company. ... They are printed in green ink on white paper.”          LRH (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70R (Revised 23 Jun 75) “Issues – Types of”)

In the past if it was found that an ED needed permanent validity it was promoted to be issued as an HCO PL. Why did this never happen with LRH ED 339R Int?

It may be argued that it was not really this LRH ED (and it's companions 339R-1 and 340R) that were in use, as it was taken as just an advice and to issue each year other issues that would lay out the rules for that year in the Birthday Game. They have been doing that since it all started in 1982 till this very day. It resulted in international management sending out these thick binders filled with papers, reference materials, orders, checklist, and so on.

Now is it justified just using these LRH EDs as an advice or as a concept idea without publishing them as HCO PLs. I don't think it is, and certainly not if you repeat the process each and every year!

So, there are:

LRH ED 340R Int is a similar story as 339R as it states: “Note: I would be very pleased if you would care to do the following as an improvement on the existing Birthday Game which was not written by me.”  (attributed to ) LRH

This is wrong for the same reason why it was wrong with LRH ED 339R Int. I also have never seen a copy of the original 340 version.

We find this side note in ‘LRH ED 289 Int’, 16 Nov 76 “General Briefing on My Current Actions” that says (underlining is mine) “The occasional practice of putting my name on issues I didn't write or even see has now been very thoroughly forbidden.” It states that “Someone tried ... putting my name on LRH ED 259-1RC and I had it cancelled.” Hence this notice. Then why was it tried again with LRH ED 339 & 340?

 
Authorship
(Includes:  A plausible scenario of occurrences?)

Who could then have written these issues? Fair guesses are that Robert Vaughn Young would been involved or had written it. It may even have been Phoebe Maurer, who at that time was heading a group that was issuing and writing issues for L. Ron Hubbard. A group that was referred to since 1983 as the RTRC, see for more info about that here (separate window).

A plausible scenario of occurrences?

 
Unusual solutions?
(Includes:  The times they are-a-changin’...)

	“The Org Board was IN. The Org Board was WELL-MANNED. Recruits received their HATS, studied them and got on with their jobs. LINES were held firm, routing forms were in full use. Dev-T* was not allowed to rear its head. The proper conditions were applied to the scene. The org was on policy and the result was an expanding and flourishing scene with the staff well-paid and moving up The Bridge® classification and gradation chart. Morale was sky-high.”
	(from ‘How Big Was Old Saint Hill? (1987, staff edition, page 5)

It would look like it was all already covered within policy letters. At such a time that L. Ron Hubbard 5.4Xed Saint Hill the tools to use were written and published in policy letters. It would appear here that these policy letters were not being applied, but that instead was chosen to resort to unusual solutions. See, you only had to apply already available guidelines. Well, they created the LRH Birthday Game. Now would L. Ron Hubbard have gone along with that? Would he?

The times they are-a-changin’...

The way non-application or non-compliance (not having a predicted product) was dealt with in the years foregoing was to have the person send to cramming, get them properly trained in order that the person then can apply the existing policy letters and in this way cause expansion or produce a well running organization. All this was arranged and done locally!

What it instead came to be (with the new regime) was that meticulous control was exercised for every little step the person made. Each of these steps needed to be checked off (your signature initials and date) on that sheet of paper listing all the steps and send to this international management. You were then also required to attach the evidence that shows you really had done so. You were being controlled at a long distance, for many this would even mean overseas.

Do you see the difference and what had changed?!

“It is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics. ...
Dianetics is not in any way covered by legislation anywhere for no law can prevent one man sitting down and telling another man his troubles, and if anyone wants a monopoly on dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with dianetics but with profit.”          LRH
(from ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’; Book Three: Therapy; Chapter I: The Mind's Protection; 1950, 1973 edition, p168)

A monopoly was taken and you were not allowed to practice Scientology, and earn a living of it, without paying your ‘dues’ to the organization (10% of your income). This ordination was given an L. Ron Hubbard ‘authority’ through HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees” and finalized put into definite action with the creation of I HELP (incorporated 24 Nov 82), the licensing body for any Field Auditor.

This mandatory license fee for all auditors slowly crept in starting 1979. HCO PL 9 Feb AD29 “Dianetic Counselling Groups, 10% Remittances to WW” deemed that from now on “Dianetic Counselling Groups” had to pay a 10% title, then in its revision issued 29 Nov 79 it added that the “Field Auditors” are to be subjected to the same. But this revision had no L. Ron Hubbard ‘authority’, the original HCO PL was signed not by L. Ron Hubbard but solely by the “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”(‘BDCS’), but for some reason the first version of the HCO PL was written by L. Ron Hubbard? Why did he disappear from mention? This uncomfortability was then fixed in Apr 82. Or? Was it really fixed? It directed:  (full text given)

“A field auditor, professionally auditing or hanging out his shingle, is required to pay 10 percent of the fees collected for auditing to I HELP (International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors), which is the central organization in charge of field auditors.”          [attributed to LRH]

A very meager text, “hanging out his shingle” changed and abandoned the whole original setup of rules, this without any explanation.

Caveats regarding HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees”...  (unavailability)

Another problem is that we can see on the available version as found in this thick book volume. It is surely enough signed with “L. RON HUBBARD, Founder” but then we see it followed with “Assisted by Div 6 Internal, Executive International”. Two questions are arising: 1. In this one-sentence reference, does it really need any assisting?; 2. Per the rules as established by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” this has become to mean that the assistant actually wrote it. See, the HCOB clearly states: “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.”. For a one-sentence reference?

An additional observation that indicates things are off is that L. Ron Hubbard always supplied a careful explanation for something. The goal was understanding that would then result in duplication and application. HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees” does not explain anything, not anything at all!

A change of focus

In the years previous to this there was something called a franchise, here in exchange for the help that was received from the organization (C/S*ing, printed materials, access to lecture room, etc.), for this you owed a 10% tithe. Which is a fair exchange. However you also could choose to be on your own, in where no tithe was owed. From here on out this free practicing auditor was no more. Here there was no fair exchange.

One should not be surprised about this development as, according to the notices we find in the printed books, and that were published since 1982, that the notice “non-profit organisation” had simply disappeared!

This is ironic as the Church of Scientology International (CSI), incorporated 1 Nov 81, is registered as a California 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. This of course will get you taxation benefits.

A strange situation and a massive change in the free practice, and thus even the spreading, of Dianetics and Scientology. The Field Auditor often was already struggling to have ends meet. And what income did the Dianetic Counseling Groups generate. An expressed intention given in old policy letters was that the main purpose was considered dissemination, to have and motivate people to get familiar and make use of the techniques. It wasn't for-profit. You didn't know, well that just changed!

Mid-1982 we see a firm establishment of a reporting system with the release of HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”. This reporting system soon would turn to one of the tools that will be heavily promoted and put in use by especially Religious Technology Center. In effect we have a ‘snitch’ system put in place.

This policy letter essentially cancelled the ethics gradients as laid out in HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review”. It directed steps taken and if it was resolved prior to step “9. Reporting on a person to Ethics.”  LRH, then a report was simply not written. It also passes by writing a so-called ‘Things that shouldn't be’ despatch to the Inspection Officer. In where you may have observed something and don't know what to think of it or other. A despatch (thus not a report) could be send to an org terminal that will assess it and will do what is necessary.

RTC logo for‘Standard Ethics’

Then an indeed harsh and threatening tone we find is exerted during the US Mission Holders’ Conference held in San Francisco on 17 Oct 82. It is something that I would refer to as exercising and implanting a scare factor. People amongst other were ordered en masse to write down their own overts* according to the knowledge reports previously established as per HCO PL 22 Jul 82 ‘Knowledge Reports’. This was three months earlier! Now, was this a coincidence, that should really not be very likely. This approach exercised however may not necessarily result in that you may wish to have happen. Mind that Scientology Missions International (SMI Int), incorporated 23 Dec 81, had to answer to RTC. These occurrences are all related.

Somewhere on the line we see the enforcement of ethics application when ethics is clearly defined in Scientology as a personal matter. And behold this particular conference introduced ethics applied en masse? The question is then raised if this really could have been standard ethics? If you do or enforce something like this en masse then you will face the problem that you will be penalizing various people that were doing well. This however is not standard procedure within Scientology. Ethics in Scientology was developed in such a way that this would not happen and it would be deserved if applied. At this conference, as it would seem, one reverted back to ethics and justice as it was used in society.

• A manhunt on ‘squirrels’, inside and outside of the orgs, spearheaded by RTC
  (RTC perfecting and taking advantage of the ultimate ‘snitch’ system)
• Are all those that practice Scientology without a license deemed squirrels?
  (A war at hand... but why? - Restricting the freedom of the auditor)
• Paving the way for ‘RTC licensed auditors only’?
• The hunt for squirrels à la (in the manner of) L. Ron Hubbard!

 
A manhunt on ‘squirrels’, inside and outside of the orgs, spearheaded by RTC
(RTC perfecting and taking advantage of the ultimate ‘snitch’ system)

These years are being perceived by many Scientology old-timers as rather hectic. It is reported that many persons ended up on the RPF or found themselves expelled without even having a Comm Ev* convened. But as easily things could also be turned around and condition assignments reverted. Either way much was happening. Jan 83 had seen the release of ‘SO ED* 2192 Int’, 27 Jan 83 “List of Declared Suppressive Persons”, that was listing 607 names who were declared during late 1982 and early 1983. Many of these persons had been in the organization since a variety of years, reportedly a variety of previously high ranking Sea Org members and high classed auditors were purportedly listed. Somehow it was thus thought that persons could turn from being a productive auditor and loyal Scientologists, that were active for as much as 30 years, suddenly it could be found about that they in reality were bad (suppressive) persons after all? This could apply to some individuals I am sure, but this time around are not too many persons found that would fit this bill and criteria?

The year 1983 had also seen the periodical ‘KSW News’ coming into which was published by the Religious Technology Center. Especially the early run of this periodical contained a variety of reports how various squirrels were stopped from practising or so we our told. The reasons given usually related to trademark violations and such. We are not supplied with exact specifics.

Religious Technology Center stated its purpose in ‘RTC Information Letter #1’, 2 Mar 83 as “to see to it that the services delivered under the many trade and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology are 100% Standard Tech and that the Bridge remains pure, workable, and available to all who wish to go free”.

	“The Inspector General Network has the purpose to safeguard the proper use of the Trademarks of Dianetics™ spiritual healing technology and Scientology applied religious philosophy, protecting the public, and making sure that this powerful technology remains in good hands and is properly used.
	Though not the most pleasant of topics, there are those who view Scientology technology in some perverted fashion — some going so far as to squirrel the standard procedures of Dianetics and Scientology technologies as written and recorded by the Founder, L. Ron Hubbard. Such persons commit this out-tech pretending to use Dianetics and Scientology technologies while doing something else (their ‘own brand’, not what LRH says). You can always tell a squirrel because both his advice and his pcs don't get better.”

The Information Letter then mentions: “You may have heard of some such fellows (now removed from the Church).”. Evidently this would be referring to David Mayo who had been removed from his post of Senior C/S International in late August 1982. He and the whole of the staff of the Senior C/S Int office were made subject to a so-called Committee of Evidence*. Its findings were then published in ‘RTC Conditions Order 1’, 9 Oct 82. It did not turn out so well for these persons. David Mayo's head was put on a pike with the release of ‘Flag Conditions Order 7138’, 2 Mar 83 “Writ of Expulsion and Suppressive Person Declare David Mayo”. Note that this release carries the same issue date as RTC Information Letter 1 & 2. It should be obvious that all these happenings are quite related. In a sense it is ironic as David Mayo was one of the original cofounders of the Religious Technology Center! (more info here, separate window) As a thank you he was then honoured having the first ever released RTC Conditions Order to be about his person and his staff.

	“Name of the squirrel/squirrel group.
	Where are they located?
	Who is involved in the activity?
	What are they doing that is squirrel?
	Do you have any other data regarding this that you feel RTC should know about?”

 
Are all those that practice Scientology without a license deemed squirrels?
(A war at hand... but why? - Restricting the freedom of the auditor)

	“Wins against squirrels. RTC has also been the major driving force behind handling squirrel groups internationally so that Scientologists are protected against those who deal in shoddy substitutes for personal gain.” ...
	RTC currently has a number of missions out in 16 locations all over the world which are directly handling squirrel groups to get them handled and closed down. ...”

	“I consider all auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of auditors and Scientologists as the Free People.
	Just as they consider one another their people, so I consider them my people.
	I think their errors of the past, when they existed, came about because we are new and we are finding out and I don't think any of their errors were intentional any more than mine were.”          LRH (from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)

“Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension.”          LRH (from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

“No squirrel has lasted more than 2 or 3 years in the past sixteen years. And there have been many. That they squirrel shows enough bad faith to drive away the public the moment the public hears of the original.”          LRH (from HCO PL 4 Dec 66 “Expansion - Theory of Policy”)

“My earnest advice is: Only deal with or associate with those organizations licensed by RTC and auditors in good standing with the Church.” (from ‘Ron's Journal 38’, 31 Dec 83 “Today and Tomorrow: The Proof”)

 
Paving the way for ‘RTC licensed auditors only’?

“Recent surveys have been done on public and one of the main things that they are interested in is ensuring that the squirrels get handled and off the lines. RTC is the organization that is effectively doing this. The response to RTC's handling of the squirrels has been excellent. The public detests them.” (from ‘Ron's Journal 38’, 31 Dec 83 “Today and Tomorrow: The Proof”)

Now why would the Scientology public be worried about people that use Scientology technology? As that is what it comes down to. Mind: “I consider all auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel.”  LRH

The matter is that real squirrels would perish by themselves because of no income, no need to hunt them down! Some writing (for example an Ethics Order) issued on these persons that will be informing the Scientology parishioner, and good promotion for the Scientology organization would do the trick! The problem though that arises with this new approach is that it was somehow figured that any unlicensed practicing Scientologist was considered/assumed by RTC to be a squirrel, and he is therefore also hunted down.

But it being “one of the main things that they [the public] are interested in”? Really? I have always found that the Scientology parishioners are more interested in their own progress and that they themselves are able to practice Scientology. That is all they'll talk about, I have not ever seen any particular focus on so-called squirrels among Scientology parishioners!

A reminder should be:

“For no man has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others.”          LRH   
(from “My Philosophy” [ca 1965])

“... if anyone wants a monopoly on dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with dianetics but with profit.”          LRH   
(from ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’; Book Three: Therapy; Chapter I: The Mind's Protection; 1950, 1973 edition, p168)

 
The hunt for squirrels à la (in the manner of) L. Ron Hubbard!

There is something we can consult. There is this reference. It talks about squirrels, establishes what they would be about, and offers steps how to effectively deal with these. It is a confidential LRH ED dating back to 1966. These mid-’60s, per the reports, was a time when the organization endured various attacks. (more info here, separate window) This then had to be dealt with. It was referred to as “Project Squirrel”.

It would appear these are not the kind of persons that RTC has been going after. This confidential LRH ED reveals about persons that do actual damage to the organization.

Briefly summarized it amounts to:
	a)	HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” which is a re-introduction of the Practice of Disconnection (previously cancelled by HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”);
	b)	HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” (Limited Distribution) introduced exceptions to HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order”, as it dictates that one is to be unspecific in regards to information given when issuing Declare Orders. This is a problem as this HCO PL 9 Sept 83 is a confidential release, in the same as it also clashes with HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”;
	c)	HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” introduced the datum: “A Suppressive Declare Order upon a person or group and all of the conditions inherent within it remain in force until the order has been officially cancelled by an authorized and published Church issue.”, which in effect is clashing with HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”!
	(a study of ‘a)’ can be consulted here, a study of ‘b)’ & ‘c)’ can be consulted here (separate windows).

If we for a moment assume that these implementations may have been incorporated and thought up with the best of intentions in order to handle an unwanted situation, then judging the results and what it caused it may not have worked out very well. Either way the fact of the implementation of these adjustments does raise some questions as explained in a), b) & c) here above.

L. Ron Hubbard forbade this as early as 1968, and it was because of serious misuse. Then since Sept 83 it was hauled all in again, this misused kind of disconnection in an even worse version.

After the new administration settled in... (1984- ) vs A “New Order”

By 1984 the particular hectic times from the few foregoing years seem to have gone for a break. The periodical ‘International Scientology News 4’ [ca Feb 84] reports about an “enormous international expansion”. Religious Technology Center however steadily kept walking on the path they had chosen.

In 1991 we see the release of ‘Flag ED 2830’, 10 Sept 91 “Suppressive Persons and Suppressive Groups List”, listing approximately 415 groups and 2,230 individuals. Per the routing indicated on this reference these were distributed to ‘ALL E/Os* ALL ORGS AND MISSIONS’ around the world as an attempt “to ensure that these individuals or members of these groups are not connected to or on lines at your org or mission in any way.”. It is claimed all to be for safeguarding purposes and the sake of Keeping Scientology Working. Till this day the Religious Technology Center encourages and motivates to send in your reports about matters this through their magazine ‘KSW News’, but also through the Internet via their website, external link (last checked: 29 Oct 2019). In the same they are insisting that field auditors are to be licensed and only run that version of the technology that they have approved. If you want to run something other or older you are expected to seek approval first.

In that respect what are we to think of that which L. Ron Hubbard wrote in 1956: “I think of auditors and Scientologists as the Free People.”?

It is in effect a misapplication of:

“Any process ever taught on the SHSBC or ever released in ANY book can be audited and be Standard Tech.”          LRH
(from HCOB 26 Feb 70 “Standard Tech and Invalidation”)

	“Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. ...
	This idea that the ‘old’ is always cancelled by anything ‘new’ has its root in the idea that a later order cancels earlier orders, which is true. But orders are one thing and Tech basics another.”          LRH (from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”)

The remedy...

	“There is only one thing that could happen to Scientology and that is to say that it would be buried—the remedy would be buried. If it ever went out of sight, this world's done. All you've got to do is invalidate it and put it out of sight and hide it, and it'll come up in the wrong place doing the wrong thing and mankind will find itself a slave.
	So anybody that knows the remedy of this subject—anybody that knows these techniques—is himself actually under a certain responsibility; that's to make sure that he doesn't remain a sole proprietor. That's all it takes; just don't remain a sole proprietor. Don't ever think that a monopoly of this subject is a safe thing to have. It's not safe. It's not safe for man; it's not safe for this universe.
	This universe has long been looking for new ways to make slaves. Well, we've got some new ways to make slaves here. Let's see that none are made.”

	Sound snippet
	(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)

	“[Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's 1984? Yes, yes, that's wonderful. That would be—could be the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence.]...
	It's a very simple remedy. And that's---just make sure that the remedy is passed along. That's all. Don't hoard it, don't hold it; [and if you ever do use any Black Dianetics*, use it on the guy who pulled Scientology out of sight and made it so it wasn't available. Because he's the boy who would be electing himself ‘The New Order’. And we don't need any more new orders. All those orders, as far as I am concerned, have been filled.]”          LRH  (from Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture #20 “Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic”, given on 6 Dec 52)

	Sound snippet
	(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)

Coincidentally the text from this second clip here above of this lecture has been edited since its 1991 re-release. The pieces about George Orwell and Black Dianetics (see between brackets) are missing. Are these warning signs may be?

The ‘Board(s) of Directors of the Churches of Scientology’ as a forerunner of the RTC

It can be observed that it was a smooth and obvious transition from ‘Boards of Directors’ (‘BDCS’) to ‘Church of Scientology International’ (‘CSI’) as a notification in references. Now the Religious Technology Center (RTC) was active in references through the Church of Scientology International (CSI).

Prior to that (pre-1982) the entity the RTC as such had not been created yet but it was active through the Boards of Directors. One should be clear about that.

10% Remittances to Dianetic Counselling Groups/Field Auditors

Is it a coincidence that the implementation of a mandatory 10% tithe for all Dianetic Counselling Groups and that 9½ months later included and and all Field Auditors, that we also see the Church of Scientology turning from a non-profit organization into a for-profit organization? It was the RTC that would become the entity that gave out the licenses and that was hunting down people that were not licensed.

An array of new corporations, Feb 79-Nov 84

The various corporations that came with the RTC fall in the time period Feb 1979-Nov 1984. The first one listed was the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (WISE), which was incorporated 1 Feb 79. This is just 8 days apart from the release of HCO PL 9 Feb AD29 “Dianetic Counselling Groups, 10% Remittances to WW”.

Would this be a coincidence? The particular month may be, but everything gives a clear indication that these occurrences were well planned long in advance and have been implemented step by step, spread out over a number of years! Slowly build up, and then they all come together. The concept of an RTC must have been dawning already in 1973 in which year we see the first recorded appearance of ‘BOARDS OF DIRECTORS’ in the signature area of a reference.

It would indeed be a smart move that if you aim to take over and change an original technology (that was established 1970-72). That you, prior to presenting a new regime, that you already have your changes in that technology accepted as correct by everyone. Only after this is fully achieved (Jul 78-Dec 81), now you would start to unfold and establish your new management with its new rules piece by piece. That you can expect is disagreements about the new management but not the technology, the apostate is still likely to adopt and will continue to use the overhauled version of that technology as he will not, or will refuse to see that changing this was already achieved through the previous actions undertaken by that same new management.

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.
     ASI:
‘Author's Services, Incorporated’. These were involved with dealings concerning L. Ron Hubbard's literary legacy. Incorporated on 13 October 1981.
     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.
     Black Dianetics:
1. Hypnotism. (5109C17A)  2. There are those who, to control, resort to narcotism, suggestion, gossip, slander–the thousands of overt and covert ways that can be classified as Black Dianetics. (Journal of Scientology Issue 3-G, Sept. 1952, Danger: Black Dianetics!)
     CMO:
‘Commodore Messenger Organization’. A senior entity within the Sea Organization of the Church of Scientology.
     Comm Ev:
‘Committee of Evidence’. 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)
     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.
     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)
     Dev-T (dev-t):
 ‘developed traffic’. 1. any executive getting dev-t knows at once what posts are not held because dev-t is the confusion that should have been handled in that area by someone on post. 2. Developed traffic does not mean usual and necessary traffic. It means unusual and unnecessary traffic. 3. Non-compliance, alter-is, no report, false reports, off-origin statements and despatches, stale dated orders, wrong targets, cross orders, cross targets are all dev-t.
     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)
     Mimeo:
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the ’80s however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
     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.
     O/W Write-up:
‘Overt/Withhold Write-up’. Basically writing down overt acts and withholds in a particular format on a piece of paper that is then forwarded to the Ethics section of a Scientology organization. It's purpose is to relieve the conscience of the person, and make him feel better. It is also a standard practice to be done prior to receiving auditing, as one is told that it will save the person costly auditing hours.
     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)
     RPF:
‘Rehabilitation Project Force’. For more detailed information see article 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.
     SO ED:
‘Sea Org(anization) Executive Directive’. This is basically an ED (temporary policy) issued by the senior echelon within the Church of Scientology.
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
     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)