Home

abc

By Joseph

I want to make a comment on the Corporate Church’s so called “Basics”.

PDC are not “basics”, “Creation of Human Ability” is not “basic”, and neither is “History of Man” and so on. Advanced Procedure and Axioms, is NOT a “basic” but an extremely advanced auditing and Life technology.

If the PDCs are “Basics” well, learning the full procedure to fly a fighter F 16 including landing on an aircraft carrier would be a “basic” too. Studying it could make a scholar in aviation but certainly not a pilot.

Who is kidding who?

When you study the Dianetic or Scientology Axioms, as they are described in the tapes, when you study the theory of the Advanced Procedure, you realize it is very, very advanced materials.

Only with the Logics and the Axioms as they are developed, you can just go ahead and reform entirely the structure of the society from bottom to top.

To treat these materials as anything less than that is a direct insult to LRH and to Life.

These materials ARE THE SCIENCE OF LIFE. It is not just something one studies to understand the rest. It IS the real stuff.

Now it is the same with Science of Survival and Human Evaluation chart and tapes.

The Theta Mest Theory is very advanced stuff. Ninety percent of your understanding of that tech lies in your OBSERVATION and APPLICATION of the data in real life.

This is to tell that when I’ll talk about becoming a Dianeticist or a Scientologist, I don’t talk about becoming a scholar, or a philosopher.

I am talking about becoming a guy that will be able to reform parts of society only with those axioms and technologies.

I am talking of making an auditor that will audit people.

The real “basics” are a Comm Course, TR 0-4 thoroughly done, and the HQS well taught and with tons of practice, these are “basics”.

If done properly, thoroughly, then the students will be able to actually HELP another fellow and if he sees the result of his help, man this will be a win.

79 thoughts on “The “Basics”

  1. Very good point Joseph.

    Way back in the ’70’s the then management released what they called the Basic Books package.

    Things like DMSMH, DOT, EOS, SA, Dn 55, NSOL, FOT, POW, 0-8 which were studied on the HQS Course back then.

    Ya know the type of books that give one a basic understanding of Dianetics and Scientology without overwhelming the new person with too much significance which I privately believe that they are trying to achieve with what they are now calling the “Basic Books”. That and a skipped gradient of some kind.

    I mean I’m no censor and if someone who’s new to the subject wants to read HOM I mean go for it dude. Anything that isn’t marked confidential is fair game I guess but it is not something you use to disseminate to new public unless you want to create an out R as in ARCX.

    There are PLs that covers what level these materials are and I would say that the PDC is probably at the highest level.

    Personally I think this is intentionally being done to make Scientology seem like one of those wacko mystical cults.

    We even have some of those so called “Indies” promoting the full disclosure. Yet there are some levels of the subject that many aren’t ready for until they’ve been fully audited and preferably trained in the subject.

    I mean a parallel in the “wog” world would be teaching advanced nuclear physics to someone who hasn’t even grasped the concept of an atom.

    • “I mean a parallel in the “wog” world would be teaching advanced nuclear physics to someone who hasn’t even grasped the concept of an atom.”

      Bingo!

  2. Thanks for this and I certainly agree.

    The PDC Course was the single most remarkable course I have done in Scientology. There was certainly nothing basic about it. It hit me like a ton of bricks and delivered wins and gains that were remarkable. I still feel to this day that if the course is studied honestly you could not finish it and be the same person you were when you started because you are getting the raw stuff of life on that course and it really can produce quite a change in you.

    For example, one evening on course I had a sense of healing sweep over me like a wave. It was all around and through me. It was the most therapeutic sensation that I could ever hope to experience. I was in very good health and had no physical problems that needed healing and yet something remarkable happened to me that evening as a result of the data on the PDC’s
    .
    Scientology applied or studied honestly really is lightening in a bottle.

  3. I’m not sure what the original poster’s (OP) real point is. The term “Basics” was a marketing term used by the Church for whatever reason they had. It would have been more accurate to call them the “The Pre-Bridge” materials, since that’s precisely what they are.
    Anyone who’s studied them would know they aren’t “basic” in the sense of being “elementary”. But they are basic in the sense that they serve as the basis for what eventually became the Bridge.

    Should they be prerequisite for anything? LRH didn’t require them, so no. Did LRH forbid their study? No. So one could study them, and would likely gain quite a bit from doing so.

    Should they be studied by raw public? No. Not because 1952 OT material would be out-reality for raw public. But because there are quite a few true Scientology “basics” which are more important to cover early in one’s Scientology career (e.g. the ARC triangle, the Tone Scale, etc.). Each of these is a quick study and can easily be studied as its own subject.

    Other than the above, I don’t really get what the issue is.

    Paul

  4. Thanks for your comments that I appreciate. And thanks Lana for this posting. It’s great. This is a first for me — my first article on Milestone Two. The next one is coming and is in the hands of Lana.

  5. CofS emphasizes how little hours one needs to fly over the materials. The goal is to get over the stuff in a hurry and neither apply it for oneself nor to let it sink it in.

    This is terrible in several ways. Do people get a reality about the things they read? If they don’t fly over them in two days, do they need to feel inferior and invalidated? Are they really prepared for the bridge that way? Smells a bit like quicky grades reloaded.

  6. It takes more than a little confront to face up to the real intentions of the Church’s management. People tend to immediately think they are knuckle-headed and making mistakes in their misguided enthusiasm. But if you look carefully at all their programs and compare them to the policies they say they are following (ie. “just the way LRH wanted”) you find they do exactly what the LRH policies say not to do.

    By including PDC’s and other advanced material in the “Basics”, they do exactly what PAB 36 The Use Of Scientology Materials say not to do. He says in there “you cannot avalanche data onto the heads of partially trained, pooly comprehending people, or people who have no real conversance with auditing at all. And if you try to do so, you will fail and Scientology will fail…”

    If Church management wanted to disseminate materials in the Basics, it is impossible to imagine that they would not consult the ABility article called “A Manual On The Dissemination Of Material”. In that manual he made it very clear what should be communicated to what publics and said “The immediate result of the issuance of materials not intended for that audience is to produce a state of confusion in the minds of that audience regarding Scientology.”

    He is very clear in these articles that if these policies about dissemination of material were not followed, then Scientology will “stop in its tracks, and be known, if at all, as a confusion.”

    When I look at all the major programs coming out of Church management in recent decades, two things stand out clearly for me. The first is their intent is to slowly, slowly, slowly bury Scientology while making it look like they are saving it. The second is their total lack of imagination by using exactly the methods shown them by Ron – except he advised them not to do it.

    • I agree.
      It is a good idea to donate basic books to libraries like Dianetics, Problems of Work, Science Of Survival etc. But if “basic books” include Scientology 8-8008 and Advanced Procedures And Axioms, then all you do is confuse a person new to Scientology and blow them off.
      The library donation program on the surface sounds like a good dissemination program but in reality is suppressive.

      LRH said on page 45 Org Exec Course vol. 0,

      HCOPL “ETHICS AND STUDY TECH”

      “5. ANY PUBLIC DIVISION PERSON, STAFF MEMBER OR SCIENTOLOGIST FOUND USING TERMS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR DATA ON RAW PUBLIC IN PUBLIC LECTURES OR PROMOTION OR IN PR BEYOND THE PUBLIC ABILITY TO GRASP WITHOUT STRESSING STUDY TECH OR AT ONCE TAKING EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO CLARIFY, OR RELEASING MATERIALS BROADLY TO A WRONG PUBLIC MAY BE SUMMONED TO A COURT OF ETHICS IF ANY FLAP OR UPSET RESULTS.

      The charge is FAILURE TO APPLY STUDY TECH IN DISSEMINATION.

      SUPPRESSIVE

      Furthermore, as study tech is our primary bridge to society and the basic prevention of out tech and out admin, if any offense as above found guilty in a Court of Ethics is REPEATED and the person and the person has had two such courts on this offense, the person may be summoned before a Committee of Evidence on the charge of COMMITTING AN ACT OR OMISSION UNDERTAKEN TO KNOWINGLY SUPPRESS, REDUCE OR IMPEDE SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS, and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, may be declared a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON and expelled with full penalties.”

      I think it is time to declare management suppressive and expel them/him with full penalties.

    • Steve:

      I think the real intention of the Church (or its management) is clear: make a lot of money requiring people to study material they will seldom if ever use. (Apologies to the Tech Degrades people. If you object to the above statement based on the text of that policy letter, I invite you to re-study it again and consider the context in which the above statement is made. The above statement is true and there is no conflict with Tech Degrades.)

      On the other hand, I don’t believe studying this material (for people who are confirmed Scientologists) carries much liability. If you were there at the time, you were exposed to the exact same material in the Basics exactly as it was discovered and disseminated at the time. Now, if you studied the Basics material out of sequence, willy-nilly, that would be a confusion. It’s instructive to note that this same prohibition is made in Data Series 48, where LRH says, “The Data Series PLs must be studied in sequence.” I’d also say that if you’re dumping this material on people who have not done, say, the HQS course, there might be issues there. The material was designed for and delivered to auditors and real “enthusiasts” at the time. Giving it to people who are pure PCs could be an issue. I’d have to see pilot results to know for sure. Also consider this: despite the fact that, for example, COHA is advanced material, there was never any prohibition against selling it to anyone who asked for it. There was and is no prerequisite for buy or reading the book.

      I think what LRH might have eschewed is the idea of making this material into a course or courses, but with no thought at all of actually applying it. Ron was obviously big on application, and this material was intended for the people who were there to apply.it to actual PCs in auditing.

      And if it wasn’t obvious, it should be: the current Church management’s intent is to utterly destroy Scientology, after they’ve squeezed all the money they can out of it. What they’ve done in the last several decades aligns with the above statement, and is completely explained by it.

      Paul

    • Very correct, Steve. The real intent – and end game – is quite nefarious and insidious. They are not “kindly old fumblers” trying their best, but minions and dupes making the CoS into a theta trap.

  7. In 1993 (late 1992?) the COB ordered every CCI staff member off their TIP (personal training program) and to listen to all the PDC tapes. Besides being a totally illegal order it was a complete bypass and unmock of Qual Div.
    I tried to protest but the CO, Dave Petit as well as the Qual Sec made it very clear that my disaffection and CI would make big trouble for me, so I caved and even had to supervise the unchecksheeted “course.”
    I believe this was my first confirmation that all the crazy stuff that had come down from Int in the previous years was the COB himself, an insane squirrel.
    I made the wrong decision to shut up and just do my job. Perhaps the most miserable year of my life before I routed out of SO.

    • Personally I don’t think you can totally blame Miscavige.

      I mean aside from giving the lil’ rodent more power than he deserves.

      (See definition of “blame” in the Tech Dictionary.)

      Is the fact that he was nothing but some snot nosed kid working over at Cine at WHQ when Quentin then Yvonne died mysteriously and the GO were taken down.

      Also it wasn’t his idea to remove the Original OT Levels from the line up since about then he was “Special Project” AKA “Mission All Clear” I/C over at ASI selling porn and forging LRH properties so wasn’t on Tech lines.

      Nor add those squirrelly BOTWO “Life Improvement” to the line up and magically convert a bunch of contradictory BTBs and BPLs to HCOBs and HCOPLs.

      Other things like taking out the Mission Network and convincing Mary Sue to step down were basically a group effort even though the lil’ twerp tries to take sole credit for it by having whatever lil’ Winston Smiths working over there at the Scientology website trying to convert a plural into a singular:

      “So forgive me for not managing the Church when it almost fell into hostile hands. It all came out all right. Why? Because real Scientologists made sure it did. My faith was justified.”

      That real Scientologist L. Ron Hubbard spoke of was David Miscavige.

      http://www.scientology.org/david-miscavige.html

      Obviously the person who wrote the above is grammatically challenged.

      True after Miscavige took over as COB RTC after deposing Broeker the stats went into the basement but the rot had already set in and all the lil’ squirrel has done was accelerate it.

      • Thanks for putting things into perspective. From what I found it was CMO taking over–young people with the representative status of LRH but without his knowledge and tech.

        And that is a remarkable flaw in the church system we need to make sure not to repeat. It needs two sides here, those who take over and those who let themselves been taken over.
        LRH wrote about what makes people prone to not stand up against wrong decisions in an org context: unhatted staff who don’t know their rights (and duties) and who couldn’t confront.
        We covered that situation on MS2 before and it’s worth mentioning again.

        • “Thanks for putting things into perspective.”

          Hey you’re welcome Sherry.

          “From what I found it was CMO taking over–young people with the representative status of LRH but without his knowledge and tech.”

          Very good point Sherry.

          Yeah I read some of the FOs regarding Commodore’s Messengers.

          They had a lot of power and therefore there was always the possibility for abuse especially with the Ol’man distracted by such things as rogue Government Agencies and lawsuits.

          Personally I always suspected that the comedy team of Miscavige and Broeker were writing their own script and that many of these so called “orders” and “advices” were actually forged.

          Like the one to take out the Mission Holders.

          Of course Mike Rinder says the wrecking crew was commended personally by Ron for trashing the Franchise Network yet he’s the same guy who said that Miscavige never laid a finger on his staff to SP Times when he was the man behind the man behind Scientology.

          You could say in my opinion his credibility is somewhat lacking.

          Besides how can you trust anyone who blindly follows orders.

          As far as I’m concerned the Nuremberg Defense just doesn’t fly. I mean even if it was a valid order from LRH. It still should have been queried.

          I mean I myself have queried an alleged order from Ron which turned out wasn’t even written by him but someone else.

          • I was on that mission in 1982 and there were no orders from LRH to do any harm to the missions in the Bay areas. Any and all orders came from “WDC Chairman” who was David himself. What LRH commended the missions for was taking all of the clears that were recycled by the missions and get them to FSO asap. We got 100 of them sent off and LRH commended us for that effort. Understand that these missions were allowed to declare Clears and then they got into a vicious cycle of undeclaring them Clear and regging them for more money. So, at the order of LRH, we sent them off to FSO to get sorted out. Miscavage ordered the complete dismantling of the COSMOD Mission Network.

            ML Tom

            • Well of course Ron didn’t order the unmock of the Mission Network but this what guys like Mike and Marty are saying and the gullible “indies” gobble it up as if it was the Godspell truth.

              I asked Rinder himself if he had this “commendation” he supposedly received or any other evidence *in writing* as in what anonymous says “dox please” and Rinder acted like I’d slapped him with a wet noodle.

              Rinder himself has a problem recognizing actual source as he submitted a Guardian’s Order on behalf of Marty’s civil action against the Church that was obviously written by Mo Budlong claiming it was written by Ron and saying such things as the orders issued to the Special Project were all by LRH and that get this…Miscavige received almost as much communication from the Ol’man as Mary Sue.

              All lies but effective lies due to Rinder’s stratospheric position in International Management. Until you ask him to actually document his assertions with actual documents.

      • RV, I actually can see where you mistook my statement, “all the crazy stuff that had come down from Int in the previous years was the COB himself, an insane squirrel.”

        Sadly, that statement sent you off into linking all the craziness’s of the whole timeline of Scientology, like a key-in of its time track. Perhaps I could have better specified that “all the crazy stuff” that I referred to was only the relevant crazy stuff that I was writing about.

        Anyway, you took my message and skewed it bizarrely sideways into areas that did not relate to my message.

        I could flesh this out if you want me to, and explain about all the craziness of bygone eras that was not the COB, “postulate checks” perchance? Captain Bill who now believes LRH was 100% BS?

        Maybe you need to re-read my post again and hopefully will get my communication this time.

        • Pazooter,

          You said:

          “I believe this was my first confirmation that all the crazy stuff that had come down from Int in the previous years was the COB himself, an insane squirrel.”

          Personally I don’t think I “skewed” your message at all.

          Much of the craziness or more accurately squirreling to come down from up lines was not generated by Miscavige exclusively as Marty and Mike would have us believe but by others.

          For instance this whole “ideal orgs” insanity was contributed by his BFF Tom Cruise.

          GAT was probably the “brain child” of the “OT” brain trust who couldn’t make it through solo because of their lack of training.

          Before that was the so called IRS “Victory” a gift bequeathed by a bunch of lawyers which basically turned the Church into a tax reporting agency.

          In other words it was basically a sell out.

          Preceding this was the effort to make Scientology “mainstream” an idea that was promoted by Robert Gray over at H&K.

          As I wrote earlier the mistake people make is that Miscavige has exclusive control over what happens in the organization and I do not feel this is the case.

          In my opinion.

          BTW I am familiar with the whole crazy postulate check craze and Cap’n Bill from what understand claimed he had his own psychic comm line with the Ol’man right up till his death.

          No evidence there he thought Scientology was “BS” though he suspected NOTs because it came in around the time of the coup which is why he created Excalibur etc.

          The difference between him and Miscacvige is that Bill was indeed a squirrel as far as the upper levels while Miscavige from his false position as “Leader” is just a squirrel enforcement officer.

          Again that is my opinion.

          • No evidence, perhaps from your view, but that is pretty much Captain Bill’s exact words to me personally. Yes, I asked him. And I have to ask you, did you get ANYTHING from what I said in my post? Anything? (Personally I’m feeling that you are just trying to assert your own ideas onto what others are trying to communicate.) Prove me wrong (I’m beyond Grade IV) if you you think I’m missing something here.

            • Why would I want to “prove you wrong”?

              I gave you my *opinion* which I clearly stated as “my opinion”.

              Also I’m sure there’s a lot of people in RON who would disagree with what you’ve posted here.

              The problem with saying someone else said something is there is that it is basically hearsay and no paper trail to follow and again in *my opinion* this is how various individuals get away with Ron allegedly saying this and Ron allegedly said that etc, etc, etc.

              Like that classic line of questionable provenance that’s trotted out by our “friends” in the press claiming that Ron said something on the order that if you want to make money start a religion.

              Me I personally think Ron would have probably been a lot safer and probably a lot richer as far as monetary wealth if he didn’t bother with Scientology and just stuck to writing.

              I mean in my opinion there are better ways to make money than being chased around the planet by the AMA, FDA, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, InterPol etc. and all the various alphabet soup who seemed to have a bone to pick with the Ol’man.

              But I guess that’s just me.

              Now as far as countering your opinion. According to the First Amendment and our own Creed. I have every right to do it.

              As far as I know. Here on this board there is no dictatorship of thought here like there is on other blogs where everyone must walk in lock step with the assessment that it’s all Dave and no one else or worse that Ron’s partly responsible because he trusted Dave and made him the heir to the Scientology empire which is far as I’m concerned is like you say Cap’n Bill said about Scientology “BS”.

              That *lie* persists because basically it is a *lie*.

              Another thing is that I too met Captain Bill Robertson back when he was charged with taking care of Arthur and he’d be the last person I’d suspect of saying the subject was BS.

              But I guess I could be wrong about that.

              Maybe.

              Though you haven’t given me anything but hearsay that in fact he did.

              I’m not saying that it’s not possible for at any time many of the most pious and religious can have that dark moment of the soul.

              • Ahh…, Not sure how to reply to that other than that you obviously did not duplicate my original post and do not care to do so. You have a right to your opinion here, of course. But I, as the person who expressed this thought in the first place, must say that your responses are non-sequitur.

                  • Okay, here’s the thing. I made a very simple post that brought some new light to the destructive actions of the COB. Rather than have any kind of acknowledgement of that, all I am reading here is you trying to skew that information off into some polemic.

                    I’m not asserting that you are a corporate mole of the CSI, but your comments and challenges here are strongly suggestive that you are just that. After all, you have still not acknowledged my statement, and so I must assume you are CI to what it says.

                    • Straight from the ARS handbook pazooter.

                      If one can not win a debate on one’s own merits accuse the person of being an OSA operative or in this case “a corporate mole of the CSI”.

                      I think I’ve made it plain about what I feel about the “Lone Miscavige Theory” as I call it.

                      The fact is that his destructive actions don’t exist in a vacuum there are others who enforce them who are or maybe even more culpable.

                      That is according to Orders, Illegal and Cross.

                      Maybe you should read that one as well while you are looking up F2 of Grade IV.

  8. That’s right, Joseph, many Basic courses are really Too Steep a Gradient Specialist Courses.

    Not to mention the huge lack of mass generated by those checksheets that are just theory, theory, theory, theory about auditing and the mind, and no practice, no doingness.

    If you add the constant push on staff (a bit less on public) to complete those courses in short time with unreal targets, which results in quicky word clearing done by supers and word clearers who themselves don’t understand most of the materials, making it hard for them to help students, then you get a real picture of the disaster.

    Many people having completed the basics I talked to admitted they didn’t understand it all, far from it, but they would restudy it one day to clarify what they missed… mon Dieu !

    Now, the best thing we can do, to mop up this mess, is help all those we can find with word clearing on the skipped gradients and MUs, and get them to practice as auditors, if only Self-Analysis and Book One, to make up for the lack of mass.

    This can be done on those we meet out of the Church, this can be done on such sites or blogs as MS2 with articles, glossaries, etc. to clarify the most tricky concepts that are usually missed by students, since more and more people who are still behind the bars or under the radar come to visit our Web pages.

    Basics generated a tsunami of misunderstood words, confusion and lack of mass on Dianetics and Scientology, let us be the VM on this catastrophe site… something can be done about it.

    • WC:

      There were people who attended the Philadelphia DOCTORATE Course, some of whom had probably been with LRH from the beginning, others of whom had missed one or more of the prior lecture series. Let’s assume that those people were not instructed over a huge skipped gradient, which would imply LRH was a poor lecturer/instructor, which he wasn’t. (Let’s forego the argument that “skipped gradient” was not discovered as a basic study phenomenon until later. LRH wasn’t an idiot. He and his instructors at the time could still see if someone was missing an earlier component necessary to understand a current concept.)

      Yet if you put people of today through a program which forces them to study ALL the material from the beginning through to the PDC, it’s a skipped gradient? Sorry, I can’t agree.

      I can’t speak to the checksheets, as I haven’t seen them. You may be right about that. However, it would be relatively simple to add mass. Even if you skip actually running the processes on live human twins, you could add clay demos, drills with dolls and the like if your aim was to add mass.

      Paul

      • SJ,

        Ron gave the PDC to those already trained in the subject of Scientology. A select few of about 37 who were invited to the lectures by his personal invitation.

        They were at the beginning of what would be called the *Advanced* Clinical Courses. Those course specifically designed for *trained* auditors.

        Just like the SHSBC and the Class VIII would later be.

        The lectures he gave to the public were completely known as Congresses or Public Lectures.

      • Paul, the answer to what you say is simply “who are you teaching this:
        “t if you put people of today through a program which forces them to study ALL the material from the beginning through to the PDC, it’s a skipped gradient?”
        If the guy is already a fully fledge auditor, he has already a reality on mass, ridges, intentions, bank, time track and so on. Then he can get the sequence of the research because he has already the “mass” and the gradient steps are already there. Now if you take a guy who never ever audited, this is quite another story. Skipped gradient as a concept was not invented by Ron. It was there since man is teaching something to somebody. You don’t teach the details on how to hunt a mamouth to a very young green tribe hunter. You start with the beginning — learning to catch a rabit.

        Now the whole point of my article is: what is our purpose if we want a sane planet? To have a line to make plenty of competent auditors. So what would be the basics for that? A study in sequence of all the materials including very advanced? No and it would be a skipped gradient and a huge lack of mass. Clay demo doesn’t make an auditor. Practice on a real pc with good supervision yes it does make auditors.

        That will be my next articles. How to make auditors now.
        Joseph

        • Some relevant issues for the strategy of auditor-training:
          LRH ED 665 Int, 9 Nov 67, Academy Checksheets,
          HCO PL 9 Dec 71R, What! No Auditors?

          Quotes
          “A few data taught very well will benefit a student far more than a large but not complete body of data. So you can’t teach in an academy a small Saint Hill Course. Leave that to SH. …
          The ideal academy student is a technician of limited but positive skills which he can do well without variation.
          So his checksheet must be short. He must be very in-ethics. He must be sent to Review at the faintest sign of slow.
          And that’s the secret.”
          (LRH ED 665 Int, Academy Checksheets)

          “And it takes only a few more months, with the new Academy Checksheets to make Class IVs.
          Tapes now exist that show how good auditing sounds.
          All right, so all it requires is the materials and persistence to make passable auditors.
          Anybody who tells you different is just blocking the road.
          Better auditors are made by good Course Supervisors.
          Auditors become excellent only when Interneship and Cramming and Word Clearing are available. …

          It is NOT hard to do.
          In fact it is very hard NOT TO DO IT. …

          But you begin with QUANTITY. And out of that will come quality. ..””
          (HCO PL 9 Dec 71R, What! No Auditors?”)

          • Hi Worsel,
            Very good reference indeed. Except that we missed the boat when we had orgs. Unless I lack imagination, I don’t see how to train these academy auditors without an org or a group. Now we are naked stating all over again. But we have experience, willingness and we are free. And we have experienced guys around.

            We’ll need of course to set up a production line to make these academy auditors. In the meantime we can start on a right now basis to make good competent Dianetic auditors starting with already trained but “failed” auditors. I’ll talk about that in the next articles. I know very well this line from failed class IV to good Dianeticist because that’s what I did myself to get back on my purpose line of auditor. And I was alone. So with our MS 2 team, it should be a piece of cake to get back some auditors in the chair, even if on a very part time basis. So there is a possible production line.

            • JLS:

              I believe auditors can be made in the field without an academy, with sincere candidates (I know, sacrilege). The key is the interneships.
              I’m afraid that for a while, we may be forced to read it, drill it, do it. Then interneship under a competent auditor/CS/supervisor.

              I think that if we do make classed auditors in the field, then once they are interned, they should be widely celebrated.

              Paul

              • Yes I thought of that. Actually everything is possible and it is not sacrilege to thing of making auditors. We can even dig out “old and not done anymore” materials like the old APA ACA type of training. Or even “before the meter” training. I think LRH reintroduced the E meter around 61 or 62. Anybody can correct me? There is the “old” Dianetics training up to end of 51. All of that is applicable. Assists can be taught easily. And then you have the line Comm Course and HQS. The point is that we have to train auditors that will be uptone enough and in ethics enough to do a proper job even if not perfect.

              • “Then interneship under a competent auditor/CS/supervisor.”

                This is a valid solution. I have – and do – interned auditors in the field to valid completion. A workaround can be done that is still within the realm of standard tech. Of course, the interne still needs to have a Qual available. No Skype cramming or W/Cing or drilling.

                • Any solution to make competent auditors is valuable. Definitely successful actions should be gathered together and some kind of production line of auditors should be worked out.

                • Sorry , somehow my previous posts got posted with everything grouped up. Moderator, please erase that one if you can.

                  Chris :”This is bullshit. There are other references that rdfute this type of “drilling”. Besides, the result are not auditors, but automatons.” By all means , quote the exact LRH ref to support your view. I would do the appropriate thing and quote LRH directly from lecture 5 Sep 1971 , “A Talk On A Basic Qual”. (underlines are mine) :

                  Now, you say, „Drills?“ Well, yes. Actually, we are just packaging up a drills course which has a drill for every auditing action – the wildest thing you ever saw in your life.It hasn’t been piloted out to amount to anything yet, but it’s been done by experts. And that goes right in the direction of your Cramming Section, regardless of whether you taught a drills course.”

                  “This fellow can’t seem to do Listing and Nulling. Well, there are Listing and Nulling drills. So it’s in – written down and these are the steps. So the Cramming Officer simply would have to take this, hand it to him – Listing and Nulling – he just does the steps, with the meter sitting there, and he goes through it on a sort of a doll proposition until he – when he gets the steps down he’ll say, „Oh, I see. I’m – yeah, I got it.“ You know? He goes through the motions, because it’s the confusion of sequence of motions is what he is up against. He is unsure of them. So the second the Cramming Officer can pick out from a whole pack of great big, long, thick pack of drills – he can pick the drills that the fellow has been flunking in his auditing and make him drill those things – and the second that you can get him – set him up with another guy and have him read the bulletins he is supposed to be doing on Method 2 and pick up the misunderstood words; and if you’ve got a library there that has the information in it; oh, you got it made – flubless auditing. Piece of cake! ” LRH

                  Now, that’s LRH 1971, not Peter Torres 2014. I rest my case on that. Any one has any LRH ref to refute this , please present it and , don’t come now with something from before that lecture. Later HCOBs and data has precedence over earlier ones on the same subject. For any old-timers LRH 1971 is practically PT.

                  Now , if my previous post is read carefully and not quoted out of context , you would have noticed that I did mentioned that the drills assembled for GAT 1 should have been under Qual and Cramming to be used as a correction mechanism after the academy student was already interning and auditing in the chair. I was clear as water on that.

                  Now , DM used the above ref and twisted it as always, and turned it into incredible long auditors courses pretending to produce ”flubless” auditors BEFORE an internship , and at the academy instead of in the chair under a competent C/S and under standard cramming.

                  Also “the drill is the ref” quote from DM is just bull and out-Tech. It is ALL completely explained at that single lecture yet many, many, many scientologists just back off from reading it and using it just and only because DM “used” it as the basis for his GAT 1. I we come down again to the subject of valences and avoiding to even consider and having anything to do with what our “opponents” do ,create, have or be. This BPC just blind us from competent observation and it all can degenerate into mere games conditions.

                  I am of the belief that If one protest too much against something then one is only assigning cause to that entity or thing or item. Because that is only an alteration of Truth as a being can only be Cause , then you get persistence of BPC, ARCxs, etc. There is one and only one enemy : OURSELVES. Actually by assigning Cause to any entity one is actually at Treason in our first Dynamic as one is invalidating our true and factual nature as Cause. One is not Being what we are. I refer to “The Factors”.

                  Chris : “So is this. Thousands of “newcomers” did grok GPMs and photographical terms and did just fine. A few did not. What’s next? Stripping all hard technical items like L&N, GF40X handling, C/S 53s, from upper training levels?”

                  No Chris , you missed the whole point again. I did the original SH and had to work very hard on it to get through it back at the early ’80s. In PT I am doing the PRD using the word lists from that period. Now as a class VIII you well know that all those terms that you described belong to academy training and the data on GPMs belong at the class VI level. Not only at the BC level. Actually to R6EW level and to OT II , where LRH early research took him. See how high GMP data goes ? For beginning people “Reactive Mind” do just fine and communicates. I can’t imagine untrained ones trying to “find their GPMs and trying to find End Words on them” out of curiosity. Do you realize the amount of principles you need to master and understand before to be able to really duplicate what a GPM really is ?

                  And I was not referring to photographical terms. Remember that LRH was researching the subject of Study at the same time he was instructing the BC to veterans auditors. There is LRH refs about editing to avoid out gradient phenomena. On this one , you’ll have to excuse me as I don’t have the ref at hand. But I will have by tomorrow to correctly quote it and post it here. There is absolutely nothing wrong to edit higher level terms from lectures intended for beginning scientologist. I don’t trust the Church to do it , though.

                  Chris : “The GAT programs have decimated auditors in the Church and in the field and has made servantss of them all.”

                  Totally agree with you Chris !!! But it is not “drills” that is at fault , that was an excellent idea indeed. It was DM’s twisting of LRH’s original intend with “A Talk On A Basic Qual” and a faulty incorrect implementation. If GAT 1 is not properly evaluated w/out any BPC , then we at the Field would not even consider the idea of “Drills” which is an excellent one. We can use those drills binders , correct whatever are out-Tech in them , and use them to train interns. To use it at Qual just as LRH intended with a FULL library available for everybody. But no , what we have is scientologists not even looking at the subject. And just because DM thought it up !

                  Well , he didn’t “thought it up” , it is actually LRH’s. So my advice for anyone BPCed with this subject is to just listen and fully W/C the lecture and get FDSed on it. On that one lecture lies the solution to the Field !!! Listen to it and see it for yourself.

                  Chris : “As to “The Basics”, while there might not be anything wrong with that release (other than alterations to books and lectures) in so far as it is a chronological history, forcing it on everyone to sell, buy, do, study, etc. this before anything else was wrong-way to.”

                  Totally in agreement , Chris. Read my previous post and the one after it , I explained it clearly. To have all LRH materials chronologically organized , relating all books to lectures and including as supplements to the ACCs , all LRH issues at the time he was delivering a specific ACC , is actually a pluspoint not an outpoint. Having the “Dianetics and Scientology Materials Guide” where you have an actual map of LRH research path , is a pluspoint. Pretending all scientologists of all training levels and KRC levels to do them as a mandatory step and prerequisite to everything , is of course not only stupid but actually suppressive.

                  We as scientologist must learn to let goand evaluate things properly making use of the full Data Series w/out any BPC present. Remember , the primary barrier to production is HE&R. My two cents again.

                  ARC Peter

        • JLS:

          I’ll agree for the most part. However, I studied the Basics from the beginning, and had no trouble with the material on the PDC. And I’m not (this lifetime) a trained auditor. Factors in my favor: I have a technical mind anyway; I’m used to reading about technical subjects and looking things up when I get in too deep. I’ve also read a lot of red on white that was unnecessary for me to read, like the “Time Track and Engram Running by Chains” bulletins, material on Expanded Dianetics, material on GPMs, etc. In other words, I’ve never trained as an auditor, but I’ve read a lot of the references they have to study. All this is just to satisfy my own curiosity (which is pretty voracious). I don’t just want to know what. I want to know how and why as well when I study.

          But I’ll agree in the main that I wouldn’t put PDC (for example) in front of someone unless they had the background to understand it. This is why I’ve said in various places that it might be best for courses like the PDC to need a prerequisite like HQS (which I’ve never taken either).

          I’ll also agree that, with the Church out of commission, our chief concern has to be making auditors, no matter what kind. At this point, a good (standard) auditor is probably worth ten or a hundred OTs. And OTs should probably make it a point to skip whatever they had planned for the rest of this lifetime and learn to audit. My opinion. This is just the result of backing up the overall product (making OTs) and working out what it will take to make a lot of them. There are a lot of issues to making (good) auditors, and we need to get those worked out quickly so there are no or few barriers.

          Paul

    • Exactly.

      I have actually a plan:
      1. To train Dianetic auditors to audit familly and friends
      2. To train professional Dianetic auditors with all of the tech of 50 and 51. In their turn, they will audit, and also train and supervise more Dianetic auditors.
      3. To form a Corporation of Dianeticists.

      All what you say fits totally the picture.

      I think it would be a very funny game. A society full of competent auditors. Auditing everywhere.

      By the way I would add assists as part of their training of course. Easy to teach with films.

  9. Hi everybody !

    This may be a little off the subject but I decided to use this forum and opportunity to inform my fellow scientologists of something that I really need and want. I have tried others ways to no avail , including but not limited to direct comms with a few Delivery Centers.

    I need a Standard Spanish speaking auditor for a friend of mine who is currently bridging from the CofS to the Field for services. This person has been subjected to incredible out-Tech handlings for years ! , so much you wouldn’t believe it.

    I am currently on a program with this terminal handling PTSness and some other ethics handlings to unsnarl him of all the resulting confusion from the connection to suppressive elements. The person is doing more than great on this program. Upon finishing this program I have already set up to repair/finish him on a long incomplete lower Bridge auditing cycle .
    I’ll do it myself under the supervision of a great C/S who showed an incredible willingness to help on this cycle for which I will be eternally grateful.

    Now, the situation is that I am not trained enough by a long ways to be able to take him to Clear, a long attempted goal of him which has been obstructed just too many times. This person only speaks Spanish.

    I was refered to a incredible high trained Spanish speaking Field terminal by an incredible professional and helpful scientologist who is in charge of a Delivery Group. For reasons I can’t understand, my comms to this highly trained auditor has been totally ignored.

    Another refereral from other Delivery Center (run by an incredible, professional and helpful individual) who also audits in Spanish has this “confusion” about the real order of Bridge steps concerning NED and the Expanded Grades. This was something clearly established by LRH in HCOB 12 Dec 1981 , “The Theory Of The New Grade Chart”. On this ref as well as others, NED was clearly placed AFTER the Expanded Grades. It is not open to any other interpretation. However, this auditor doesn’t seem to think so but recently became a Grad V auditor !

    I keep colliding with non-Standardness every step of my way. It is really frustrating to say the least. I am a VERY KSW terminal. The fact that I am not yet (only this lifetime) a highly trained auditor doesn’t mean that I am unfamiliar in any way, shape or form, with the basic auditing principles and with all C/S series which I know well enough to be able to spot deviations from Standard Tech. I have also fully W/Ced and listened to several times , each of the Class VIII lectures. I am what you can call a “LRH junkie”. I read and apply a lot , daily for years non-stop. I am a very competent observer.

    Of course, the option for me to getting trained and just do it all myself (as a Spanish speaker that I am myself) is very much valid too. The thing is that such a goal is not something that I will be able to do in the next few months due to time and money limitations.

    So I am asking all scientologists that frequent this blog that if you know of any Standard Spanish speaking auditor (Grad V at least or above) to please let me know. There is a person in need of help and with this incredible urge to go up the Bridge.

    This auditor would have to be willing to audit under a C/S that I’ve already been in comm with and who has an incredible rep. I am a very nice individual who loves to help others. I am not looking at perfection. I leave that to COB and the Church. I am only looking for a willing individual , able to apply Standard Tech and willing to be corrected when the C/S considers so. I won’t be an RTC, but a friend who will lend him a hand in anything he may need. I only ask in return loyalty to LRH and the Scn principles as exactly written with no deviations and no weird ideas.

    If the one I am looking for is reading this or if you know such a person, you would be doing an incredible act of help if you contact me to discuss this. I will be eternally grateful to you. May you all have great success in your endeavors.

    Sorry moderators for getting off the subject. I just have been at this cycle for a long time and I am running short on options.

    ARC
    PETER
    thetaclear68@yahoo.com

  10. “The Basics”. Actually there is absolutely nothing wrong with that release and, in fact, there is an actual and real value to it. It was an splendid idea indeed.To have all chronological materials, all books tied to specific LRH lectures, all ACCs in sequence ; the exact route LRH followed; any class VI and VIII would really understand what I am talking about. By fixating in the “Church” or “COB” as an item , one can fail to actually validate the good and excellents parts that do come out of those lines.

    Now, before everybody jump all over me and try to “drag me out of the building” let me just clarify this a little further. Bear with me for a minute, would you ?

    One’s tendency is towards not imitating or doing the same things that our “enemies” does. Reactively, a person usually doesn’t want to have anything to do with the people one considers as opponents to our goals. This include , sometimes, not even wanting to have any charateristics (even the good ones) that such opponents has and also includes not wanting to have anything to do with products such persons have created.
    LRH mentions this on SA. The mechanism of “valences” are at play here.

    The tendency is, then, to dismiss w/out proper evaluation any actions or products coming from these suppressive elements ; unbiased observation can be clouded by our emotions towards terminals, products or actions. Good programs or products can be, then, dismissed and not properly evaluated for merits.

    “The Basics” release as a product is actually highly beneficial for scientologists and for us at the field. It is a path. The outpoint is on its implementation and the arbitraries that followed it like demanding ALL scientologists to do it NOW, getting people off their current courses and services, one of the 5 reasons of student blows. Demanding all auditors to get with the program or else ( basically theatening them with losing their I Help licenses if not). Using it as a “blanket C/S” , a “master program” that fits all sizes , personalities and KRC levels.

    Pretending to put them as a pre-requisite for auditor training , an outpoint in itself of altered sequence and altered importance at the 0-IV levels. The original 0-IV checksheets and , before it, TRs and HQS, covers those basics books and lectures in a gradient where significance and mass (coming from actual aplication and not just only from demos and Clay demos, please) are kept in proper balance. So the “wheel had already been invented”.

    Now to have all LRH materials available in proper sequence with all the lectures and the whys, hows and where(s) , is actually a blessing not a curse. It should have been set as an “additional” service for anybody who wanted it on a purely self-determined basis and used specially for Saint Hillers and class VIIIs. And to be available for anyone who wanted to follow the path LRH followed.

    You always have old-timers like me that, even though are not highly trained auditors, have enough KRC ,confront and curiosity so as to be able to follow that path and get the most of it. It is actually a great adventure indeed for the ones who have what it takes. This is not something for the glib or the Theetie-Weetie. It is for people with a research mind and the correct insight into things.

    The same happens with GAT 1. Nothing wrong absolutely with having a set of assembled drills for every auditing action. LRH actually wanted this as part of a program he was working on and can be found on the lecture “A Talk On A Basic Qual”. The idea was actually brilliant indeed. Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The outpoint was the out-sequence of it, putting it directly on the academy training line up instead of on Qual lines with parallel programs to create fully hatted Cramming Officers world wide. The academy students , while on their interships, actually auditing in the chair, could go to Cramming and do the specific drills covering the exact points where they were found weak.

    What we needed were trained cramming officers, fully hatted and equipped with such drills. And supervisors who were PRD graduates or PCRD (Primary Correction RD) completions if they had showed the slightest difficulty on the PRD.

    That arbitrary handling of getting all auditors through these drills or cancelling their certs if not, was not only off-Policy, was actually a major suppressive act who made PTS the entire Field. Enforced haves and denied haves in their biggest expression. Again, another big huge “blanket program”.

    Now, with GAT 2 is the same. Besides the shortening of the Grade processes checklists, of which I confess, don’t have the full factual data available, there isn’t much wrong with the actual program in itself. Let’s review it for a moment. We have :

    1. Shorter checksheets on the levels just as it should have been in the first place as it was originally in LRH days. No Q&A with un-needed data not immediately germane to the level. A rapid study of the basics.

    2. No “one year long” E-meter course with out-gradient drills the student is not going to use on 0-IV.

    3. No long TRs course with the student grinding on the TRs forever and requiring ridiculous standards by RTC terminals.

    4. A book containing all LRH refs on Objectives and all Objectives processes.

    5. As far as I know, “The Basics” are no longer pre-requisite to auditor training. At least their “New Bridge Chart” says clearly so, I have a copy full color, 24″x 36″.

    6. The new E-meter reads recording devise is actually an excellent idea that take care of “coach errors”. This should be designed in the Field too by those brilliant engineers. The E-meter reads simulator, that’s not a good product in my opinion. I don’t think reads can actually be realistically “simulated”. But being able to actually record our drill sessions and play it back, nobody can actually deny it has great training potentials.

    7. A new Student Hat stripped off out-gradient terms and words as the data was originally given to originals BC students. Nobody can’t deny that for a newcomer to really understand the concept of GPM is quite unreal to say the least. What is needed is actual study data not a mini BC course.

    So GAT 2 , as a program has actually excellent points. What is exactly wrong with it then :

    1. It should have been so in the first place and all LRH refs about it has never been “lost Tech”. “The End Of Endless Training” LRH ED Int has always been available. All, and I mean ALL points of GAT 2 are fully described on such ref.

    2. Making parishioners pay for the mistake of incompetent leaders is actually suppressive. DM had it all wrong in the first place and Knew it.

    3. Pretending that already trained auditors (and now even GAT 1 trained) have to start all over again from scratch. There was no “new” LRH materials discovered. It was mostly a re-organization of materials into shorter more practical checksheets. Very suppressive again.

    4. Pretending already SH graduates to re-do the New SH as if there were something squirrel with the previous one. That new people would benefit more with the new SH, perhaps. But the ones that already did it, GAT 1 style ? boy, how more crazy can it get ?

    5. The “blanket C/S” of Objetives and Purif RD re-do(s) even to OTs with no signs whatsoever of being bogged on their levels. I confess that I’ve seen many Objectives “completions” who were actually “quickie comps”. In fact, I am one of them myself. Processes EPed in just mins and many times “2WCed to EP”. This is something I can attest to, not an opinion at all or Something I was just told. The general idea was good actually. But EACH case had to be inspected individually as a case and with proper FESes and Objectives tables determine who needed what. Many would have been found OK, others would have been found very quickied and others would have been found with a few processes to flat.

    Now, this is a Review action. To charge for one or two hrs of review, fine, who cares. The ones found lacking just put them back on the Objectives co-audit to flaten for FREE. Where the hell was the Sup to begin with that let it happen ? He was suppose to BE THERE.

    Purif re-do(s) ? Uhm, this was just another hidden data line from DM as he never to date, has shown any Source refs to back it up. The only reason to re-do the Purif is only as determined by the C/S for obvious case manifestations well covered in the C/S series, the NED series and some refs on NOTs Drug RD. A drug history after a first Purif RD has to be taken into account, of course. Otherwise cases can behave strangely.

    So that basically covers it all. I wanted to offer my two-cents too.

    The general point I am making is that things and programs needs to be evaluated as themselves regardless of their origins. Only then can we sort out the facts from the mere opinions. No need to deny ourselves the actual workable things. If it works or some part of it, then it works and should be used. No more complicated than that really.

    ARC
    PETER

    • TC:

      I agree completely. To ignore everything a bad person did just because they are bad is silly. It’s like not believing anything a bad person says because a bad person can never tell the truth, which is obviously untrue. I suspect, as I mentioned in one of my recent blog posts, that a lot of the objection to The Basics comes from the fact that people didn’t want to do them, and/or that they didn’t understand some or much of what they studied.

      Here’s something else: I’ve had people show me where they believe passages have been edited out of the new books. That’s unfortunate, if true. However, I bought my books back in 1978, the whole LRH library. I remember spending a fair amount of my off time scanning and studying these books. And one thing was clear to me at that time: many of these books had been dictated by LRH and then badly edited. This was blindingly obvious to me. One could still get through them, but it made it harder. These books were subsequently “repaired” prior to their recent re-release as “The Basics”. This was a helpful step. In addition, they were now equipped with very nice glossaries, something they never had before (and by the way, those glossaries will be more and more important as the decades roll along). I would say, by all means, keep the new Basics editions of the books around for reference, right alongside your old ones. In addition to all that, a lot of valuable lectures where were hard or impossible to find before are now available on CD as part of The Basics. More original LRH available? And this is bad exactly how?

      Here’s an example of a “mixed” product from the Basics: The lecture “The Story of Dianetics and Scientology”. I’ve listened to that lecture on tape so many times, I nearly have the whole thing memorized. When the “new” version came out on CD, I bought it. There is some minor material edited out, but there is a lot of material from the original lecture added as well, stuff I’d never heard before. It was apparently edited out of the original lecture for the cassette tape version, and has now been added back in the CD version.

      Don’t get me wrong. Church Management is suppressive and now seeks only to pump people for money while delivering an overt product. But that doesn’t mean that everything they ever did was wrong. We can’t afford knee-jerk reactions to things the way they do in the Church. We need to be objective and pan-determined about everything we do. BPC and bias can’t enter into our decisions and opinions. We have to be better than they are.

      Paul

      • Hi Paul, thanks for the comm,

        Yes, I very much agree with your assessment.

        “I would say, by all means, keep the new Basics editions of the books around for reference, right alongside your old ones. In addition to all that, a lot of valuable lectures where were hard or impossible to find before are now available on CD as part of The Basics. More original LRH available? And this is bad exactly how? ”

        Got it Paul. I think that the 1991 version of the basics books (the one released at the Auditor’s Day in RTC Bulletin 451) is far more superior than the 2009 version. This “editing and correcting” job had already been done when translating LRH was taken as a more serious manner back in the late ’80s and early ’90s. The glossaries of the 1991 editions are very complete.

        “The Basics” 2009 has several translations errors according to the website “True LRH” , data which can be found at Scientolipedia in a very detailed way as how exactly it was altered. The alterations so far found are not really that consequential in my opinion. I would stick to the 1991 editions though, as far as I am concerned or at least have them at hand to compare. The 2007 edition of ITSE book is an excellent product if one is able to correct some minor alrerations in the PTS/SP refs in the subject of “handle or disconnect” and the added list of “suppressive acts”. These alterations (the ones on PTS/SP) were well covered and discussed by the master Qual terminal Jim Logan some years ago at a website ,though Jim is not directly refering to ITSE in his article but the HCOBs themselves. Reproducing that marvelous piece here at MS2 would be very helpful indeed.

        As to Lectures, they are mostly fine, the new ones. In any case you can always find older editions at Scientolipedia or at “Matrix files Scientology” in the form of transcripts in pdf. The point is that “The Basics” have a route, a path to follow and it included the excellent product , “Dianetics and Scientology Materials Guide”. In it you find the exact chronological order to follow the tittle of all lectures and you can compare them to the tittles of previous versions and be able to verify if the Church omitted any of them, which they did on some cases.

        Again, I prefer older versions and the transcripts at “Matrix Files Scientology” as I just hate LRH being edited in any way. In the same way that “Justice can’t be trusted to Man” , “LRH editing of materials” neither. In trying to make it easier for others to understand (as in the SH Tapes) and to protect their asses from imaginary out-PR reactions from non-scientologists, they just arbitrarily edit things out. Imagine editing Newton or Maxwell or Arquimides ; what a mess we would have in our hands. To hell with the “keeping the PR” bullshit thing as far as I am concerned. Some non-scientooogists reacts because some out-R comment, just let him deal with it. What was he doing reading out-gradient materials to begin with ? It is not LRH that is at fault ; it is the silly terminals that handle PR and dissemination.

        The LRH additional data (like PABs, DABs, JASs, and others issues) found as a supplement in the new edition of the lectures, are invaluable though. So again, the attitude of not wanting anything to do with any program or products coming from the Church, is not a pro-survival one in no way, shape or form. Case should never be part of ANY evaluation. “NO case on post” should be the operational rule always. Only that way can one be safe.

        Cheers Paul,

        ARC PETER

        PAB= Professional Auditors Bulletin DAB = Dianetic Auditor Bulletin JAS = Journal Of Scientology

    • “The same happens with GAT 1. Nothing wrong absolutely with having a set of assembled drills for every auditing action. LRH actually wanted this as part of a program he was working on and can be found on the lecture “A Talk On A Basic Qual”. The idea was actually brilliant indeed. Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. ”

      This is bullshit. There are other references that rdfute this type of “drilling”. Besides, the result are not auditors, but automatons.

      “A new Student Hat stripped off out-gradient terms and words as the data was originally given to originals BC students. Nobody can’t deny that for a newcomer to really understand the concept of GPM is quite unreal to say the least. What is needed is actual study data not a mini BC course.”

      So is this. Thousands of “newcomers” did grok GPMs and photographical terms and did just fine. A few did not. What’s next? Stripping all hard technical items like L&N, GF40X handling, C/S 53s, from upper training levels?

      The GAT programs have decimated auditors in the Church and in the field and has made servantss of them all.

      As to “The Basics”, while there might not be anything wrong with that release (other than alterations to books and lectures) in so far as it is a chronological history, forcing it on everyone to sell, buy, do, study, etc. this before anything else was wrong-way to.

      So there’s plenty enough wrong in these programs and in their deployment.

      My plugged nickel’s worth.

      • I’m with you 100% Chris! The books on the “basics” were meant to be read on their respective courses, which had a good balance of mass and significance. Also all the memorization on GAT is very contrary to LRHs intention of conceptual understanding which doesn’t make automatons.

      • Hi Chris !

        Right what Iike ,having excellent friendly arguments with class VIIIs !!!

        well, you’ll have my answer soon enough my friend. I am just preparing my small dissertation right now. But just as a hint , let’s stick to refs , would you ?

        ARC Peter Torres

        • Sounds good, Peter. One thing, there was only one place I mentioned other references without providing one as the rest of my post was about observation and looking. As I’m away from my home auditing some pcs for a while, I can’t look for that reference, but I’ll see if I can find it and stick it in here.

          Cheers

      • I agree with you Chris.

        As I’ve written many times “A Talk on a Basic Qual” should give a clue as to what division this recording was intended for and no where in there does the Ol’man propose a radical change in the training of auditors in the *Tech* Division where the PL “Drills Allowed” applied.

        Besides that there was an effort in the early to late ’70’s to incorporate what were called “Auditor Expertise” Drills into Academy training consisting of a series of BTBs that added time to training and confused students many contradicted the HCOBs they were based on.

        Look familiar?

        So these were dropped out of the line up when Ron issued the new acads after the RED “End of Endless Training” and auditors started being made in quantity back in the 80’s.

        Not to fear though the SPs responsible for the coup dropped out promoting training and pushed turning the Church of Scientology into a Clinic of some kind for fat ass rico elitist lunatics.

        So training suffered and so management in their infinite idiocy came out with the Golden Age of Tech to “solve” a problem that would have never existed if they had concentrated on training.

        And so we now see the second phase of this total lunacy.

        Personally I feel there are other factors involved like certain factions that Ron flippantly called Smesh of which Miscavige is either a witting or unwitting asset that want to destroy and invalidate the subject using the subject itself as a weapon. I guess you could call it spiritual jiujitsu.

        But the above is my take.

        Anyway whether there is some vast conspiracy involved or not. The fact is that the Church these days only plays lip service to KSW and doesn’t apply it. In fact totally violates it.

        And to say that they are doing anything right is a stretch of magnitude.

        • “As I’ve written many times “A Talk on a Basic Qual” should give a clue as to what division this recording was intended for and no where in there does the Ol’man propose a radical change in the training of auditors in the *Tech* Division where the PL “Drills Allowed” applied.”

          RV , the PL Drills Allowed” is from before the lecture which takes precedence. I was clear enough. The assembled drills is a tool for Qual per that lecture. It is used after the auditor has been rapidly trained and is auditing in the chair as an intern. Their value is immense. LRH never corrected himself after that lecture. In the “The End Of Endless Training” he never dismissed drills. He is talking about academy training on that LRH ED Int. Your point is taken. That LRH ED takes care of trying to produce a class VI at academy levels and takes care as well of long courses placing emphasis on rapidly getting the student in the chair auditing. Now, while interning he needs to be polished up and made flubless and that is accomplished through expert C/Sing and cramming. There is where having packaged drills comes.

          By the lecture refered to LRH gives the 3 reasons for auditor failure. I quote :

          “Now, auditing is not flubless either because they don’t know, or they haven’t drilled or because of misunderstood words, and that’s the only three reasons.”

          “so your cramming officer has to choose amongst three things : the guy hasn’t got the knowledge, the drill is out or he’s got a misunderstood word.” LRH.

          In fact, LRH not only thought about a drills pack, he actually had them ready. I quote :

          “Here’s an intern course. You can intern. You got drills pack coming righ up. They’re down being mimeographed at this moment” LRH.

          I rest my case again. But somehow, you mention the idea of drills to the Field and you can feel the ridges moving in. You can feel this mass getting in the way. Why? Because it was DM’s idea and for no other logical reason.

          The 2 refs are BOTH valid, “The End Of Endless Training” and “A Talk On A Basic Qual”. Neither one of them cancels the other. They are not in conflict in no way, shape or form. No contradictions there.

          I will quote another LRH ref well covering the importance of drilling. Here is one :

          “Alter-is and poor results do not really come from not-know. They come from can’t-apply.

          Drills, drills, drills and the continual repetition of the important data handle this condition of can’t-apply. If you drill auditors hard and repeat often enough basic auditing facts, they eventually disentangle themselves and begin to do a job of application.” LRH

          From HCOB 13 Sept 65 , “Out Tech And How To Get It In”. A ref AFTER “Drills Allowed”.

          An another quote from the same HCOB above :

          “You have to know your tools very very well to see past them! An auditor who squirrels, who fools about with a pc, who fumbles around and seldom gets results just isn’t sufficiently familiar with a session, its patter, his meter and the mind to see past them to the pc.

          Drill overcomes this. The keynote of the skilled technician is that he is a product of practice. He has to know what he is trying to do and what elements he is handling. Then he can produce a result.” LRH

          Now to keep quoting “Drills Allowed” is actually a poor defense that missed the fact of mentioning WHY LRH wrote it the first place. And here is why :

          “The CCHs are PROCESSES. They are not drills.

          ….Processes are not drills. Nobody can convert hereafter a process to a drill.

          The upper Indoc TRs are the drills that teach the CCHs.

          The CCHs are run on PCs.

          S-C-S may not be drills.

          Processes are done on PCs.

          Drills are done by students to accustom them to the actions that will be necesary in doing processes.

          To use a process as a DRILL leave it unflat on students and is one of the reasons why auditing has been taken out of the academy.

          “During the past few years, unbeknownst to me, a whole sphere of action built up which made students drill processes. I swear, there has been a ‘practical drill’ made out of half the processes we have.

          These were all abolished as DRILLS in HCO Pol Ltr 16 April AD 15*.” LRH (from HCO PL 17 May 65 “CCHs”)

          So, here you have the ONLY reason for “Drills Allowed”. The ONLY one explained by LRH himself. It is not open to interpretatios, sorry. And yet this refs has been intensely used by people in the Field to just to make DM wrong. Well, they are not making DM wrong, they are actually making LRH wrong. Get your facts straight guys.

          Anyone has a specific LRH refs that is contrary to my assessment, please provide it for us. Make your case but please, make a good case not a repetition of inaplicable data.

          ARC PETER

          • Actually a lecture does *not* take precedence over nor would it cancel or modify an HCOPL (see HCOPL Seniority of Orders). This is exactly why the Sea Org Management went down the tubes.

            They said to themselves orders and advices. Many of them probably forged took precedence because they came later over HCOBs and PLs and so started the long decent into hell.

            Please let’s not make the same mistake ourselves.

            Another thing you and I both say that such drills should be restricted to Qual as in Internships which is a Qual action so where is the disagreement?

            Training auditors and interning auditors are two different things.

            Also don’t put me in the “I hate Dave” camp. As I’ve written many times that Dave alone is not responsible for the condition the Org is in. As far as I’m concerned he is nothing but an aberrated stable datum for the ignorant on both sides of the debate. I’ve also written something to this effect earlier.

            Also I doubt if GAT was Dave bright idea because he’s too stupid to have a bright idea or any idea for that matter that would have any degree of originality.

            But moving on.

            You don’t need such drills any longer since the time that lecture was released many of the procedures have been written in HCOBs since then which wasn’t the case back then. So all you’d have to do is have the auditor or student drill the procedure as contained in the HCOB without having to be inventive.

            • RV : “Actually a lecture does *not* take precedence over nor would it cancel or modify an HCOPL (see HCOPL Seniority of Orders). This is exactly why the Sea Org Management went down the tubes.”

              Not exactly so, RV. You can’t mix HCOPLs with HCOBs on that regard. Here is your very own ref :

              “No Aides Order or Flag Bureaux Data Letter or Executive Directive, Directive or Base Order of any type or kind, written or verbal, may alter or cancel any policy letter or HCOB. These remain senior.

              HCO Policy Letters are senior in admin. HCO Bulletins are senior to all other orders in tech.

              Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters. Only HCOBs may revise or cancel HCOBs.

              Any practice by which junior issues such as directives abolish networks or make off-policy changes can only result in the destruction of networks, orgs and tech.

              This is therefore a HIGH CRIME policy letter and it is an offense both to follow or obey or issue any verbal or written order or directive which is contrary to or changes or ‘abolishes’ anything set up in HCO Policy Letters or HCOBs, including the downgrade of ‘that’s out-of-date’ or ‘that’s been cancelled’ without showing the HCO PL or HCOB which revises or cancels.

              HCO PLs and HCOBs are proven by time and are the senior data on which we operate.” LRH (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

              Couldn’t be more clear to me. Define “order” in the admin dic. Read the whole 9 definitions and find just one, where an order is defined as a LRH “lecture”. Orders are just that, orders. They are not necesarily from LRH. In fact, they seldom are. Aides Orders, Flag Bureaux Data Letters, Executive Directives (Not the same as “LRH Excecutive Directives”), and Base Orders, NONE, are LRH’s issues, NONE are Source. And lectures ARE Source. It should be obvious to you that LRH is refering to issues not directly written by him. By obvious extrapolation you should infer that by “orders” in Tech he is not refering to his own “Lectures”. A lecture from 1971 on a particular Tech point takes precedence than and HCOB from a previous date on the same Tech point. Period. W/C your own ref. It is obvious you has some m/u on it, with all due respect to you team mate.

              RV : “They said to themselves orders and advices. Many of them probably forged took precedence because they came later over HCOBs and PLs and so started the long decent into hell.

              Please let’s not make the same mistake ourselves.”

              Now, you are right on this one. However, “A Talk On A Basic Qual” was not an “advice” nor an “order” . It is a “lecture”. It is VALID Tech same as an HCOB. For the importance LRH placea in “Tapes” same as the HCOBs, see HCOB 9June 1971 , C/S Series 43, “C/S Rules”. In it, in no way “Tapes” are made less important than HCOBs.

              RV : “Another thing you and I both say that such drills should be restricted to Qual as in Internships which is a Qual action so where is the disagreement?”

              I guess we don’t have it on that then, my friend.

              RV : “Training auditors and interning auditors are two different things.”

              Totally agreed.

              RV : “Also don’t put me in the “I hate Dave” camp. As I’ve written many times that Dave alone is not responsible for the condition the Org is in. As far as I’m concerned he is nothing but an aberrated stable datum for the ignoranton both sides ofthe debate. I’ve also written something to this effect earlier.”

              Sorry for my confusion here if I included you on that group. My mistake.

              RV : “Also I doubt if GAT was Dave bright idea because he’s too stupid to have a bright idea or any idea for that matter that would have any degree of originality.”

              Got it. I don’t know the guy personally but I will not make the mistake of underestimating him either. “Admire your “opponents” if you want to defeat them” , is my operational rule always. I will defeat him soon enough because :

              1. I don’t have O/Ws on him.

              2. I admire all his qualities and intellect.

              3. I don’t wish him any harm no matter what he’ve done and I will give him his chance at redemption just as I would do with any soul I deal with.

              4. The welfare of ALL scientologists is what I only care about.

              5. I never, ever elect any entity as CAUSE and gives him/it more power than the one I have. I never diminish my strenght and power. I have a very high self-respect.

              6. I am responsible enough to be pandetermined to all sides. But moving on.

              Rv : “You don’t need such drills any longer since the time that lecture was released many of the procedures have been written in HCOBs since then which wasn’t the case back then. So all you’d have to do is have the auditor orstudentdrillthe procedure as contained in the HCOB without having to be inventive.”

              Ok, just mention the exact HCOBs and the exact drills you are talking about besides TRs, E-Meter drills, DN Commands drills, Upper Indoc (for CCHs) . I am very familiar with all Tech Vols by the way. It is my hobby at nights to just go over the Tech vols, choose a specific subject then chronologically read everything about it 2-3x. Been doing that for years non-stop !!! I see no TV, don’t hang out on weekends, don’t practice any sport. I just read and research and apply. When I get bored, and I seldom get, I read LRH.

              It was a pleasure debating with you RV.

              ARC PETER

              • TC,

                You seem to be making hay or blowing smoke or dare I say *interpreting* the cited HCOPL. It clearly says what it says about HCOB and PLs being senior to anything else including lectures, unless they have been issued as a HCOB or PLs per the PLs Tech and Policy Distribution and Policy the Source of.

                Funny how others accuse others of having mis-us they themselves may have.

                Take a look at where orders are on the Admin Scale per the PL Group Sanity.

                Also take a look for example at the blue binders of REDs AKA LRHEDs. None of them contradict existing policy or tech.

                Anyway the argument is moot since we both agree that the lecture in question was directed toward Qual not the Tech Division.

                Though if you listen to the lecture there is no actual “order” per se but more a suggestion to compose drills of some kind.

                Not just that but these drills have to be balanced with the other two points Tech Knowledge and Mis us.

                Listen to the lecture again or if unavailable grab the transcript.

                The fallacy forwarded by the purveyors of the so called Golden Age of Tech gave the impression that by doing these squirrelly drills that magically the student’s tech knowledge would increase and that they would somehow locate and eliminate Mis us of which my opinion then as now is total BS.

                Yet the faithful at the time as now actually believe this false datum to be true. In fact many times I’ve heard them say that one could “learn” the tech somehow by doing these drills.

                Pure idiocy.

                Worse if these drills do not conform to the actual tech they mis-train auditors. Just as he says in the PL drills allowed.

                That said. The fact is that all the procedures of Scientology especially at the lower levels are contained in HCOB form and this has pretty much been the case since 1978.

                In other words you don’t need a bunch of squirrelly drills.

                All you have to do is have the student drill the procedure as given in the HCOB.

                Now about Miscavige.

                You can underestimate your enemy true but you can also *over* estimate one as well which seems to be the penchant of certain individuals who compare some tin pot dictator to Hitler and any attempt not to intervene on behalf of someone just as bad or even worse as “appeasement”.

                Such datums as for example as my enemy’s enemy is my friend which seems to be the one that Marty and Mike operate off of when they align themselves with the likes of people like Tony Ortega and the above mentioned are somewhat flawed.

                Or in this case op-terming some synthetic all powerful valance like Miscavige instead of looking at the forces that are keeping him there in place.

                Even on mundane level this individual has a support network of some kind such as the deluded “OT” Committees who honestly and fervently believe that if they just build some pie in the sky “Ideal Org” the public will come.

                And the silly Sea Org members who thought they could eliminate Div VI and have Miscavige’s special friend Tom Cruise drive public into the Org using his special PR skills like jumping on a couch like some kind of lunatic on a nationally syndicated TV show.

                Please.

                The only way that Cruise would be able to drive public into an Org is if he drove a Bus.

                • Dear RV,

                  I agree with you in everything except 2 things. First one :

                  RV : “You seem to be making hay or blowing smoke or dare I say *interpreting* the cited HCOPL. It clearly says what it says about HCOB and PLs being senior to anything else including lectures, unless they have been issued as a HCOB or PLs per the PLs Tech and Policy Distribution and Policy the Source of. ”

                  I have been quoting LRH all along at all my posts giving the exact refs with the name and date included and properly quoting it. In your case, you haven’t quoted one single one and have not even mentioned the exact date of the refs so others can look it up. Now, who is the one who have been “interpreting” LRH all along, you or me ?

                  Sorry, I didn’t know that exactly quoting LRH is “interpreting” him in any way. It is not.

                  I will quote again :

                  “No Aides Order or Flag Bureaux Data Letter or Executive Directive, Directive or Base Order of any type or kind, written or verbal, may alter or cancel any policy letter or HCOB. These remain senior.

                  HCO Policy Letters are senior in admin. HCO Bulletins are senior to all other orders in tech.

                  Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters. Only HCOBs may revise or cancel HCOBs.

                  LRH (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

                  Now, RV, please tell me where in that refs exactly says that an HCOB is senior to a Lecture. No verbal Tech please, where exactly in that PL LRH says that ?

                  It says : “HCOBs are senior to all other orders in Tech” LRH.

                  Show me exactly one, just one definition of “order” from LRH Sources where lectures are equated as orders. I refer to you to ALL defs of “orders” in the Admin dic. A lecture is NOT an order. A lecture is a lecture. You are missing the whole point here that “Seniority Of Orders” is refering to and I will not explain it any more. Go to Qual or whatever. I am done with the subject.

                  Regarding the lecture, I not only have the lecture but the transcript as well and have probably read it 10x , the last time being 2 days ago. So I am not quoting something I read years ago. So no need for me to read it again.

                  About coupling drills with W/C , of course , and I did quoted LRH in that exact regard too.

                  Not about this :

                  RV : “Though if you listen to the lecture there is no actual “order” per se but more a suggestion to compose drills of some kind.”

                  If you have listen to the lecture as you said you did, you would know that is was no suggestion at all but a PROGRAM LRH was working on. In fact he did mentioned, and I quote :

                  “Here’s the intern course. You can intern. You got drills pack coming righ up. They are down being mimeographed at this moment” LRH (“A Talk On A Basic Qual”).

                  Now, how exactly does that sound like a suggestion ? I keep quoting and you just keep saying things w/out showing the actual issue, not even the date. I don’t think there is any point discuss this any further.

                  Now about this :

                  RV : “Worse if these drills do not conform to the actual tech they mis-train auditors. Just as he says in the PL drills allowed.”

                  “Drills Allowed” was specifically about auditors using porcesses as drills leaving , thus, PCs hung with unflat processes. It was not about anything else. This refs so often used to make GAT 1 wrong ( which was wrong in its implementation and general design) , has nothing to do with assembling correct drills, nothing. Your exact ref on that I already quoted in my previous post. Is HCOPL 17 May ’65 , “CCHs”. In there he quote “Drills Allowed” PL and explain why he wrote in the first place. I can’t understand ,really, why something so simple is so difficult to understand. I just can’t. People keep thinking that LRH found fault with the subject of “drilling” per se. He DIDN’T. It was about processes being run on others as drills. It was not about anything else. Please, understand it already.

                  RV : “That said. The fact is that all the procedures of Scientology especially at the lower levels are contained in HCOB form and this has pretty much been the case since 1978.

                  In other words you don’t need a bunch of squirrelly drills.

                  All you have to do is have the student drill the procedure as given in the HCOB. ”

                  The procedures of the processes where always there before the 1978 , RV, even since the BC. To drill an auditor in a procedure is not necesarily the same as to having an specific drill designed for such an action like the DN commands drills or the Upper Indocs for CCHs. They are related, obviously, but are slightly difference actions. LRH mentiotioned in the lecture about having an specific drill for EVERY auditing action. On the ’70s auditors drilled the processes before doing them, of course. That was already in by the time he delivered the lecture. TO drill wasn’t anything new. He wasn’t refering to just get the HCOBs and drill them. Why else would he have wanted a drill pack course to begin with? Why says that the drills were already being mimeographed? This has been misunderstood too.

                  Don’t keep belittling the need of drills just because DM suggested them in the first place. No good is done to the subject that way.

                  I am beginning to see that this BPC with DM and the Church is really, and I mean really very wide-spread. If you guys wants to hold on to frivolous fights, be my guess. I will put my attention in fixing things up for everybody in the Field as well as in the Church. I take no sides here. The scientologists at the Church are not my enemies, they are my friends too. I will save as many as I can in any sides. Anyone disagree with me on that or think I am misguided, it is their loss, not mine.

                  ARC PETER

                  • Here read the whole policy:

                    HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 MARCH 1965 Issue II
                    HAT MATERIAL
                    DIVISION I (HCO) TECHNICAL AND POLICY DISTRIBUTION
                    The HCO Secretary (WW, Continental or Area) passes on and makes available for issue all
                    1 . Staff Releases.
                    2. Releases to HGC.
                    3. Releases to Academies.
                    4. Franchise releases.
                    5. Major magazine releases.
                    6. Minor magazine releases.
                    7. Org letters.
                    8. Brochures.
                    9. Ads.
                    10. Instructors’ answers.
                    11. Public lectures.
                    Bulletins and policy letters and articles may be
                    A. Culled from files.
                    B. Obtained newly written from LRH.
                    C. Copied from LRH tapes and rewritten.
                    D. Summarized from A, B and C without injecting new materials, policies or technology.
                    All Bulletins, policy letters and articles from A, B, C and D must bear the LRH by-line.
                    No other material is permitted on lines 1 to 11 above than straight Scientology. No interpretations are permitted.
                    All materials released, used or sold must be straight Scientology as given in the writings or lectures of LRH.
                    Under the Copyright hat, all HCO Secretaries must make certain that all materials published are properly copyrighted in the name of LRH. No erg copyrights are permitted.
                    Books may not be advertised for sale or the advertisement paid for from the HCO Book fund except LRH books. To advertise and sell any other book requires HCO See WW clearance in writing for that one time.
                    No technical articles or letters by another person than LRH are permitted in Scientology publications. Only data written by others on application, use or results of Scientology may appear and any tech data if non-standard must be deleted from the article or letter.
                    Lectures by others on application, use and results only are permitted in public lectures of any kind. including Congresses.
                    Use of Scientology technical or policy data in testimony is forbidden. Only application and results may be testified to. Only low level works may be read as part of any testimony and no Scientology words may be used in such instances.
                    All staff members looking for data to release, use or print must look to their HCO Secretary. If the HCO Secretary is in doubt, he or she should consult the next higher HCO Secretary.
                    No effort should be made by HCO to censor opinion or comment on policy or technology, the whole effort is to be directed to the dissemination and use of correct Scientology technical and policy materials only. As there exists a correct technology and policy structure, alteration of it becomes a retarding factor in organizational solidarity and expansion. The prime cause of alter-is in tech and policy is ignorance of it or stupidity.
                    638
                    POLICIES GOVERNING RELEASE 1. DISSEMINATE SCIENTOLOGY
                    That is the governing policy of all the rest.
                    2. DATA SHOULD BE CHANNELED TO THE RIGHT SOURCES.
                    If promotion is to one-legged men, don’t send them materials about eyesight.
                    The dissemination materials are designed for the more able members of society who seek self-betterment. Don’t channel them toward psychiatric cases or strata they would not have an effect upon.
                    Example: A person in charge of an org or HGC is psychoanalytically oriented and seeks only “patients” as preclears and handles them as such. The org declines because this is a wrong target since promotion was aimed at quite different people.
                    Example: An office is successful handling workers and longshoremen but new direction of that office seeks to pull in only idle intellectuals who would never act in any case, and the office declines. In either case, the source of success was not spotted and when direction of reach altered everything declined. The old public that was being reached was offended and the new public was useless. The above two examples are actual.
                    3. THE WORKABLE AND PROVEN MATERIALS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY ONLY MAY BE RELEASED.
                    This at once excludes all squirrel or off-line materials by others. Experience has shown that no significant or lasting developments have arisen off-line in 15 years following a whole track of very murderous technology other than Dianetics and Scientology.
                    This truth emerged in the first 3 years after 1949. Every effort was made to encourage other development. The LRH research hat was put on LRH solidly by others.
                    Every group and organization devoted to off-line materials that came into being-E-Therapy, Howes, others others others-all wound up discredited and rejected by everyone even their early promoters and adherents. Thus by the test of time and of continued use only, show that if an org adventures on off-line materials it will decline markedly or cease to exist. All groups that have departed or “dreamed it up themselves” have perished. Even psychology, psychoanalysis and psychiatry are dying, supported now mainly by governments, detested by the public. So this is not propaganda, this is a Survival fact; groups that use squirrel material fail.
                    4. ALL EFFORTS TO DISCREDIT THE PERSONS OF ANY LEADING OR REPUTABLE SCIENTOLOGISTS MUST BE SAFEGUARDED [AGAINST] IN ALL RELEASES, ESPECIALLY LRH.
                    This means more than it seems to say.
                    The near-collapse of one org was traced back to a whispering campaign by its principals against LRH and MSH. All of “the data” was false. By newspaper standards it should have been listened to avidly. Instead, the public deserted the org and it nearly collapsed and the person who did it was eventually driven out of Scientology by fellow Scientologists although no discipline was ordered and the matter ignored.
                    The public buys only “our brand” despite newspaper publicity, government actions, whispering campaigns and rumour. This again is from actual experience. Orgs that apologize for its tech or people or LRH suffer a declining public.
                    It is a pure survival fact that failure to protect the names and repute of Scientology leading personalities and LRH collapses an org. The only proof is that those orgs that haven’t aren’t here any more and those orgs that strenuously have are thriving.
                    Protecting names and repute may also sometimes involve selection of correct materials. Example: Despite explicit orders to the contrary, mainly Level V materials were released at the Australian Enquiry. The org suffered heavily and not wholly from the government. The foolishness of it came home to most well-trained Scientologists.
                    Sending Level VI works to Level 0 people is easy to see and intercept. But an instructor teaching Level IV to Level Il students is not always found until somebody blows. This comes under protecting names and repute as well as properly targeted tech because the recipients can’t understand it and so may think it’s silly.
                    639
                    Releasing unfavourable photographs, badly recorded tapes or films all come under this policy.
                    5. THE PUBLIC MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST ABUSERS OF TECHNOLOGY OR POLICY.
                    Persons who try to use Scientology lines to get loans or funds for fraudulent purposes must always be exposed by HCO Secretaries by public postings when proven and Committees of Evidence when doubt exists.
                    A complaining pc does not come under this heading but more likely under the policy of correct technology or who to accept for processing, unless less auditing was given than paid for or no auditing at all was given, at which time it comes under this policy.
                    Anyone using a Scientology mailing list for purposes other than the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics should be heavily censured and brought to book.
                    The Scientology public and any mailing lists are the exclusive property of HCO. It does not matter how the mailing list was gathered or if we ever saw it before. If someone used Scientology to collect names, that’s a Scientology mailing list. It’s ours and comes under this policy.
                    6. DELIVER SCIENTOLOGY WORKS, TRAINING, PROCESSING AND RESULTS.
                    Although actual training and processing is under Division II, whether or not it was or will be delivered (past and
                    future but not current) is up to HCO.
                    By making the right materials available for publishing and use in training and processing, HCO expects them to be employed.
                    If they are not employed, then the matter falls back on HCO to act.
                    The reason I had to continue research and writing myself as a lonely action was because nobody else developed anything despite my expectations and despite the money they spent. The reason I had to enforce use was because other technology crept in and failed, causing org emergencies. HCO then furthers my own hat, assumed for research in July 1950, and for control of things, to be sure tech wasn’t altered or misapplied in 1952 and after. So long as those two things have been watched and kept in effect we have prospered. Where they haven’t been watched carefully and where no control existed to get them in effect everything died as our history clearly shows.
                    Even when I strayed on research, we still did better than with the strayings of others. The public knows rightly that I correct any errors as soon as I discover them and that errors grew less as research went on.
                    Therefore HCO issues the best material it has for the right targets and notes carefully any lack of results because of misapplication and retains the authority and control necessary to correct bad delivery under its Justice hat as well as its certificate and awards hat.
                    The formula is “Issue the correct data properly, correct use when delivery is poor or non-existent.”
                    Early HCOs had some trouble in executing this policy because (a) they were operating on a technology that was advancing and therefore always changing. Now and then HCOs are held up by (b) my not being able to write up and issue or issue the needed materials because of comm line jams. The best solution for (a) is to issue what has been working and the best solution for (b) is to excerpt tapes or what you have and issue. However (a) has now vanished because of completed technology and (b) is becoming no problem to the degree I can get it written up and issued.
                    7. INSTRUCTION AND ADMIN POLICY ARE ALMOST AS IMPORTANT AS TECH.
                    Completely aside from developing Scientology tech itself it took 14 years to develop the technology of instruction (how to communicate the data and make auditors). It took 15 years to fully develop the technology of our administration.
                    Admin publicly is looked down on, like 19th century psychology, because it was not developed. Teaching and business admin alike have been quite low paid or in disrepute in the civilization. They were not Sciences. For instance business admin students in a University are renowned for falsifying exams more than students of other
                    640
                    subjects. That’s because there was no subject there anyway.
                    Why we had to know how to teach is self evident.
                    In Scientology, to keep our orgs going and live through bad times we have had to develop a whole new subject-Admin. We had to have its laws, the economic factors that regulate business and all the rest.
                    We are pretty good. People with “formal training” in subjects used in our orgs are seldom as good as Scientologists who just studied with us as part of their job.
                    The main thing to know, like in studying our tech, in our teaching and admin there are two subjects there to be studied and used. Our teaching is Scientology type teaching. Our admin is Scientology admin. Both are regulated by Scientology policy. Orgs prosper when they know and use them and fumble and get poor when they don’t.
                    Holding teaching and admin policy and releases in is best handled by insistence they exist and are ours and are not what the person thinks they are-borrowings from the schools or business world. The business world already borrows from us. The biggest management association in the world since 1958 or so has been duplicating (as well as it could) everything we do in business admin and planning. Of course, having no HCO, they squirrel and it’s hard to see how they twist our stuff so far around. But it is our material. Even their “Congresses” have the same number of days and lectures and have programmes printed on our exact format.
                    When we have our teaching materials (not just “study”) all written up you will see the universities use them. We already have some universities trying.
                    As we write our Admin up in books, business will use it all the more. But the point is, we lead in this field, others follow. We only develop and use Scientology Admin to help us as we go toward freedom. But we still use it and only it. Because it’s more modern and it’s what we need.
                    The thing to guard against in releasing teaching and Admin policy letters is the change factor. Teaching and Admin evolved with our formative years. Thus patterns and policies, like our tech, grew better. Growing better, some of it became obsolete.
                    When re-releasing an old policy letter, always blue pencil out everything gone old and contradicted by later policy letters. You can still salvage a lot that still applies-a surprising amount. But try to cut out the contradictions with our modern policy where they exist. After all, we were children when we first tackled teaching and Admin. As we grew, we became wiser. But even our Admin childhood has wisdom in it and in some places even more fire and interest.
                    Don’t release contradictory hats where you can help it. Modernize them with a blue pencil whether you retype them or remimeo them or not.
                    That way none get a chance to invalidate a really great achievement-teaching that works despite aberration and Admin that works amongst Men.
                    8. ISSUE TECH AND POLICY AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE WITHIN ECONOMIC LIMITS.
                    It costs money to issue anything. The way to sustain issue is get it paid for one way or another. Total subsidy of all tech and policy issue can stop its being issued for it is no longer economical to issue it.
                    Thus to disseminate over any long period, the data must somehow be paid for or dissemination ceases. Actually you can’t give away Scientology really. Money, credit or favours will flow back. But often only after many years. And meanwhile people eat.
                    Unless you pay attention to the economics of dissemination you will cut the dissemination line even if only temporarily.
                    If you have data, don’t try to throw it all away by frantic unpaid for dissemination. Use some of the data as a leader (to announce with) and sell the rest of it.
                    This applies to magazines, books, training and processing, all of them.
                    People don’t respect data they read in magazines anyway. For some reason they respect books. The public believes books and hoards them and throws magazines away. Even paperbacks suffer. A book has to have a hard cover to gain respect.
                    Thus a magazine article on tech ideally should point up a book to buy. Tons of
                    641
                    bulletins are less well received than one book.
                    The point is, don’t invest a lot of money on the quality and thickness of magazines or other temporary media. Put the data between hard covers and sell it as a book.
                    Don’t give a lot of free courses or free admittances to Academies or courses or free intensives in HGCs and call it dissemination. It isn’t. Beyond a small amount it cuts your ability to disseminate. The cost of the give-away does not come back in and you can’t finance more outflow because you gave it all away.
                    This can even happen to an HCO in its publishing to the org, mimeos and new books. It gives away all its materials to the org and suddenly finds the org “Can’t pay for more mimeo paper” or a new mimeo mael-dne. The way to handle is not to charge for bulletins and policy letters directly but to insist the org profit by the tech and admin by promoting harder for the org.
                    My policy on this has always been to promote more business than the org can handle and then let it solve the jams thus brought about. Orgs I founded have never failed to handle such problems providing one demanded they did. The only problem an org can’t handle is “no dough”; the only weak point of orgs, traditionally, has been promotion. They are sometimes even afraid to promote for fear they’ll get too big (something wrong with the top exec’s comm lines is the usual cause). I have seen an old time psychiatrically oriented D of P book pes 6 months in advance rather than hire more than 6 auditors and a queasy D of T seek to shut everyone out of an Academy “because they would not be socially acceptable”.
                    Such persons in the wrong positions will rail against promotion-because it makes pcs and students crowd in too hard. So you get plans “to train more only when we have instructors” or “few pes until the next Academy class graduates so we have auditors”.
                    Instructors, auditors, that’s Division 2’s problem. HCO ignores it.
                    So part of paying for dissemination and ads, is promoting to drive in more business than the org can handle and making it make more money than it can waste. An org always manages to handle the business and it always wastes lots of money.
                    So in issuing materials, remember to promote them too. Then there’s always enough money flowing back to pay for more printing, more bulletins and policy letters, more books and tapes.
                    If you don’t become strenuous on this point of policy you win cease to disseminate. And I have always waived aside all objections to honest, appealing, clear-cutl heavy promotion as treasonable suggestions. Let somebody “doing the mag” complain about the “hard sell” in it (insistence people buy) and I always find myself somebody else and do the mag and go on promoting.
                    Therefore people who (a) want us to give it all away and thus end our ability to pay for more and who (b) shudder at the possible inflow, I always carefully note down in my little black book for transfer. And an HCO Sec anywhere would do well to advise higher authority in all cases where efforts to reduce our ability to pay for our dissemination get in our way.
                    Whereas this possibly may seem unreasonable, it works. And every time I’ve not followed it ruthlessly, as a policy, we’ve come a cropper.
                    9. OFFER ANYTHING YOU OFFER AT A HIGH APPEAL LEVEL AT HIGH VELOCITY AND HEAVY IMPACT.
                    If you know it works and is the way, you will have no trouble with this policy.
                    If you don’t, you will have trouble.
                    The answer to this policy is to have a good subjective and objective reality on Scientology. Then you couldn’t keep yourself from following it.
                    L. RON HUBBARD
                    LRH.jw.cden Copyright’–‘ 1965
                    ‘ff
                    by L. Ron ubbard
                    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

                    Anyway to say that something from a lecture contains the same force as an HCOB or PL is a stretch.

                    The HCOPL says what it says. Also again I suggest you read Policy, Source of:

                    HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
                    HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 MARCH 1965 Issue II
                    POLICY: SOURCE OF
                    According to Webster’s New World Dictionary:
                    POLICY: Political wisdom or cunning; diplomacy; prudence; artfulness. Wise, expedient
                    or crafty conduct or management. Any governing principle, plan or course of action.
                    The last definition is the one we use.
                    According to the World Book Encyclopaedia Dictionary, the one we most use (published by Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, 54, Illinois, USA):
                    POLICY: A plan of action; way of management. Practical wisdom; prudence. Political skill or shrewdness. Obsolete—the conduct of public affairs; government.
                    The sense in which we use policy is the rules and administrative formulas by which we agree on action and conduct our affairs.
                    A “policy letter” is one which contains one or more policies and their explanation and application.
                    It is issued by the Hubbard Communications Office, is written by L. Ron Hubbard or written (more rarely) for him, has the agreement of the International Board and is basic organizational law in organizations.
                    A “policy letter” is not Scientology org policy unless written or authorized by L. Ron Hubbard and passed as a resolution or covered by blanket resolution of the International Board and issued or published by an HCO. It is not policy if any of those steps are missing.
                    The International Board is composed of three Board Members, L. Ron Hubbard, Chairman, Mary Sue Hubbard, Secretary, and Marilynn Routsong, Treasurer. It is the controlling board of Scientology.
                    The Chairman, Hubbard Communications Office and HCO Secretaries and staffs compose Division I of the International Board and all orgs.
                    The Secretary and all Organization Secretaries (US and Saint Hill) or Association Secretaries (Commonwealth and South Africa) and their staffs compose Division 2 of the International Board and all orgs.
                    The Treasurer, Assistant Treasurers, all accounting executives, and assistants for Materiel and their staffs compose Division 3 of the International Board and all orgs.
                    Policy for all divisions and orgs is made as above.
                    There are no other boards or board members, individual board members, officers or secretaries with the power of issuing policy. Boards issue Resolutions. Individual board members or officers can issue directives, general orders, and orders. These expire if not re- issued as policy.
                    Other officers issue Administrative Directives in place of policy letters but these may only forward policy.
                    Secretarial Executive Director orders apply mainly to personnel or local conditions, expire in one year if not stated to expire earlier, may only last one year in any event.
                    Policy letters apply broadly to all orgs and Scientologists without exception. 336
                    Almost all policy has been developed by actual experience.
                    The only way policy can be changed is by writing up a policy letter in full and sending it to L. Ron Hubbard for approval or disapproval.
                    Policies cover hats, duties, lines, procedures, rules, laws and all other aspects of Scientology activity except technology.
                    Technology is covered in HCO Bulletins.
                    HCO Bulletins are written by or (more rarely) for L. Ron Hubbard and are issued by HCO and HCO Secretaries. They do not require sanction by the International Board.
                    No one else may issue or authorize an HCO Bulletin.
                    HCO Bulletins are recommended technical data. Certificates are awarded on the data contained in them and violation of it can therefore cause a suspension of the certificate. This is the main power of the HCO Bulletin.
                    An HCO Bulletin becomes policy only if mentioned in a policy letter. A book may become policy if made so by a policy letter.
                    ————————
                    HCO Policy Letters are printed or (more commonly) mimeographed in green ink on white paper. This colour combination may not be used for any other releases in Scientology. Reprinted policy letters sometimes appear in magazines in black ink on white paper but they are not the original.
                    HCO Bulletins are printed or mimeographed in red ink on white paper. This colour combination may not be used for any other purpose in Scientology. Reprinted HCO Bulletins sometimes appear in magazines in black ink on white paper but they are not the original.
                    Committees of Evidence are called for in any violation of the publishing or counterfeiting of an HCO Policy Letter or an HCO Bulletin or their colour combinations or signatures.
                    The only other official paper from L. Ron Hubbard and HCO is the HCO Executive Letter, usually a direct executive order or a request for a report or data or news or merely information. It is not policy but should be answered if an answer is requested. It is blue ink on green paper.
                    Using the colour combination for any other purpose or counterfeiting one calls for a Committee of Evidence.
                    Sec EDs and HCO Executive Letters are basically LRH comm lines but are used by International Board Officers also if authorized.
                    The other Divisions (2 and 3) have other means of comm, with other colour flashes. ————————
                    If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter it is not policy.
                    HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy Letters.
                    No officer or Scientology personnel may set aside policy even when requesting revision.
                    LRH:jw.rd
                    Copyright® 1965
                    by L. Ron Hubbard
                    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
                    337
                    L. RON HUBBARD

                    Your efforts to “word clear” me on orders etc is what we used to call in the old days “coaxing a cog”.

                    I gave you the title of those PLs as they would be easy to find in the Policy Index that way.

                    I guess I could have given you the exact dates but I did not have those off the top of my head.

                    But anyway. All you had to do is read them instead of whining about my alleged “interpretations”.

                    Sheeesh.

                    I rarely get into putting quotes out there as these can be read out of context which it seems the Church and their friends in the anti-Scientology community specialize in.

                    Also I am not belittling the need for drills by suggesting that the student *drill* the HCOB as written.

                    And neither is Chris.

                    Both of us I believe know the value of drilling.

                    You on the other hand seem to believe there is more to it and that a special bunch of drills have to be created like the overt products already assembled by RTRC.

                    In my opinion which was my opinion before the lil munchkin Dave stepped into your spot light as a way of beating anyone who doesn’t agree with you by claiming anyone who disagrees with you is doing it because of a revulsion for big bad Dave when in fact the fact is that I had concluded long before GAT and after those abortions known as the Auditor Expertise Drills that special drills written by *others* other than the Ol’man himself were not needed.

                    All the Golden Age of Tech did was confirm this viewpoint.

                    • Dear RV,

                      I closed the case already as no products are coming out of this. I stand for all I said before. Your new refs changes nothing. I am more than clear in my understandings of things and if you are too, then we’ll leave it at that. I am not going to continue to explain myself on this subject.

                      Enough to agree on Chris last comment that auditors are made at Qual , which means lots of drilling besides W/Cing, FDS, etc ; while they are interning.

                      Take care team mate !

                      ARC PETER

                    • Dear RV,

                      I closed the case already as no products are coming out of this. I stand for all I said before. Your new refs changes nothing. I am more than clear in my understandings of things and if you are too, then we’ll leave it at that. I am not going to continue to explain myself on this subject. Some will listen , some will not, some will just argue and argue. I know what I know, and no class VIII, IX, or XII for that matter, is going to change that.

                      I guess our products in the future will tell the tale.

                      Take care team mate !

                      ARC PETER

                    • Roger that Peter,

                      The only point I’d like to make is that it’s been 2 out of 2 as in the Auditor Expertise Drills and the Golden Age of Tech that drills developed by others have been in my opinion dismal failures.

                      Ironically the only drills written by someone else Mary Sue in fact that have been successful has been the E-meter drills.

                      Which doesn’t raise my confidence but no surprise conforms with what the Ol’man says in KSW.

                      Anyway I’m willing to close this debate if you are.

                    • I got it , RV.

                      I can understand your concern about people who are not really experts arbitarirly designing drills. I have no disagreements on that. If you think that drills are really necesary in order to make professional auditors and that have an incredible value in interning and cramming , then we are in the same wavelength here.

                      I am only concern or was concern about belittling in any way the valuable inf contained in “A Talk On A Basic Qual” just becuase DM used as his basic for GAT 1. I think that auditors such as you should check out those drills binders and find out if there is any actual value to any of them that can be used in Qual a the Field. I just don’t want you to close yourself to the idea of at least inspecting products coming out of the Church or that came out of it and finding out if any of them can have real value to us.

                      For example, I never agreed with the “Reads Simulator”. I think that there are too many variables in thought and its effect on electrical fields , currents and resistences , to be able to realistically “simulate” reads. There are just too many variables to it. Only by observing actual reads again and again from different bodies can we get the knack of recognizing them.

                      On the other hand, I believe that the “Reads Recorder” does has training value. Being able to record your “drill session” and then play it back exactly as it happened takes care to a very large degree of “coach errors”. So, I am very much willing to inspect this devise a little bit further an ascertain whether this is a good product or not.

                      See what I mean ?

                      To be totally objective at evaluating something regardless of its origin has prosurvival value. That’s the totality of my message.

                      I only wish that people at the Field would put less att on DM and the Church and put more in the future in debuging things at the Field per se. There is a point where talking so much about it could result in overrun with its resulting consequences.

                      To summarize, I don’t think we really have that much of a disagreement here. The only thing that I feel, and this can be a false perception of mine, is that you don’t give the importance that it actually has to lectures but mainly to HCOBs. And I think that it is misguided. Again, this can be only a false perception of mine of what you tried to communicate. Other than that, we are pretty much on the same page here.

                      Ok team mate ?

                      Take care,

                      ARC PETER

                    • TC,

                      Really I have nothing against drilling auditors and I actually feel that “A Talk on Basic Qual” is an excellent reference for Qual.

                      That it was misapplied to Tech was just another misapplication.

                      Do I blame Miscavige exclusively for this?

                      No.

                      RTRC could have put it’s foot down but it didn’t. So we ended up with the abomination which should be called the Gross Alteration of Tech.

                      This doesn’t change the value of the original lecture.

          • A key basic is to recognize where on makes auditors – auditors aree made on internships in Qual, not on courses in the Academy. That viewpoint handles any confusion on this subject.

            • Totally agreed upon Chris ! I was never confused about that in the first place. My emphasis have been all along in terms of interning and Qual. And the lecture “A Talk On A Basic Qual” covers all points needed to make flubless auditors.

              Cheers!

              ARC PETER

  11. “You can stuff a student with theory until it’s coming out of his ears but you won’t have an auditor until he AUDITS.

    You can even put him through all the drills that have ever been dreamed up and you still won’t have an auditor until he AUDITS.

    …The direction we’re going in is—we’re going to MAKE AUDITORS.”

    LRH ED 299 INT
    The End of Endless Training
    (OEC Vol. 4, p. 419)

  12. Golden Age of Tech?:

    “Abandonment of standard tech in favor of unusual solutions.

    This is always present when a collapse of Tech occurs.”

    HCO P/L 10 Feb 1966R Issue 2
    Tech Recovery
    (OEC Vol. 4. p. 1087)

    “Bad tech makes it almost impossible to get pcs or students in.”

    HCO P/L 29 May 1961 Issue I
    KSW Series 3, Quality and Admin in Central Orgs
    (OEC Vol. 0, p. 18)

    “You have only one big stable datum:

    IF IT ISN’T WORKING, IT IS BEING VARIED.”

    HCOB 20 May 1969
    Keeping Dianetics Working in an Area
    (Tech Vol. VIII, p. 415)

  13. Isn’t this what occurred/is occurring on GAT I and GAT II?

    “Constant retraining within a level for which the auditor has already been classified is forbidden.”

    HCO P/L 21 February 1964 Issue I
    Staff Regulations, Auditing vs. Job
    (OEC Vol. 0, p. 168)

  14. “The product of a course is a graduate who has learned his materials and successfully applies what he has learned.

    …The product of the Internship is a flubless professional.

    …When you confuse the two by failure to fully comprehend their actions and products you end up with overlong courses and overlong Internships.”

    HCOB 26 February 1978
    Internships vs. Courses
    (Tech Vol. XI, p. 92)

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s