Home

masturbation

By Jim Logan

At a recent Open House here I had a chance to talk to somebody who had experienced “Sec Checking” in the Corporate Church as a young staff member within the past decade. It seems that others (young men in fact) had been getting their own “Sec Checks” and were being aroused by the form, figure and presence of a young woman (the staff member)..

Subsequently, the young woman herself was “Sec Checked” for her assumed heinous overts in the arousal of these young men.

The young men were guilty of the crime of auto-eroticism – masturbation (and apparently it was not so “auto” since the young woman was “cause”).   The “logic” of the “Sec Checker” and the Moralists at Arms (MAAs) was that this crime was instigated by this young woman. What to do, what to do…

(How about a berka? This makes sense since that’s the same logic one group takes to stem the tide of all this interaction of a sexual particle nature. )

I was stunned to find the extremely gross out-tech of the young woman’s “Sec Checking” and equally stunned to find the “moralism” that has taken the place of actual Scientology confessional technology, which moralism in fact manufactures “madness” in all this nonsense about sex and the Second Dynamic.

I decided to follow up on all this attention on “masturbation” and came across some interesting facts.

A look at the history of the Athens Lunatic Asylum, in Athens, Ohio in the late 19th century revealed that “The most shocking information within the employee records are the evidence and documentation of hydrotherapy, electroshock, lobotomy, and psychotropic drugs, some of which have been discredited today as extremely inhumane ways of treating a patient. The leading cause of insanity among the male patients was masturbation, according to the annual report of 1876.” (Wikipedia).

Agog, I searched further and found that indeed, masturbation was considered a CAUSE of insanity, and the asylums run by psycho-iatrists, filled with these defilers, in order to cure them of their lunacy.

Some treatments are covered above in the Wiki quote. Others included pouring acid on a woman’s clitoris, or sewing the foreskin shut with wire on men.   Other such treatments of the “insane” are recorded in the annals of the psychiatric profession.

Checking up on how this could possibly be true, I found the “science” behind the psychiatry. One brief description follows (begin excerpt):

The idea passed into the realm of official medical thought with Tissot’s Onania, or a Treatise upon the Disorders produced by Masturbation in 1758. According to Tissot: 

…[L]oss of semen … occasions general debility and so opens the way to consumption, deterioration of eyesight, disorders of digestion, impotence, and so on…[T]he more serious effects are on the nervous system and this is due to the sexual act causing an increased flow of blood to the brain. “This increase of blood explains how these excesses produce insanity. The quantity of blood distending the nerves weakens them; and they are less able to resist impressions, whereby they are enfeebled.”

During the following years anatomical and pathological study revealed that disease was caused by structural abnormality or derangement, and the claim that masturbation could cause “deterioration of the eyesight, disorders of digestion, etc.” lost currency. But medical professionals refused to give up the idea that masturbation was harmful and the locus of harm became mental health.

According to Esquirol, writing in 1838:

… it (masturbation) may be a forerunner of mania, of dementia and even of senile dementia; it leads to melancholy and suicide; … it is a grave obstacle to cure in those of the insane who frequently resort to it during their illness.

The view that masturbation causes insanity was refined over time to a specific form of insanity. In his classification of mental disorders written in 1863, Skae asserts:

The third natural family I would assign to the masturbators… I think it cannot be denied that that vice produces a group of symptoms which are quite characteristic and easily recognized, and give to the cases a special natural history: the peculiar imbecility and shy habits of the very youthful victim; the suspicion and fear and dread and suicidal impulses and scared look and feeble body of the older offenders, passing gradually into Dementia or Fatuity.

This theory was elaborated by Spitzka (1887):

… the typical age of onset of masturbatic insanity is between 13 and 20 years; it is at least five times as common in males as in females because of the greater rarity of masturbation in females; in the majority of cases there is a rapid decline into agitated dementia, but where deterioration is less rapid “the obtrusive selfishness, cunning, deception, maliciousness and cruelty of such patients” is such that “the [doctor] may find it impossible to reconcile himself to regarding them as anything else than repulsive eye-sores and a source of contamination to other patients, physically and morally.” End excerpt.

An additional resource on the subject is found here and I also found this from Thomas Szasz

here..

One quote from this last article is “Long ago I became persuaded that it is not possible to understand modern psychiatric practices unless they are seen as manifestations of a popular madness; and that it is not possible to perceive them in such a light without being familiar with the history of psychiatry, which furnishes ample evidence to compromise its moral and scientific pretensions. Here, I shall briefly retell the story of what, until relatively recently, had been the most commonly diagnosed and most enthusiastically treated mental disease in the history of medicine, namely, masturbation.”

It is clear to me, from my own observation and repair of cases, that the Corporate Church has gone so far astray from actual Scientology as to become in fact akin to a 19th Century psychiatric practice, with moralism masquerading as ethics, and a stultified in extremus (as foolish and truly bonko as can be) concept of behaviour as could exist, just like those lunatic asylums and the truly insane running them.

“Sec Checkers” in the valence of psychiatric moralists?!

NOTE: At the beginning of one of the most extensive and reaching Confessionals, the Joburg, LRH clearly states that in Scientology “we are NOT moralists”. One who has truly studied and understood the body of work related to Confessionals including the study of the ACCs of 58/59 (for example Establishment of R, 21st ACC, 28 Jan 59), knows the true technical and philosophical data behind this technology. It has zero, zip, nada to do with being “moralists”, and the last thing in the universe it has to do with is the “curing of masturbation as the cause of insanity”.

OMFG.

172 thoughts on “Making madness

  1. Nicely researched, as usual Jim. The relationship between old psychiatric “treatments” and daves “Scientology” is quite amazing, and disturbing.

  2. The church always talked a good game about the “Spirit of Play” and “happiness” but I don’t any organization that is more steeped in seriousness and stopping than the one Dave has built.

    Pleasure or even the idea that two young people might contemplate creating some certainly must be crushed because that would be so “off purpose” and “dilettante”.

  3. “…[L]oss of semen … occasions general debility and so opens the way to … deterioration of the eyesight…”

    There ya go! See? Masturbation does indeed lead to blindness! :-/

  4. Nice article on RECENT events, Jim. One thing I want to point out, though, is that in many articles and discussions here and other wheres, there seems to be a tendency to stay close to PT (like the last few hundred years or maybe one or two thosand years). These “weirdnesses” actually have origins long, long ago, and the game has been afoot for some long time now. 1758 is quite recent, in fact, and it’s necessary, from a standpoint of logic and as-isness, to include the actual causes and origins – not just the dramatizations of them – which are whole track in origin (GPMs, implants, psychs, pseudo-religious orders and governments, ev purps, etc). I just wanted to mention that as an addendum to an excellent article.

    • Chris,
      Yes, there is a whole lot more to the story of life on earth. However, there are present and recently past examples of application of the principles that are just as valid as reality.

      As you know from your training, the lectures, bulletins and so on are replete with applicable descriptions from all over the time track.

      • Hi Jim, I didn’t say (or certainly didn’t intend to say) those examples were without merit or lacked validity in reality; what I tried to say was that for resolution and understanding, one needs to put it in the proper perspective which is the whole track. I see too many people stick close to PT in explaining circumstances and fail to correlate what is occurring with a further reach into the underlying causes, such as GPMs and valences. It’s not to say recent track is not interesting – it’s certainly food for couch discussions – but an explanation of a “human condition” relying on something that was written a few centuries or a couple of millennia ago will not lead to a full understanding of the phenomena. It can’t, as it’s just drama.

        • You know that, I know that, but there is such a thing as Reality and the R6 Bank is quite a steep jump. N’est pas?

          RIght now, in this article I’m dealing with something that is real to a lot of people as the strange enforcement of some batshit moral code that has nothing to do with relief of anything in their lives, let alone the heights of the Grade chart that address what you are referring to.

          Besides, the “psych” valence I’m bringing up IS part and parcel of the area you are commenting upon. It is very much on point with this material.

          I got it. I understand your point. Ack.

          • Jim: “You know that, I know that, but there is such a thing as Reality and the R6 Bank is quite a steep jump. N’est pas?”

            I don’t think so, and didn’t when I first got into Scientology. BUT, I get your point about the course of your article. Fair play. 🙂

            And hey, didn’t you know that over-acknowledgement will make someone continue talking because they think you’re trying to stop their comm because you didn’t hear them or you didn’t understand what they were saying or you don’t want to listen to them and it makes them keep and on and on trying to make their point because I wonder why that is maybe it’s part of the track but I don’t know it may be because I didn’t think it through maybe that’s it you think maybe that’s why it is because I know you get what I’m trying to say at least I think you do because you are talking to me but maybe I should shut up because maybe I don’t know when to stop talking but my mom always used to tell me to shut up too and so did my dad you think maybe they were onto something because I wonder about that and why they told me to shut up……

    • CB:

      Well of course. But while those whole track historical origins are of use in explaining the phenomenon, they aren’t necessarily something we would discuss in detail in public. They are more germane to the auditor himself, in the process of actually auditing a specific PC or Pre-OT

      Paul

      • Paul, I had told Jim I would not talk about this further on his article, but your comment begs a response. First, it could be my complete thought was not expressed fully: I was suggesting that a review and knowledge of LRH’s writings and lectures help in understanding the current scene, not necessarily a discussion of whole track incidents, but what Ron wrote about this. Secondly, I don’t understand why you feel they should not be discussed in public; Ron did so many times and his audiences loved it. (And I dare say, is a major reason many of us became so enamoured of Scientology.) Thirdly, in my opinion, it is a very limited view of LRH’s writings and lectures if you feel this data should only be taken up in a session. LRH’s writings and taped lectures, books, etc., are replete with information and discussion as to what has happened and why and what are the causes of “current” issues on Earth, and they go a long way (if not fully) to showing how current events both in and out of the church are dramatizations of stuff that has gone on many times before (even here on Earth). Psychiatry has been around a lot longer than just a few hundred years. This is not “just for session” stuff, but stuff which is, IMO, essential to really understanding “iterated history”, and why. Therefore, they are not just germane to an auditor auditing a PC or Pre-OT.

        • CB:

          Ron discussed a lot of things publicly as it was necessary in order to convey his discoveries. He also did things one would never otherwise normally do, by way of instruction. For example, on older auditing demos, he frequently repeated what the PC said, something one would never do in an actual session. Why? Because the class he was teaching (or we later students) might not have heard what the PC’s response was.

          The original article made the point about moralism and sexual deviance (or not) as a Church obsession, and then cited a parallel strain of behavior and reasoning in the field of psychiatry. Pretty simple concept. But any half wit (including untrained ones like me) would realize that no recognizable aberration (like moralism) has its origins in the last few hundred years. Put another way, it seems blindingly obvious that any aberration you can find has earlier similars down the track. When you brought up the point about GPMs and such, I just thought, “Yeah, and your point is…?” In fact, I was kinda on the edge of my seat, wondering if you were going to cite a specific GPM for us and take it apart, so we could see the true origin for some of this stuff. I was kinda disappointed when you didn’t.

          Jim has given me a list of references on GPMs, because I was curious on the subject. I carefully saved that list for a time when I could sit down and really hit the books. But I get the impression that GPMs are the “deep magic” of the R6 bank. I also get the impression (and I could be wrong in this) that taking one apart and examining all its parts can be restimulative. I could be wrong in this, and if so, please feel free to correct me. Obviously such a thing might be necessary in training on the subject.

          In any case, I felt like Jim was just making a simple isolated point. When you brought up all this other stuff about the whole track origins of the Church’s obsession, I just thought, “Well that’s obvious. But it doesn’t really add to or invalidate Jim’s point, so why bring it up?” That’s all. If you were offended by this, my apologies.

          Paul

          • Hi Paul,

            We all each of us have our own views and opinions and often they don’t coincide. So, no harm, no foul. Cheers

      • Of course, this is not meant to detract from the crazy batshit moves in the CoS these days, orchestrated by a deranged SP and group intent on destoying the tech and Scientology; nor on Jim’s excellent article and musings on current origins of psychiatric madness.

  5. Good article Jimbo.
    Agreed – This is straight from the mind of Davie. He considers himself a moralist. Let’s not forget the RTC “Masturbation Mission” into PAC run by Davie.
    Also, I remember one day, around 1984, a young black dude was walking down Sunset Blvd in LA. He was dressed in really tight, tight red shorts with black stockings, a tight little shirt unbuttoned and tied at the waist and a feather hat. Oh man, he was on the moon. I was walking about 100 ft behind him.
    Even though he looked hideous, I had to appreciate the Artistic Communication (Art is the Quality of Communication) on his behalf. As I was quasi-admiring the dude, a car pulled over right next to him and Davie got out of the car and started yelling at the dude for dressing like this. I hid behind a tree and watched Dave spend ten minute haranguing the dude for dressing like this. It was fascinating.
    Bottom line – it wasn’t Dave’s business. This is Hollywood and you are going to see that type of thing. People in Hollywood want to be noticed and that’s what the dude was doing. What happened with the dude? He was crying as Dave got back into the car and drove off. This is a “Scientologist” in action? No this is an SP in action.
    Dave was being the worlds Moralist at Arms. He’s really crazy on the 2d.

    ML Tom

    • —> Dumbfounded! That is ludicrous! And this was when DM was what, in ASI? He wasn’t even leader of the church yet. How did this get SO missed?

      Also, when did this “Masturbation Mission” take place? Was it just PAC, or all SO bases?

    • Well like Jim said,“OMFG !”

      I was told just a few days ago by a very responsible Independent (in other words, I believe every word of the story) that a fellow running a blog down in Texas on two separate occasions inserted himself between couples who were planning to get married and suggested that they shouldn’t.

      Both couples went ahead and married despite the interference of the “guru” of all things Scientology. I guess if you spend your life in the church running “control, Control, CONTROL!” on everybody it isn’t that easy to shut it off once you’re out.

      • K Francis,
        2D aberration sure runs deep in some. The amount of intentional destruction on the Dynamic that is all about create is not an “accident”. It is a dramatization.

        It is an interesting comment that those who have played the psrt of moralist so enthusiastically, are the same ones who sabotaged the Confessional Tech with just as much vigor.

        This whole way of “Sec Checking” was trained in, and one of the key persons who spearheaded that is one such blogger.

        It would be nice to see these persons free of the case they are so obviously stuck in. On the other hand, it is a comment on the basic being that all such persons are going the route – restrained, held in, blinded by their own not-ising of acts they have indeed done.

        What empathy I have for these souls, is tempered by the harm they inflict.

    • Well isn’t it “ironical” that. I’ve relayed the story a few times, but here is another oddity for Mr. M: while on the Freewinds he requested the Gold Musicians learn one of his favorite tunes – I Want Your Sex, by George Michael. I said “no”. Since the request persisted, I asked for it in writing so I could query it, and in the meantime didn’t do this “order”. Eventually, I was found guilty of mutiny as a suppressive act in a Comm Ev by Warren Mc Shane.

      Dave’s actions are relatively easily plotted on the Chart of Human Evaluation. Still, one stands aghast at the things he has perpetrated and the misery he spreads in that SP valence.

      • Jim,

        Funny how Miscavige would accuse you of mutiny which is exactly how with the help of others he was able to become the Man Behind Scientology.

        In the above mentioned article he even admits that he basically lied to the most senior executive in Scientology at the time in order to convince her to step down.

        I mean if that is not *mutiny* then I don’t know what is.

        When I read it I figured he was working more for the DOJ than he was for the Church of Scientology and that he’d have Warren his current Eminence Gris (or maybe more like Solten Gris with Dave in the role of Lumbar Hist 😉 as your Com Ev chairman.

        Warren McShane from what I understand is an old GO hand.

        Funny how he was missed in the original purge.

    • Tom,

      Don’t know anything about Dave’s lil’ pulling the Twinkie mission but I do remember reading Guillame’s lil’ missive outlawing children in the SO and going WTF?

      Then there were the so called “2D Rules” which prohibited SO members from having premarital sex and I didn’t have to wonder why these poor kids in the SO ended up spanking the monkey or buying a vibrator.

      As far as I can see there has been a total jihad on the 2D at least since the mid ’80’s. The coup de gras being when RTRC rewrote what the Second Dynamic was which didn’t include sex.

    • It is hard to imagine someone actually taking time out of their day to do something so mean like that to someone at random (unless one is an SP, too).
      Tom your story doesn’t surprise me. Ironically, seems that DM has been quite the little “jerk-off” all this life, hasn’t he?
      Possibly one of his most effective methods of fooling Scientologists is that he is just so VERY low toned that it is hard to confront.

      • Very true ESP,

        There is also the factor where he has been given the false cloak of authority not just by the Church but also the media and the Government as the preordained “religious leader” by the incongruous fact that he happens to be the Chairman of the Board of RTC.

        As Joseph Goebbels said:

        “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

        • Very interesting, RV.
          Goebbels sounds like such a “wise” man in this quote……except that knowing history it is easy to see the end results of his “wisdom”.
          This Nazi liar said “Truth is enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

          But LRH said to never lie in PR and that Truth SLAYS lies.
          It seems that “sunshine disinfects” after all.
          This is just the way it is.
          DM’s days are numbered.

          • Well Miscavige’s days are numbered. Somewhere along the line he sold out to those forces that want to destroy Scientology.

            Where do you think he’ll be in the next life by continuously committing overts against Scientology?

            Even this life. Miscavige’s case from what I understand hasn’t moved since the early ’90’s.

            Personally I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about him.

  6. Having been off Church lines for in excess of 25 years, I wasn’t privy to the fact that they were doing this until recently. Back when I was active in the Church, I had lots of sec checks and I was never asked a question about masturbation. When I found out how obsessive they had become about this, I about laughed my butt off. Seriously? The subject is barely an afterthought in LRH’s mind, according to what he’s written. And you guys (the Church) have turned it into the Crime of the Century? Holy bejeezus. What’s next? Drinking coffee? Smoking? Completely aside from the fact that the purpose of a confessional is not to find out what you’ve done so someone can wag their finger at you later.

    Jim talks about “anyone who has studied,,, the tech of confessionals”. You don’t even have to be a serious student of the subject to know that the purpose of them is unburden a case and that the Church and the auditor really couldn’t care less what you’ve actually done. I’m not tech trained, and even I know that. Only rarely (and sparingly) are they used as investigative tools, and when used that way, they become “sec checks” and are normally preceded with the words, “I’m not auditing you”. And in that case, the last thing the Ethics Officer is going to be worried about is how often you masturbate. And from the Auditor’s Code (June 1980):

    “22. I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.”

    But times (and management) have changed. Be of good cheer, knowing that your friendly neighborhood “with-LRH” auditor couldn’t care less how many cups of coffee you drink, what brand of cigarettes you smoke, or how often you spank the monkey. They just want to help you get better, and they have (and will use) the only tech available to help you do that.

    Paul

    • Watch how far you use that issue of the Auditor’s Code, Paul. Item #25 (#26 in the 1980 issue) was majorly revised:

      1968:

      “25. I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.”

      1980:

      “26. I promise to cooperate fully with the authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of those subjects.”

      • Chris,

        Yes we can thank DM1 for that little..er… modification.

        I think they were getting hot (I guess that would be the wrong word but I’ll go with it 😉 ) on masturbation about the time the HCOB Pain and Sex came out. Ron issues some facts about the scene and these get reinterpreted by a bunch of moralistic, prudish, puritanical, nazis that all sex is bad.

        All ya gotta do is take a look at the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation to see where these people are on the tone scale.

        All one has to do is listen to Ron’s lecture Craftsmanship Fundamentals to see that Ron never considered masturbation an overt because one is not doing anything to anyone.

        If fact in many cases it’s a dodge. For instance one would ask for an overt and the PC would give their latest autoerotic exploit to avoid giving off the real overt like working as an informant for the FBI, embezzling church funds, holding up a liquor store, whatever.

        The policy that covers any 2D activity among Scientologists is called 2D Rules:

        HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
        HCO POLICY LETTER OF 11 AUGUST 1967 Issue I
        SECOND DYNAMIC RULES
        It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals.
        Whenever this has occurred, it has not resultecl in any improved condition.
        All I have been interested in, so far as Scientology law was concerned, was in removing retarding elements or practices from the path of progress toward freedom.
        Man is aberrated. Otherwise we would not be here. He is hard to rescue as he has been carefully “trained” to do himself harm.
        I have no concern about the second dynamic activities of Scientologists save only where they bring suffering to others and so impede our forward progress.
        Therefore: ALL FORMER RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES RE- LATING TO THE SECOND DYNAMIC ACTIVITIES OF STUDENTS, PRE- CLEARS, STAFF AND SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE CANCELLED.
        In their place, any husband, wife or individual whose processing or training has been impeded or interrupted beyond any reasonable doubt by second dynamic activities on the part of staff or associates or their husband or wife may have recourse to the CHAPLAIN’S COURT, Division 6, of any Scientology organization, and any case heard. If it be proven beyond reasonable doubt that, without provocation, a person’s training or processing has been impeded by the irregular second dynamic actions of the defendant, a fine of not less than £1000 sterling or greater than £5000 sterling shall be awarded the plaintiff, and until paid, the defendant shall have no further training or processing.
        This policy is not retroactive (occurrences before this date may not be tried).
        No Ethics Order shall be issued by reason of second dynamic activities. All Ethics Orders now in force relating to the second dynamic are cancelled.
        No staff member may be punished, transferred or dismissed because of sec- ond dynamic activities.
        No student or preclear may be suspended or dismissed because of second dynamic activities.

        Nothing in this policy letter lays aside our actual knowledge of the conse- quences of second dynamic overts against husbands and wives being processed or the degree to which training or processing can be impeded for someone because of another’s acts.
        We are also aware that those org staffs which are overactive on the second dynamic seldom prosper.
        We also retain any and all technology relating to the second dynamic.
        One of man’s primary areas of aberration is the second dynamic.
        Processing, not discipline, is the only thing which eradicates aberration of such depth.
        L. RON HUBBARD Founder

        Which is the exact PL I used to show any prudish puritanical “C/S” who wanted to include any “masturbation overts” or some harmless tryst as part of eligibility.

        It’s interesting that many of the execs who were hard on (probably another bad choice of words but what the hell 😉 ) usually had incredible out 2D overts themselves such as extramarital affairs to having sex with minors and involvement with kiddie porn.

        Funny how the criminal mind works?

        Then there are many Sea Org members who are young and impressionable who have no understanding about the birds and bees and all that. Personally I can understand as I started auditing in my teens and many of my PCs were older women but eventually that button got flattened and I was able to get real overts from these ladies who’s game seemed to be in the beginning to titillate the young impressionable auditor 😉

        So I’ve been there done that. Thus I can understand the shock and dismay of some young Sea Org auditor when they learn the facts of life in an auditing session 🙂

        My suggestion is read Ron’s Mission Earth Series which will really flatten any button on sex or go get bull baited on the subject and stop wasting valuable auditing time getting extraneous “details” that have no bearing on the case.

        Finally Jim. Thanks for bring this subject up and pointing out the insanity of this insanity 🙂

        • Actually, it is an overt if the pc considers it an overt; it’s a withhold if the pc considers it a withhold, notwithstanding “a withhold is what the pc is withholding and it does not have to include what the pc considers is a withhold. (SH Spec 98, 6201C10)”. And if it is holding up the case because the pc has BPC on the area, it needs to be taken up and addressed until it is handled. Otherwise it is auditing over continuous MWHs and continuous out-ruds. However, this isn’t the same as what Jim is talking about here, nor what I think you’re alluding to in your dissertation.

          Re it being a dodge, I’ve never or very rarely ever found that to be the case. I guess you’re auditing different-type pcs from me. And a corollary HCOPL would be Executive Misbehaviour, but that deals with execs in an org (or SO too, for that matter). As always, one has to look at what is going on in that situation, that case, what was going on at that time, and deal with it with the proper balance of tech and ethics (as needed) in order for that individual (or group) to prosper and succeed.

          • By the way Chris a withhold is not necessarily an overt or vice versa:

            1. a withhold is an unspoken, unannounced transgression against a moral code by which the person was bound. (SH Spec 62, 6110C04) 2 . the unwillingness of the pc to talk to the auditor or tell him something. (SH Spec 108, 6202C01) 3 . a withhold is something that a person believes that if it is revealed it will endanger their self-preservation. (SH Spec 113, 6202C20) 4 . when the person should be reaching and is withdrawing that’s a withhold. (SH Spec 98, 6201C10) 5 . a withhold is a withhold if it is a violation of the mores the pc has subscribed to and knows about. (SH Spec 75, 6111C02) 6 . a withhold is something the pc did that he isn’t talking about. (SH Spec 206, 6211C01) 7 . a withhold is what the pc is withholding and it does not have to include what the pc considers is a withhold. (SH Spec 98, 6201C10) 8 . it is restraining self from communicating. (SH Spec 98, 6201C10) 9 . is always the manifestation which comes after an overt. Any withhold comes after an overt. (SH Spec 181, 6208C07)

            Note definitions 2,4,6 and 8.

            Also you have what are called inadvertent or laudable withholds and false withholds and such.

            Anyway I suggest listening to the taped lecture Craftsmanship Fundamentals 6205C03 SHSBC-142 where Ron discusses “embarrassing withholds”

            If you don’t have a copy I can send you one via drop box.

            As we both know there are no different PCs case wise but you could say I’ve audited a rather eclectic selection of PCs and PreOTs when I was auditing at AO in the Case Cracking unit.

            At one time I thought of writing one of those “tell all” books then I decided it against it as it would violate clause 22 of the Auditors Code especially the section about “personal gain.”.

            As far as Executive Misbehavior this is covered in the PL Attacks on Scientology Sex and Organizations.

            Also I feel that what I wrote is very appropriate since it covers a different angle on the subject under discussion which is not just black and white but can also be 50 different shades of gray.

            Now as the policy 2D Rules suggests other than those covered under Sex and Organization. It’s not really an ethics matter per se according to the policy but a civil matter. If conducted between consenting adults.

            Personally I think every auditor, course supervisor, ethics officer or MAA should be familiar with this PL on 2D Rules.

            Because it not only covers masturbation but other 2D acts etc that others consider out ethics or “immoral”.

            Also this PL written by Ron proves that we are *not* moralists. A condition that is currently infecting the Church and that anyone’s withholds in this area are safe with us.

            Or should be.

            • RV: “By the way Chris a withhold is not necessarily an overt or vice versa:”

              Where did I say this, Robin? You need to quit assuming and stop lecturing me. Otherwise it tends to read like condescension and invalidation, which I’m sure is not your intent. I’m quite familiar with the references you mention, and I constantly refer to them either with my pcs or on my own.

              Re sex and the 2D and the church and executive behaviour and the policy on the 2D, as Ron says, “Processing, not discipline, is the only thing which eradicates aberration of such depth.”

              Regarding the cases of pcs, I stand by my comment that I have never (or maybe once, just so I never say “never”) come across someone giving me a 2D withhold as misdirector. Nor have I seen it in any of the cases I’ve C/Sed, either in Vancouver, ASHO, or for AO’s Case Cracking Unit and Div 4A, nor any of the work I did for CMOI, ABLE Int, ITO, FCB or RTC. 😉

                • LOL. Nope, I didn’t. Although I have audited some wild ones. I definitely believe Ron when he says that the three biggest buttons are Time, Sex, and Money. And Sex is right up there in aberration, vying for top spot with Money. lol

              • Good movie “Never Say Never” last one where Sean Connery played James Bond 😉

                Chris I think I mentioned this before but some of our PCs and Pre OTs were FOIs (that’s “Former” Intelligence Officers, quotes being that there ain’t no such thing ‘lessen “former” means feet first but anyway…) then of course there were GO and again “former” GO and these guys know how to misdirect. I think it’s a job qualification.

                Then of course there are one or two I’ve run into who have fed the same “withhold” to a variety of different auditors and I just happened to be the one late on the chain.

                Most cases it was just your typical false withhold or withhold that didn’t blow but in some rare cases it was a “withhold” that was used to cover up an actual overt that would become evident on the rare occasion that putting in false or protest or any version there of didn’t blow it.

                So I guess my personal experience is a little different to some degree. Not by much though.

                The usual cases didn’t act like this. But being in Case Cracking they didn’t give you the usual pianola or cadillac cases.

                Gives one a jaded view at times but on the other hand there was never a dull moment 🙂

                Sorry if I seemed patronizing but the fact is that just because one hasn’t personally experienced something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and this was the impression that you seemed to be trying to give.

                I know people who have never witnessed a UFO but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

                More pertinent to Scientology. I have experienced many of the phenomena Ron describes in the PDC and other lectures of that period. Yet there are people who claim to be “Scientologists” who say they are just figments of Ron’s imagination or something.

                I say that both of us be more tolerant of each others points of view.

              • Chris,
                Since I wrote the Opening Piece, I’m going to chime in here. Bluntly, more or less.

                Cut it out. You’ve made valid points. Robin has made valid points. Don’t go off onto some other thing.

                THE point is the Opening Piece and that Scientology auditing has become some sort of “psych” oriented (whole track “psych”) moralism enforced gibbering bullshit. Another point, this is the complete dichotomous, Opp Term, valence shift that is a dramatization of the Bank, that Scientology, actual Scientology is meant to as-is.

                I’ve no interest in this other stuff, so please, withhold it.

                OK?

                Thank you 🙂

                • Whatever, James. This is one-sided BS. Especially when I’m not allowed to either put in my two cents worth, or allowed to correct misrepresentations. But I see where you’re coming from. Yes, the Church has become a big nasty ogre. Wonder where I heard that before. I gotta run…got pcs to audit.

                • Jim,

                  (I’m not buttering you up or anything but…)

                  I thought you’d written a brilliant article on the psychiatric influences now influencing the Church.

                  I’d say that was a spot on observation.

                  Personally I used to suggest in jest that we call it the Church of Psychiatry 😉

      • CB:

        Yeah, I’m aware that the Auditor’s Code has been “hacked” along the way. But there are certain precepts which are and should always remain “static” for those of us who are “with-LRH”. The precept I mentioned is one of them.

        Paul

          • RV:

            By your sentence structure and wording, I can’t figure out what you’re saying here. What I meant was, there has been some recent screwing around with the Auditors Code. And one might debate whether those changes were reasonable. But I think that much of the Auditors Code has remained more or less the same over the years, and should remain so. Most of it should be obviously, like, I have the right to turn away any PC I don’t feel I can honestly help. Things like that.

            Paul

            • Wow dude.

              You definitely need time in humor school.

              Ok….ok ….here’s the punchline again. Ron calls invalidation and evaluation the two “shuns”. You know what it means to shun something don’t you Paul?

              Sheeesh

              Anyway according to the lecture he considered this the most important aspect of the Auditors Code.

              And if you look at the Code from a historical point of view going way back to the Original Thesis. You’ll see that not invalidating or evaluating for the PC are very prominent and integral parts of the Code no matter what other changes to it were made.

              Invalida-SHUN and Evalua-SHUN.

              Get it?

              And true the Code has remained much the same but as Chris was pointing out. Now the Auditor under the revised code is forced to cooperate with only official organizations of Dianetics and Scientology which as in the case of the current Organization now have gone squirrel.

              Do you see the difference here?

      • Chris, someone tried to pull that one on me once (#25 and #26). I explained that in the legal sense, yes, I made an agreement with a group, but the group unilaterally changed it’s end of the agreement, therefore the whole agreement is now null and void.
        A contract (an agreement) has to have the consent of both sides.

        • 84,

          I’d just apply the HCOB/PL How to Defeat Verbal Tech, since we both know that the original was altered by someone who has been declared a squirrel instead of get into any legal figure, figure on it.

          Makes it simple.

          Just dig up the original and apply it.

          See.

          Problem solved.

    • “But times (and management) have changed. Be of good cheer, knowing that your friendly neighborhood “with-LRH” auditor couldn’t care less how many cups of coffee you drink, what brand of cigarettes you smoke, or how often you spank the monkey. They just want to help you get better, and they have (and will use) the only tech available to help you do that.”

      I totally agree Scat.

      I’d say “Handling With Auditing” is the HCOB to apply.

      Ethics only exists to get the Tech *in*. Not to make PCs or Pre OTs moral.

    • Well Paul, yes, smoking and drinking coffee ended up on the hit list. I remember being uplines when DM quit smoking. The entire base had nicotine withdrawals. He came into our office one day and asked everyone there, individually, why we still smoked. When he got to me and said “Why do you still smoke?” I said “Cuz I’m afraid of dying of old age.” He said “You really are an asshole, aren’t you?”
      So after he quit, everyone had to quit.
      Then we couldn’t listen to our Walkmans while working because it was “unprofessional”. Then we weren’t allowed to drink coffee at our desks because it was “unprofessional”. Working around him was like experiencing his case daily.
      Gulliume wasn’t the one who cancelled kids. He was made to do it by DM. I know this for a fact. He wasn’t crazy on the 2D, but DM was.

      ML Tom

      • “Gulliume wasn’t the one who cancelled kids. He was made to do it by DM. I know this for a fact. He wasn’t crazy on the 2D….”

        Any further stories on Gulliume, Tom? I always had an affinity for him but would like to increase my R further than what little I know. Thx.

      • TM:

        LOL. Especially, “Cuz I’m afraid of dying of old age.”

        You know, ex-smokers really aggravate me. They often get into this sort of service fac phase where they can’t stand cigarette smoke and they’re all in your business about whether you ought or ought not be smoking.

        Most of the research on smoking, and particularly second hand smoke is completely bogus for one thing. While it isn’t great for the body, it does not cause cancer, heart disease or anything else.

        Second, the button on smoking is more of the same kind of silly moralism the Church is engaged in. If you want to smoke, do so. Own it. Enjoy it. Other people should pay attention to their own lives and stay out of yours. How would you like it if I went around constantly telling you that you should smoke?

        Third, if you don’t want me to smoke in your house, I understand. It’s your house and you may not like the smell. Personally, I enjoy the smell and always have.

        Full disclosure: I smoked a pack and a half of Marlboro box a day for 35 years. I never had any particularly negative health effects from it. Three years ago or so, I switched to electronic cigarettes. I did so because I was about the age where the excesses of youth start to catch up with you, and e-cigs could give me nicotine while avoiding all the possible negative side effects. But I wouldn’t dream of telling a smoker they should quit. If you enjoy it and can get away with it, by all means. I’ve seen old ladies in their 80s at old folks homes happily puffing away.

        Besides, if this is the worst thing you’ve got to worry about, you should take another look at your planet. There’s a lot worse things going on that deserve your attention. Give smoking a rest.

        (End of rant.)

        By the way, I have nothing on coffee either way. I can’t stand the stuff. But if you like it, have a blast. I’ll even brew up a pot for you.
        I’ll drink my tea, you can have your coffee, and we’ll have a good old time talking about movies, comedians, politics or whatever. Oh, and don’t forget to bring your cigarettes. I’ve got plenty of ash trays I don’t use any more.

        Paul

        • Jim smokes a pipe now, having been a long term smoker.

          I told him I don’t kiss ashtrays, so he moved to e-cigarettes, but you can’t get them in Oz yet ( highly regulated market here).

          So he switched to pipe tobacco which I don’t mind, and tastes good ( from what I understand). Only 4 places in town you can get it, but less cost and high on the kissable list. LOL

          • LM:

            I’ve smoked a pipe. The smoke is harsh on the inhale, which is why pipe smokers normally don’t inhale. But I can testify is does taste good and does smell nice.

            You may never see e-cigs in Oz. First, it gets around the 11th commandment (Thou shalt not smoke) favored by ex-smokers, militant non-smokers and those who simply must dictate your life choices for you. Second, it removes a source of revenue for Big Tobacco. They’re late to the game, and should have bought the Chinese factories when the field was in its infancy, but they didn’t. So now they’re playing catch-up. Third, it removes a source of revenue for the government (unbelievably high taxes on tobacco products). And fourth, but certainly not least, it wipes out a huge source of revenue for Big Pharma, which makes money hand over fist on people trying to quit smoking.

            In the States, our (federal) Food and Drug Administration (in collusion with Big Tobacco and Big Pharma) is threatening to regulate the field, which will virtually kill any innovation in it and leave only the large Chinese manufacturers as the only ones left who can afford to compete under proposed regulations.

            But throughout this whole drama, there’s a very moralistic tone which doesn’t belong there.

            BTW, I’ll kiss an ashtray. No biggy. But toilets– that’s where I draw the line. Maybe a “high five” for them, but that’s the limit. 😉

            Paul

          • The only problem I see with e-cigs is that they may not oxidize the nicotine enough to produce nicotinic acid aka niacin. There is an interesting lecture by Ron around ’61 entitled Question and Answer Period at Saint Hill were he talks about the possible benefits of smoking. Of course the so called “critics” only quote the portion of the lecture where he says that smokers don’t smoke enough without quoting the portion of the lecture where he explains why.

            Some day I’ll have to dig up the lecture. But anyway in *my opinion* then per the DAB on Education and the Auditor.

            Niacin is effective in counteracting the effects of Radiation which as we know or should know is one of the key causes of cancer.

            This is covered in the book All About Radiation and the Radiation lectures. As far as I’m concerned smoking is just another one of those false causes assigned to a condition like cats causing the bubonic plague when in fact it was the rats that were causing it and by getting rid of the cats they were getting rid of their main line of defense to the disease.

            Another one of those *Wrong Targets* that wiped out oh…around 2/3s of the population at the time.

            Cigarettes may or not fall under this category but the stats coming in that despite the holy jihad against smoking according to the American (Can’t Find a Cure for)Cancer Society despite the drop in smokers the cancer rate in the US has not appreciably decreased.

            You’d expect it would if “cancer sticks” were the main culprit but the fact is nada. As in no change and an actual increase in various cancers.

            What do expect from a so called health “science” based on a ridiculous statistical model that 500000 per year who die are smokers which is shocking until you consider that 25% of the population smokes and that the over all statistic of deaths per annum here in the US is 2000000.

            So much for the smoking “holocaust”.

            Here’s the real stat 2 million people here in America die per year and 25% of them happen to be smokers.

            But here’s a fact that the anti-smoking agenda doesn’t want anyone to know because smokers would think twice about finding some pharmaceutical replacement like say Zyban and that is over 150000 people are killed by adverse drug effects and interactions.

            This is not some nebulous statistical model but actual deaths reported and signed off as the actual cause of death.

            Anyway I think the policy Wrong Target is a good policy to read regarding this.

          • Yeah whatever.

            Actually the truth is that WHO conducted research on passive smoke and really found no increase in incidents of cancer or asthma or other diseases related to smoking. In fact there wasn’t and hasn’t been a single death report of a death directly related to second hand smoke.

            Did they report those findings?

            No they buried them.

            Because they are nothing but a bunch of meddling social engineers who support the pharmaceutical industry.

            So if there is anyone on De Nile regarding second hand smoke it is those who claim it “kills”.

            Attached you’ll find a policy MaBu I suggest reading it:

            HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
            HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 AUGUST 1970
            Data Series 15
            WRONG TARGET
            There is an additional specific outpoint.
            It is WRONG TARGET.
            This means in effect AN INCORRECT SELECTION OF AN OBJECTIVE TO ATTEMPT OR ATTACK.
            Example: Josie Ann has been sitting in the house reading. Her brother Oscar has been playing ball in the yard. A window breaks. Josie Ann’s mother rushes into the room, sees Josie Ann and the ball on the floor, spanks Josie Ann.
            This outpoint contains the element, amongst other things, of injustice.
            There is another version of this:
            Example: A firm has its premises flooded. The manager promptly insists on buying fire insurance.
            Example: The people of Yangville are starving due to food scarcity in the land. The premier borrows 65 million pounds to build a new capital and palace.
            Example: The government is under attack and riot and civil disorder spreads. The government officials campaign to put down all “rightists” for trying to es- tablish law and order.
            Example: A man is beaten and robbed on the main street of a town. The police demand to know why he was there and put him in jail for a long period of investigation.
            Example: The multibillion-dollar drug cartels push out 65 tons of habit- forming hard drugs. A government campaigns against cigarettes.
            Example: A boy wants to be an accountant. His family forces him to join the army as a career.
            It is noted that the very insane often attack anyone who seeks to help them.
            This outpoint is very fundamental as an illogic and is very useful.

            L. RON HUBBARD

      • Hey I understand Tom but there is the SOED in writing with Gulliame signing it off.

        You know me I was never big on the Nuremberg Defense.

        Personally I’ve never given a damn if it was God himself who ordered it. It does not change the fact that it was an illegal and destructive order.

        You and I know this is covered under the policy Orders, Illegal and Cross How to Stay Out Trouble.

        Regarding the smoking thing. Yeah we had a bunch of smoke free Nazis at our level too. What I’d do is point them to the policy on Smoking and if they persisted I’d tell to fuck off after blowing smoke in their face.

        I remember one “C/S” who was so obsessed with turning everyone into some virtuous “non-smoker” that he’d program it as part of their auditing whether they wanted to quit smoking or not.

        Imagine being at Pac Graduation and someone originating as their biggest “win” on “New OT V” being that they were now a non-smoker.

        Now there is a sky high OT Ability.

        But I digress.

        The fact is that it was Guillame who ordered putting the lid on the other half of the second of the 2D and it matters not a wit to me whether Miscavige ordered him to do it or not.

        Why should we place ourselves at a lower standard of ethics then those of the Nuremberg Tribunal?

        Those poor bastards didn’t even have an Orders Query policy. Guilliam did.

        • “… didn’t even have an Orders Query policy. Guilliam did.”

          Did he? That policy assumes that on-source sanity prevailed in upper management. It did not! I can tell you most assuredly that writing KR’s or querying an order uplines that were contrary to DM’s mandates were NOT an option.

          Yes, he could have refused to do it, AND HE SHOULD HAVE, (yes, part of the policy) but it would have meant removing himself from the post, where he was operating in a higher ethics condition (doing more good than harm). Maybe that equation is what needs more info.

          • Pazooter,

            If policy won’t be applied because of some arbitrary order then as far as I’m concerned that area is beyond redemption whether it is Keokuk Org or International Management.

            “I can tell you most assuredly that writing KR’s or querying an order uplines that were contrary to DM’s mandates were NOT an option.”

            I disagree. It was an option that I applied for many years. Despite various efforts to “handle” me to just go along with the program.

            I was even told by some “exec” not to bother writing an orders query and I wrote one anyway and then wrote a job endangerment chit on the same “exec” that continued to demand that I follow what I considered to be an illegal order and when she persisted I requested a Com Ev and she finally backed down.

            Sorry Pazooter I don’t believe in “no options”.

            NO.

            As far as I’m concerned Int Management as a group by blindly following Miscavige’s dictates betrayed Scientology.

            No body does less harm than good by knowingly following *illegal and destructive orders*.

            I ask you Pazooter in the long run did Guillame do less harm then good?

    • Pazooter,
      That would involve another article. I’ve done one on the use of buttons that includes one of the points taken all the way back to the early 70s.

      In this article it’s been pointed up in the various comments that these “Sec Checks” are out-tech by violating things such as: Moral Codes, what exactly IS a withhold; 2D regulations policy; ordinary living made into a crime (manufactured “madness” a la psychiatry) and thereby lies entered in with a persistence of aberration (many undergoing these things make stuff up invalidating themselves and the validity of the actual, what should be procedure; inval of the meter as false, protest, inval and various other buttons are mistaken for a reading withhold to the point of the person undergoing this becoming introverted and confused rather than any relief being attained other than getting the hell out of that “session”.

      The abuse of Confessional Tech has been intentional and is intended to invalidate an entire body of material. My educated guess is that is part and parcel of the SP’s wanting to keep their withholds from being discovered. Odd that, that impulse, since the whole of their stressful existence would be relieved on confronting and taking responsibility for having done the things they have and do.

      • Re: “My educated guess is that is part and parcel of the SP’s wanting to keep their withholds from being discovered. ”

        Thanks, Jim. I am sure you’re right on with this. Back in the early 80’s at ASHO-F I was the “Lone Ranger” fighting against the “fall on all” arbitrary. And it was the RTC that I had to go up against. Not fun. I do not who it was uplines that finally got this reversed. But all these mandated arbitraries are and always have been Qual killers. It’s sad that from my observation that most Qual personnel have folded on these rather than face ostracization.

        • Bruce, I’ve always considered that the more complex/complicated it has been made (or becomes), the more arbitraries have been entered into the mix. One eventually hits a STOP as a result. Ron was not complicated. But many over the tech would fall under “The Story of a Static” reference.

          Re arbitraries, Ron has this to say in HCOB 23 Aug 68:

          “Any arbitrary entered into any line is a way to stop that line.

          An auditor doing a job of auditing suddenly enters an arbitrary such as “The pc now has a grief charge so he must have a withhold as I’ve just cleaned up ARC breaks.” Or any such wild think. This arbitrary would stop that pc’s case right now.

          You get all there is to know about tech from HCOBs, tapes, books.

          This is all.

          Here’s one—when the needle on an E-Meter read in the response to an auditor’s question, all you know is that the needle on the E-Meter read. That’s all you know. Now in the next few seconds you will prove out, as to whether the read was to the question or to something else like a protest. To assume anything else in regard to meter reads is an arbitrary and will close up that pc with a bang.

          That’s the data. Knock off all the arbitraries NOW.

          Punch in hard standard tech. Standard tech is that tech which has absolutely no arbitraries.” LRH

          • I had suspected the RTC as a suppressive source from my very first encounter with them, which was to hand me two crappy photostats (telex copy) of something LRH. Yeah, a Hidden Data Line. I was pretty sure it was factually Ron (was useful and sane) but there I was, compromised. Even so, it soon hit me that their effects on Qual were always to somehow make it wrong, NEVER to empower a local Qual. Huge outpoint!

            • I hear ya, Bruce. I think you’ve hit on one of the ways that tech was stopped – take out Qual (and HCO) and you take out Tech. Insidious, and diabolical. Interestingly, Ron mentions in one of the VIII tapes (I think it was Ethics And Case Supervision) that the VIII, upon arriving home, will find himself a target in an effort to knock out standard tech, and the Qual Sec was supposed to be an VIII. We also have the various issues about how some will try to take out HCO.

              So I think RTC used this approach, but they’re late on the chain. I think it’s been going on a long time in Scientology (see KSW, 1965) and Dianetics (see Ron’s discourse on his early troubles), and definitely is the same game, same players, same intentions as along the track.

              • Touché. Ron and Scientology have always been a prime target for suppressives. Nothing new there. It’s just that internal suppression has the advantages outlined in Black Dianetics; using the tech to turn against itself.

                • Exactly Paz,

                  The problem is that if you don’t correctly teach the correct tech like Ron says in KSW that you get some people who can’t tell black from white.

                  BTW you should see some of those Sec Checking “drills” as they call them they have on the Golden Age of Tech which have a closer relationship to some WWF smack down then actual auditing.

              • CB:

                “…Qual Sec was supposed to be an VIII”. Good lord, I wish it had ever been that way. Our Qual Sec ended up being some little significance-case untrained girl who couldn’t even look at a dictionary without getting into a long word chain. What a relief it would have been to have an VIII anywhere in Qual (we didn’t).

                Paul

                • I hear you loud and clear. But I’m also recalling our CL VIII FEBC OT8 Qual Sec at CCI who sided WITH our CL VIII Snr C/S, CO, SC and Tech Sec to cancel my Cramming Order calling for a full Retrain on one of our CL VIII’s who after repeated GAE’s finally ended up falling asleep in session and appealing to his PC not to mention it to anyone. That auditor was back in session within 3 days of ethics handlings because…, wait for it…, the stats must not go down!

                  I need to write it all up one of these days.

                  • Pazooter,
                    Here’s something I recognized when in a scene like you describe.

                    “An activity can get so wide of the ideal scene the people in it are just in a confusion. They do all sorts of odd irrelevant things, often hurt the activity further. “

                    In the same issue under INTERFERENCE:

                    “Lots of people, often with lots of authority, get mired into situations. They do not know they are in anything that could be defined, isolated or stated. They bat madly at unimportant dust motes or each other and just mire in more deeply.
                    “Whole civilizations uniformly go the route just that way.
                    “So do orgs, important activities and individuals.” PL 3 June 70, Data Series 11, THE SITUATION.

                    • Excellent reference, Jim. Thanks. I recall searching at the time for some LRH covering what does one do when he/she sees that whole situation and does NOT have the authority. I never did handle that correctly and it still hangs over my head. I tried a) just try and do my job, b) write KR’s, c) use “Orders, Illegal and Cross,” and d) go a little crazy.

                      Seems d) won out 🙂

      • For more abuse, look at the differences between Ron’s 1978 Confessional Procedure HCOB, and the revised RTRC issue from 1987 (I’m pretty sure that’s the year). Especially the area of use of buttons.

        • Time to put a red letter on the ol’ Calendar because I totally agree with you here Chris. Any revision since the original in 1978 has been in my humble opinion squirrelly.

          Personally I think they justified these revisions and the use of what amounts to almost a frickin’ 20 button prep check on a question because of the later issue of the HCOB on Sec Checking Implants.

          Yet as far as I can see a still needle is completely different from a question that is *unreading*. Yet who ever in RTRC who later revised tried to make them seem like the same thing.

  7. From Handbook For Preclears:

    “So let’s look at present time.

    And let’s be blunt.

    What are you trying to hide in present time?

    What would happen to you if it were discovered?

    How many things like this are there in present time?

    Don’t bother to list them. If other people found these things out they would probably blink, maybe they’d chatter over fences. You might get fired or divorced. But I’ll tell you a secret about secrets. No single person to whom you uttered the confidence would NOT have a similar list to hide. They’ve all masturbated and had clandestine affairs and a lot of them venereal diseases. They’ve stolen money and maybe some have even left a cold dead body in a culvert. They’ve lied and cheated and done blackmail. And the funny part of it is, only those who have a long, long list of things to hide would even begin to reprimand you.” LRH (“The Third Act”)

  8. I started working in RTC from late 1993. At that time COB had a Secretary, a Communicator, an Assistant and two personal stewards (all attractive women, including his wife) as his support staff — and then over the next several years he manned up his office significantly to a total of 12 staff (all being women but two). When I was later busted from RTC and posted in the Galley, I used to cook for all of his entourage, so I am well familiar with who they were and even what their diets were and food preferences were.

    In 1995 the RTC Rep Network was created and for this some 15 staff were recruited into RTC. Almost all were attractive young females.

    In 1996 there was a project to “put in” the Org and Esto system in RTC (failed miserably and all were gone within a year) and again, more attractive females were brought into the org.

    By 1996, RTC had doubled in size and the ratio of women to men was absurd.

    Now here is a small personal story of one of my early “experiences” with DM, that occurred just before I was “promoted” to RTC, in 1993. I had been working as a Programs Ops in CMO Int, and worked in a building call Del Sol. Marc Yager had been CO CMO Int at that time, and his wife, Michelle Yager, had been posted as the Public Affairs Officer of CMO Int. Both Marc and Michelle, being long term Messengers and significant execs/staff, lived on the base (all other staff at that time lived off base in rented apartments) in a room that was two doors down from Dave and Shelly at the Lower Villas. Michelle had just received a gift from Marc of a tiny puppy (other SO members did not have dogs — only those who lived on the base had that right) and this puppy was running around the lower corridor of Del Sol and staff were gathered around laughing and playing with it. DM pulled up on his motorbike, outside Del Sol, and strode in and over to the gathered people to see what was going on. He saw the puppy and laughed (it was a ball of fluff with tiny legs, long hair hanging over its eyes and a tail that would not stop wagging). He reached down and picked it up and told Michelle he was taking it to show Shelly, as she would love it (Shelly loves animals, always has, always will). He then turned to me, standing there, and thrust the puppy at me and said “Come with me”. I took the dog and followed dutifully. I thought he must want me to walk the dog up to the Upper Villas (about 500 mtrs away), as he has his motorbike. I was wrong. He got onto his bike and then ordered me to get onto the back, behind him.

    Now his bike has no handles for passengers, at seat level.

    The only way to hold on, and stop yourself falling off, is to put your arms around the driver.

    The ride from Del Sol to the Upper Villas could have been a simple and gentle slow ride (considering he was carrying a passenger who was also holding a puppy), but no, he took off with a real start and took every corner (several) as fast as he could go, and just hanging on for dear life, I had to press my body against the back of his just to not fall off.

    I was embarrassed at the time, felt completely awkward, and confused by the incident. We got to the Upper Villa, I got off the bike, still holding an even more confused puppy, and he took it from me and went in to show Shelly, who was absolutely thrilled with the ball of the fluff (but completely unaware of the motorbike ride that had brought the play thing to her).

    Not another word was spoken to me, so I then walked back to Del Sol, feeling really weird about the whole thing. I justified to myself that maybe he just likes to show how fast his bike goes, or maybe he was trying to show me how he is a good rider and can go around corners so quickly — but in later years as I watched RTC fill up with attractive women of a similar age or younger, I think the actual reason was something a lot more perverse and ugly.

    Sorry — did not mean to do just a long story, but once I got started, it was therapeutic (lol)

  9. The following HCOB (22 Mar 67) explains quite well the current scene with the Church, with the field, and contributed to what this article is about. It also explains why DM is where he is and why he was permitted to stay there and why others are still there and why he is still supported. This explains a lot. And it is not “whole track” nor above anyone’s ken. It – along with an understanding of LRH tech explaining the reasons for some valences – is, IMO, vital to understanding the current scene. For instance,

    “A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only.”

    This one datum itself is of particular relevance, but there is so much applicable data in this HCOB I’ve posted it in it’s entirety.

    “ADMIN KNOW-HOW – ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED BEINGS

    Alteration of orders and tech is worse than non-compliance.

    Alter-is is a covert avoidance of an order. Although it is apparently often brought about by non-comprehension, the non-comprehension itself and failure to mention it, is
    an avoidance of orders.

    Very degraded beings alter-is. Degraded ones refuse to comply without mentioning it. Beings in fair condition try to comply but remark their troubles to get help when needed. Competent higher toned beings understand orders and comply if possible but mainly do their jobs without needing lots of special orders.

    Degraded beings find any instruction painful as they have been painfully indoctrinated with violent measures in the past. They therefore alter-is any order or don’t comply.

    Thus in auditing pcs or in org, where you find alter-is (covert non-compliance) and non-compliance, given sensible and correct tech or instructions, you are dealing with a degraded low level being and should act accordingly.

    One uses very simple low level processes on a degraded being, gently.

    In admin, orgs and especially the Tech Div where a staff member alter-ises, or fails to comply you are also dealing with a degraded being but one who is too much a pc to be a staff member. He cannot be at cause and staff members must be at cause. So he or she should not be on staff.

    This is a primary senior datum regulating all handling of pcs and staff members.

    A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. He is sort of a super-continual PTS beyond the reach really of a simple S & D and handled only at Sect 3 OT Course.

    Degraded beings, taking a cue from SP associates, instinctively resent, hate and seek to obstruct any person in charge of anything or any Big Being.

    Anyone issuing sensible orders is the first one resented by a degraded being.

    A degraded being lies to his seniors, avoids orders covertly by alter-is, fails to comply, supplies only complex ideas that can’t ever work (obstructive) and is a general area of enturbulence, often mild seeming or even “cooperative”, often even flattering, sometimes merely dull but consistently alter-ising or non-complying.

    This datum appeared during higher level research and is highly revelatory of earlier unexplained phenomena—the pc who changes commands or doesn’t do them, the worker who can’t get it straight or who is always on a tea break.

    In an area where suppression has been very heavy for long periods people become degraded beings. However, they must have been so before already due to track incidents.

    Some thetans are bigger than others. None are truly equal. But the degraded being is not necessarily a natively bad thetan. He is simply so PTS and has been for so long that it requires our highest level tech to finally undo it after he has scaled up all our grades.

    Degraded beings are about 18 to 1 over Big Beings in the human race (minimum ratio). So those who keep things going are few. And those who will make it without the steam of the few in our orgs behind them are zero. At the same time, we can’t have a world full of them and still make it. So we have no choice.

    And we can handle them, even when they cannot serve, at higher levels.

    This is really OT data but we need it at lower levels to get the job done.

    L. RON HUBBARD
    Founder”

    • Chris,

      I hate to be the one to point this out (well maybe not) but you’ll note that Ron says in the above PL:

      “In an area where suppression has been very heavy for long periods people become degraded beings. However, they must have been so before already due to track incidents.”

      So the PL in no way disputes what Jim wrote.

      Also I don’t think anyone here is disputing the HCOPL you’ve cited here as an explanation of the current scene or that it is occurring in present time though there may be some variance of opinion of how it got there.

      Also it proves what I have written in the past and that just getting rid of Miscavige exclusively will not correct the scene. because all they’ll do as DBs is elect someone worse or just as bad.

      That is unless you off load them or audit them to OT III.

          • You don’t have to say anything in defense/justification. Just knock it off. Exercise some control over what you post.

            • Well let’s go back to the beginning here Jim.

              First of all I was not intentionally baiting Chris and actually though it may not seem so by my comment I was actually more in agreement with what Chris said than any disagreement.

              In other words Alter-is and Degraded Beings is very applicable to the scene.

              But does it totally explain why Miscavige is where he is.

              In my opinion no.

              Also the fact is that this HCOPL doesn’t deal with this area.

              Not only that but it gives the impression that anyone who went along with Miscavige was a DB which is not necessarily true in *all cases*.

              Again as I wrote it does explain the current scene to a greater or lesser degree but it is not the total answer.

              I mean if one HCOPL could explain the entire scene then we wouldn’t need the whole body of tech and policy that we have.

              Take for example the PL Blow Offs. True most people blow because of their overts but as it was discovered later many also blow because of Out Int.

              Ok….ok….so I could have put my Manners maybe instead of treating Chris like Jane Curtin in SNL’s Point-Counter point:

              http://www.videobash.com/video_show/jane-akroyd-656921

              🙂

    • CB:

      This is not my first time reading this issue, nor my first time noticing that Ron pegs DBs at 18:1 of the population. But reading it just now explains a lot of what I’ve noticed over the last few years.

      Some of you reading this may have noticed how you always get the scut work to do anywhere you go. Your job ends up being, essentially, to handle other people’s OPs (overt products), or to do the things that absolutely can’t be screwed up (without severe consequences), or to do things where common sense is most needed. I’ve dealt with this most of my life, and have often resented the fact that my fellow humans seem to consistently fail to do their jobs properly, leaving me to clean up after them or handle part of their jobs because they won’t. In life and in work.

      And the above is precisely why. And I suppose it’s no wonder, given the general origins of the folks living on this planet.

      So thanks, CB, for posting this reference. It doesn’t as-is the problem or make it go away. But it does help explain it.

      Paul

      • When talking to a fellow business owner, not a Scio, he put the bad to good staff ratio at around 15 to 1. Over the years I had learned in the interviews how to weed the bad ones out using Tone Scale references, I made mistakes, but usually only because I got false reports.

        Its pretty sad really, but this reference is important if you are dealing with people and you dont like pulling your hair out from stress!

        • 4a:

          Too bad, yes. But consider the origins of the people on this planet. We’ve got geniuses, artists, rabble-rousers and outright criminals.

          Your comments about hiring remind me of the folks who purport to use the OCA in hiring. I can’t think of a more silly idea. As a (reluctant) Div 6er for some time, I saw a lot of OCA graphs. I’ve also seen some of the ones turned in on hiring lines for companies. Completely different graphs, and much better on hiring lines. Why? Because when people walk into an Org to and take a personality test, they’re interested in the results, and they tend to tell the truth. Alternatively, when you’re in line for a job and someone gives you an OCA to fill out, you’re going to lie. You’re not looking to get better or find out more about yourself. You’re trying to get a job. And you know that your answers to this test may determine whether you get that job or not. So when it comes to that question about whether you kick the family dog (or whatever), you’re not going to tell the truth; you’re going to tell your prospective employer what you think he wants to hear. In an Org, you know that if you don’t tell the truth, you’re not going to get an actual, accurate picture.

          Silly idea.

          (I have heard that Ron advocated this use for OCAs. If so, I’ll call that his opinion and respectfully disagree with it.)

          Paul

          • Actually OCAs are very useful tools and there is a lot of data in the OECs Vols I,4,5 and 6 on their proper use.

            You can disagree with it if you like but the tech does work when correctly applied.

            Also this 15/1 bad to good is a fallacy if you know anything about personnel programming or have studied and applied the data in the AKH,Esto, Exec and Personnel Series and know how to do Post Purpose and Product Clearing.

            Someone who says that in my opinion does not know how to hat and train staff on how to do their job or post.

            And is unwilling to or preventing their staff from getting their enhancement in. In other words oppressing them in some way which is unfortunately what is occurring in most Orgs today and why Ron had to develop deoppression tech.

            This 18 to 1 ratio applies to society in general. Read the policy again.

            Not. In my opinion to Scientologists who are supposed to be more aware according to the *Awareness Scale* than the average public who in most cases are way below *need of change*.

            • RV, On your comment “Also this 15/1 bad to good is a fallacy if
              you know anything about personnel programming or have studied
              and applied the data in the AKH,Esto, Exec and Personnel
              Series and know how to do Post Purpose and Product Clearing.”
              I dont get this, are you saying the PL on DBs doesnt apply
              in hiring and training staff? Or that staff can be trained out
              of a DB state? I would like to read the PLs you are referring
              to on this

              You are right in that the 15 to 1 comment was made by a non
              Scio, so he would not be able to hat according to personnel
              policies. I found it to be an interesting observation by
              someone who knows nothing about Scientology.

              As regards to his treatment of his staff, it was a brief
              conversation with someone I had just met so I cant comment
              on this.

              “Bad ones” was a poor choice of words on my part I
              should have said, non or overt producers!

              • 4A,

                The question is is what he saying based on personal opinion or actual statistics and products gotten?

                Also as I’ve written this 15/1 average violates what Ron says in the Personnel Series and other references on handling personnel.

                One also has to consider that the person saying this may be a perfectionist of some kind or possibly even suppressive and only considers that they or a very few anointed can get anything done or that anything anyone other then them or a few is an “overt product”.

            • RV:

              I’d absolutely agree on the use of OCAs inside Orgs. Scientologists, PCs and staff are used to taking OCAs and such, And they have significant use in mapping case progress.

              As for the DB to non-DB ratio of 18-1 or the 15-1 good employee to bad employee ratio, let’s think it through. LRH says 18:1 applies to the “human race”. Thus it’s reasonable to assume that that same ratio, or something close to it applies in Scientology Orgs as well.
              Regardless of how highly one thinks of Scientologists, or what LRH quote you use in praising them, they are still part of the “human race”. Moreover, in the issue cited, Ron does not make any distinction for Scientologists, like “except in Scientology”. Position on the Tone Scale, Awareness Scale or any other scale would not be a characteristic for judging membership in the ranks of DBs. Nor does LRH imply such, though you may infer such.

              Ron never says PPC, training, hatting or anything else handles this specific type of degradation. In fact, in the reference cited, he’s very clear that it is only handleable at “section 3 OT”. And if it is only handleable at that level, it’s reasonable to assume that it has its origins in that area, or some similar whole track area. One might mitigate the condition with other Scientology tech, but handling it rests, apparently, with OT III.

              He says this condition is only really handleable at section 3 OT. We can then assume that anyone OT 3 or above would not be afflicted with the condition. So inside Scientology, we can assume that the ratio skews a bit more in our favor.

              I’ve been staff three times, I’ve seen more than enough behavior matching what LRH described among Org staff to agree that his ratio is valid both on and off staff.

              Now, a wog employer citing a similar ratio of good to bad employees will likely not know how to hat and train employees. In fact, no hatting and training is the rule rather than the exception in the wog world. Even in Scientology, I don’t know of a single staff member who ever had product or purpose clearing run on them. I’m sure it might improve their performance on post, but it wouldn’t reverse the fact that they are DBs, if they are.

              Now, if you have contrary references, please cite them. Though I must say, this discussion is rather silly. Something like arguing over the number of bumps on the back of a frog. As far as I’m concerned, the above cited LRH reference says what it says and stands on its own.

              Paul

                • Chris so are you saying you agree with Paul’s disagreement with Standard Personnel Programming, Esto and Recruitment Tech. Not only that but based on the fact that per Paul
                  “I have heard that Ron advocated this use for OCAs. If so, I’ll call that his opinion and respectfully disagree with it.”

                  Keyword here is “heard”.

                  Also that he is willing to throw out any tech that might have come out later such as the HCOB on Continuous Withholds and Overts such as the following:

                  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
                  HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1973
                  THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H AND CONTINUOUS OVERT
                  WITH DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS AND F ALSE PTS CONDITIONS
                  Reference: (1) Tape List and HCO B List of Level II,
                  Page 4 HCO P/L 26.1.72, Issue VI, concerning Withholds and Overts. (2) “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67.

                  There are two special cases of withholds and overts. They do not occur in all cases by a long ways. But they do occur on a few cases. These are CONTINUOUS MISSED WITHHOLDS and CONTINUOUS OVERTS.
                  This is not quite the same as “The Continuing Overt Act” HCO B 29 September 65. In that type the person is repeating overt acts against something usually named.

                  THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H

                  A Continuous Missed Withhold occurs when a person feels some way and anyone who sees him misses it.
                  Example: A doctor feels very unconfident of his skill. Every patient who sees him misses the fact that he is not confident. This reacts as a missed withhold.
                  It is of course based upon some bad incident that destroyed his confidence (usually of an engramic intensity).
                  But as the person actively withholds this, then those seeing him miss the withhold.
                  This could work in thousands of variations. A woman feels continuous disdain for her child but withholds it. The child therefore continuously misses a withhold. All the phenomena of the missed w/h would continuously react against the child.
                  Probably all dishonest social conduct brings about a Continuous Missed Withhold. The politician who hates people, the minister who no longer believes in God, the mechanic who privately believes he is a jinx on machinery, these all then set up the phenomena of missed withholds on themselves and can dramatize it in their conduct.
                  THE CONTINUOUS OVERT

                  A person who believes he is harmful to others may also believe that many of his common ordinary actions are harmful.
                  He may feel he is committing a Continuous Overt on others.
                  Example: A clothing model believes she is committing a fraud on older women by displaying clothing to them in which they will look poorly. In her estimation this is a Continuous Overt Act. Of course all older women miss it on her.
                  Appearance, just being alive, can be considered by some as an overt. Missed withhold phenomena will result.

                  DEGRADED BEINGS
                  The Continuous Withhold and Continuous Overt are probably a basis of feeling degraded.
                  Degraded Beings, as described in “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67, are that way at least in part because they have some Continuous Missed Withhold or a fancied Continuous Overt Act.
                  This makes them feel degraded and act that way. HANDLING
                  One can add to any program a check for a Continuous Missed Withhold or Continuous Overt as an additional version of rudiments.
                  A master question, which could be broken down into three lists which would have to be done by the laws of L&N, would be, “When anyone looks at you what feeling (action, attitude) of yours do they miss?” Then, “When was it missed?” “Who missed it?” and “What did he do that made you believe it had been missed?”
                  Another approach, less dangerous in that lists aren’t made, would be:
                  For Continuous Missed Withhold the question could be, “Is there some way you feel that others don’t realize?” And with 2wc uncover it. Then ask, “Who misses this?” with answer, followed by, “When has someone missed it?” with E/S to an earlier time. Followed by, “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?” This will key it out and can change behavior.
                  For Continuous Overt Act it would be, “Is there something you do that others do not know about?” With 2wc to cover it and get what it is. Then ask, “Who has not found out about it?” with an answer. And then, “When did someone almost find out?” “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?”
                  Each of the above questions should be F/Ned. MOTION
                  People who have Continuous Withholds or Overts tend to be very slow, flubby and impositive. They have to be very careful. And they make mistakes. Slowness or robotness are keys to the presence of Continuous Missed Withholds or Overts.
                  PTS
                  Quite often a case is FALSELY LABELED PTS when in fact it is really a matter of Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts.
                  When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling easily then you know you are dealing with Continuous Missed Withholds and/or Continuous Overts.
                  SUMMARY
                  These conditions are not present in all cases. When they are you have a Degraded Being. When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling, try Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts. You can prevent blows, handle much HE and R and change character in this way.
                  L Ron Hubbard

                  Because he says it “stands alone” which it obviously doesn’t since it is referred to by the above HCOB.

              • One reference is the PAB Open Channel I recommend reading it.

                As I said earlier I suggest you read the HCOPL Alter-is and Degraded Beings again. Also the HCOPLs in the various series which as I have listed do not contradict this PL.

                This is a personal observation of mine but I’ve noticed that certain PLs and HCOBs for instance the ones on Withholds or in this case that practically everyone except a few are “DB”s in many cases become a fixed stable datum to some. Shall we say a “safe solution” of some kind.

                No one reference stands on its own. I mean if this were so as I wrote earlier then you would not need the full body of tech that we have in Scientology which includes using testing to evaluate and program personnel and like anything else in Scientology. Just because it is not applied or applied incorrectly does not mean it does not work.

                Also dismissing it as unworkable without studying or applying it yourself first as far as I’m concerned is an error.

            • RV I think you are talking about an ideal scene and not actually the existing scene for the last 30 years.

              Orgs are to have open recruitment doors and a back door for those not up to it. That back door has issued and if you observe what gas been done, rather than what was suppose to be done in policy, you see a vast number of low or no case level people, with high percentages of PTS.

              • Lana,

                It’s following policy or tech that creates the ideal scene. The fact that it isn’t an ideal scene doesn’t change what is written in the policies and HCOBs.

                As far as the “back door”. Personally I think that policy has been abused to justify the lack of proper hatting and training of staff and totally incompetent “management”. Especially those directly involved in *not* implementing DeOp, KTL/LOC and Superpower.

                In other words much of what has happened Organizational can be laid at the feet of those who took over.

        • Yeh, and when the ratio approaches 100,000 to 20 (KSW) – yikes!

          Does go to explain why it’s so hard to get anything decent done or why one slogs and has to push to complete work sometimes.

    • Nancy made an excellent point about this reference that I hadn’t thought about before. Ron talks here about the ratio in the human race of degraded beingd to big beings and pegs it at 18:1, more or less. I had always assumed (since Ron didn’t otherwise mention it) that this meant that if you divided up the human race into groups of 19, 18 of each group would be DBs and the last one would be a big being. Nancy mentioned the possibility that there was a third group, uncited, which made up “the rest”. So, for example, if you took, say, a group of a hundred humans, you might find 18 DBs in it, one big being, and 81 run-of-the-mill humans, neither big nor degraded. Any thoughts on this, or other references which might shed light on it?

      Paul

      • Paul,

        This may help shed further light on your question/Nancy’s point:

        From HCOPL 25 June AD13, An International Objective:

        “The trouble with O.T.s in the past has only been lack of cooperation and a commonly agreed upon objective.

        Without these O.Ts eventually fall prey to smaller beings with bigger organization skill. O.T. is an unstable state ONLY when O.T.s are not cooperating with O.T.s but each one going his own way in the strong but fatuous belief he can single-handedly survive. The proof is, O.T.s have not survived as O.T.s whenever this super-individuation collided with the super organization of weaker beings. The answer is to remain organized, with mutual assistance and integrity and not lose touch with or responsibility for all levels of life forms and societies.

        As not all things are capable of attaining O.T. (the vast bulk of any human population, like animals, grass and trees, are possibly minion in origin) the task of rehabilitation is not as great as it looks.”

        • CB:

          Um, I’m gobsmacked.

          The first part of this is echoed in RJ 67– “obsessive individualism and failure to organize…” But the last part is beyond the pale. I had to look up “minion” just to make sure I had the proper definition. I infer from this that “the vast bulk of any human population” is “[in]capable of attaining OT” because it is of similar origin to animals, grass and trees? Am I getting that right? Did I miss something? Do I have an MU somewhere?

          Paul

          • Paul if you have a set of the ” Whole Track Tapes” ( a set of 6 I believe in a lavender cover with an angel on it.) on one of those tapes talks about beings that were ” minion” in origin.

            I was a bit shocked to hear this at the time but I never doubted it personally.

            • KF:

              I don’t have them, I don’t think, but I found transcripts which I’m currently reading. I haven’t found what you’re referring to yet. But the first one (“Whole Track”) gave me a far greater reality on GPMs. And the second one (“The Time Track”) gave me an interesting cog on critics of art. A couple of these I listened to thirty years ago, but I’ll take a look at them again.

              Thanks for the reference. Interesting and instructive even if I don’t find what I’m looking for.

              Paul

        • Chris,

          I checked both of my HCOPL Indexes (Original and New) and there is no listing to the above PL at that date or under that title.

          Though I must say I’ve seen this PL along with Targets Defense on some anti-Scientology hate sites.

          I suggest verifying the actual provenance of such a controversial PL before posting it.

            • Well ok.

              Like I said I’ve checked both PL Indexes and don’t find it listed there.

              I’m saying it is but I’m sure you know that anyone’s handwriting can be forged:

              https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no1/html/v05i1a03p_0001.htm

              In fact from what I understand Miscavige was good at forging the Ol’man’s signature when he was COB ASI.

              Myself having never been in awe about his special talents. If he can do it I’m sure others could.

              Too be sure. You’d need to carbon date the original and compare it to other specimens written in that period. Since Ron’s handwriting has changed over the years.

              Like I said I’m not saying it was but …see above.

              Then again there is the fact that the policy is missing from the Policy, Subject Indexes.

              As I wrote so was Targets Defense but it was confidential and limited in Distribution to GO.

              Actually that any of these anti-Scientology whack-jobs would post it and go see! see! see!….whatever is almost laughable because I personally agree with the Targets Ron was seeking to De-Popularize but anyway.

              It’s true you can go the other way and suspect every policy or HCOB or even lecture as in the case of RJ 38 as being a forgery.

              Personally I go by what Ron says in the HCOB Tech Correction Round-up about tech which I guess could be applied to policy as well.

          • In around 1987, I was shown a copy of that pl (or one very similar). I was told by the person who showed it to me (an IAS reg) that it had been written by LRH but HAD NEVER BEEN ISSUED. The handwriting appeared to me to be LRH’s. However, there are people who are expert at faking handwriting. The date on the pl was early to mid 60’s.

            • Thanks Trekker,

              That was exactly what I was pointing out to Chris. Many FOIA documents released by the “evil” GO indicate that the Church of Scientology has been subjected to Covert Action by CIA and MI6.

              It would be nothing for their experts working in what they call “Tech Services” to forge anything they wanted.

              Not just them but I understand Air Force Office of Special Intelligence the CI branch of A2 or Air Force Intelligence did an incredible job of what they call the “Majestic 12” documents even going so far as to seed the National Archives with them that still many UFOlogists are still convinced that they are genuine.

              Yet there are tell indicators all over them that say they are fakes. Like some of them claiming to be issued in the early and mid -50s yet obviously typed on an IBM Selectric which didn’t exist at the time and things like that.

              That someone from the IAS would show you an unissued policy that was allegedly hand written by Ron makes it even more suspect.

              I mean where did he get it from?

              One of Gerry Armstrong’s special activities as a CI working for LAPD CID before he was busted by the “evil” GO was to seed Cont Mimeo with forged documents so that when LAPD raided the Church they’d have all these nice incriminating documents.

              But of course Gerry was busted before this and the operation was basically blown but it sorta shows you the depth of depravity of what Dave now calls his “friends”.

              As I wrote Trekker I know for a fact that Miscavige is quite good at forging the Ol’man’s signature and I wouldn’t be surprise if he hadn’t extended those “talents” for his cash cow the IAS.

              • LMAO! Spoken like a true conspiracy…um…theorist.

                This is all I’ll say on this:

                The entire 15-page issue is completely handwritten by LRH. On it, LRH directs that it never be published (and obviously that would include in the OEC volumes). I was first shown this PL during an AOLA tour, not IAS, and by someone I trusted and knew. Just because one doesn’t agree with it, doesn’t mean it’s not real, as someone here has said recently on another matter. Finally, I’ve verified this to my satisfaction with Scientologists I trust and with long histories with the Church.

                • Yeah whatever.

                  Ron himself many considered a quote Conspiracy theorist unquote so I consider myself in good company.

                  Obviously you didn’t bother to read the article I cited.

                  BTW what is Policy is covered in the PL Policy; Source of and the HCOPL Hidden Data Line.

                  I personally doubt if Ron would write such an issue as a PL and tell someone not to publish it.

                  As would create a *Hidden Data Line*.

                  So as far as I’m concerned this debate is over.

                • CB:

                  Clearly, you could only quote it if a) you have an eidetic memory, or b) you have a copy.

                  Judging by its verbiage and such, I can imagine why it would be deemed too sensitive to be given wide publication. However the proper solution to this would have been to simply insert the word “Confidential” on the first page. Other materials were handled this way.

                  If it’s written by LRH but never intended to be published, then any use of it becomes a matter of it being a “hidden data line”. The policy on the treatment of items like this is clear and unequivocal.
                  This would have been obvious to Ron. One has to wonder, then, why he would choose to do such a thing.

                  The fact of its being in Ron’s handwriting is clearly debatable. Anyone but an expert could be fooled by someone skilled in duplicating someone’s handwriting. And even experts can on occasion be fooled.

                  I don’t know the people who vouched for the veracity of this to you. As a matter of trust, I believe that you believe this is a valid issue. But I’m not willing to vouch for it myself, if you’re the only personI personally know who can vouch for it.

                  Ergo, it’s not looking good to me. And as such, I’d pefer some other evidence as to whether it’s 19 = 18:1 or 100 = 18:1:81.

                  Paul

                  • Paul,

                    By your logic, then, the same could be said for HCOPL Keeping Scientology Working (handwritten by LRH, which was issued to staff in that form at one time); and one could also say that of all the handwritten OT materials, which would fall suspect and thus be debated as being forged as well.

                    The PL I cited did say “CONFIDENTIAL”, but LRH changed it to “Scientologists Only”. He also advised when publishing the plan “an International Objective” (same title as the PL), that the covering PL (the PL I cited) should not be published.

                    You had originally asked for any further refernces to shed light on the “DB” ratio, and while there’s no “ratio” stated in this PL, I said was that it may shed some light on things. For me, along with other references from Ron, it does. That’s why I posted the excerpt here. If I knew it would create this much confusion, I wouldn’t have posted it. But I thought we were all big thetans here.

                    So, I’ll leave this for you and Robin to debate. 😉

                    • “By your logic, then, the same could be said for HCOPL Keeping Scientology Working (handwritten by LRH, which was issued to staff in that form at one time); and one could also say that of all the handwritten OT materials, which would fall suspect and thus be debated as being forged as well.”

                      The policy in question was broadly issued as an HCOPL and this one wasn’t.

                      Also the Ad Course material have been issued while Ron was still alive while this one seems to have surfaced sometime after his death.

                      Not only that but I checked the above “PL” against other handwritten samples I have and there are discrepancies between this one you’ve posted and those. Particularly the way the “T” is formed in “this” and “the”.

                      Notwithstanding the fact is that this policy was never issued to Scientologists only per the policy on issuing policy. Therefore it would not be considered a policy and could be at best considered apocrypha.

                    • Consider it as you will, Robin. I only posted it for edification. I’m definitely not interested in any verbal jousting with you. Cheers.

                    • PS

                      “I wouldn’t have posted it. But I thought we were all big thetans here.”

                      That is nothing but a patronizing comment. Something you accused me of being earlier.

                    • “Chris Black says:
                      January 12, 2015 at 12:05 am
                      Consider it as you will, Robin. I only posted it for edification. I’m definitely not interested in any verbal jousting with you. Cheers.”

                      Well I’m not interested into any verbal jousting myself but you know as well as I do Chris that there are certain levels of dissemination.

                      For instance there is some very interesting and enlightening data on the Ad Courses yet is out reality to much of the public who are not at that level. So instead of “edification” you end up with an ARCX or worse total overwhelm.

                      Even worse then that you are giving this data to suppressive who will intentionally misuse this data.

                      As Ron says in the following issue:

                      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
                      HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I AUGUST 1971 Issue V
                      (Replaces HCO P/L of 10 Nov 66)
                      ADVANCED COURSES MATERIALS SECURITY OF DATA
                      Issued with a small amount of R6 data in 1964, three or four persons promptly used it on pcs knowing well it was forbidden. The pcs became ill or misernotional toward us. And just the day I write this (original writing 4 October 1965) I myself encountered a pc, very ill, who had had some original R6 data misused on her and did not suspect why her case and health had worsened. She was not ready for it at all.
                      The issue earlier was a trial balloon, in a sense. I found certain persons (a small minority) were not up to responsibility for the material of April 1964.
                      Therefore our firm action will be that the moment we find the material of the Clearing Course or OT Course has escaped or been misused we will quickly trace the person who was insecure and cut off all further or any future Clearing or OT data issue to that person. The likelihood of independent discovery even with clues has proven to be non-existent by actual review of auditors trying to find pieces of it when they had over half of the answers already.
                      You must realize that we suffer, all of us, from the misuse of knowledge concerning the mind at a very early period. To place this data near such people as psychiatrists or even states places them in a position to enslave people or repeat the original action and cave people in. A very small minority, receiving incorrect data did promptly use it harmfully on others after April 1964.
                      Until we ourselves have climbed well out of the hole, we must safeguard the materials. Our case gains depend on it. And others could make our salvage of people impossible.
                      We do not safeguard these materials from any commercial consideration. Our futures, those of each of us and those of all Scientologists, depend on our keeping this material under lock and safeguarded from abuse until we are well away as a group and can handle things better as individuals as well as a group.
                      The road is wide open to anyone to come up the grades and obtain them. But it is shut to any who misuse them or injure their security.
                      Students of the Advanced Courses, the Advanced Course C/S and Supervisor, Ethics Officers and all HCO and Org staff have it in their personal interest to enforce security of materials to the limit.
                      These restrictions apply to no data up to Grade V.
                      From Power Processing on up the data is confidential. Up to there, you can release Scientology data as you always have-freely and to everyone. But this last bit is dangerous in unskilled or uneducated or unscrupulous hands and it is purely ours. It belongs to the Scientologists who keep the show on the road and must be available to
                      them when they are ready.
                      LRH:BW:LR:sb.rd Copyright @ 1971
                      by L. Ron Hubbard
                      ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
                      Reissued by
                      Flag Advanced Courses Supervisor for
                      Training and Services Aide
                      for
                      L. RON HUBBARD
                      Founder

                      Obviously if Ron did indeed write that PL than he didn’t issue it probably for the above reason.

                    • Hi Paul,

                      Well, the only thing I can (and will) say is that it appears that both you and Robin have misunderstood my communication. Which is interesting.

                    • CB:

                      And the other way of looking at that might be, “Perhaps I should have communicated that in a different way, so that it would be more widely understood.”

                      You should know by now that I don’t oppterm you the way Robin does. My arguments or disagreements (if any) are normally my own, and may on occasion coincide with his.

                      Paul

                    • Hi Paul,

                      Yes, you’re right. Thanks. Just feeling a bit under siege here when all I was trying to do was help. Seriously, though, I intended no ill with that remark, just making a statement. And yeh, I did give thought about the flip side of that comm.

                      Cheers

                    • “You should know by now that I don’t oppterm you the way Robin does. My arguments or disagreements (if any) are normally my own, and may on occasion coincide with his.”

                      Hey wait a minute.

                      I resemble that remark. I don’t oppterm with Chris. He…..never mind.

                      Sheeeesh

                      Let’s apply a lil’ Third Party Law here shall we Paul.

                      Ya think?

                      Maybe.

                      Chris,

                      My only disagreement is posting this unpublished policy. I mean there is plenty of stuff Ron has published that there is no need to get so arcane.

                      Again.

                      Sheeesh

                      And stop calling me a “Conspiracy Theorist” or I’ll tell everybody here that your mother wears Army boots.

                      ‘Nuff said.

                      For tonight.

      • Paul,

        What are usually classed as DBs would not be the type seeking employment in any Organization. They’d be on welfare or social assistance of some kind or sleeping on some park bench in MacArthur Park when they weren’t pan handling or working for the DEA, CIA or FBI or something like that.

        So this 18 to 1 would vary from Organization to Group to whatever.

        Some would have more others less.

        It would also vary nationally and internationally with probably an overall average of 18 DBs to every 1 Big Being specifically world wide.

        Just like you’d get less SPs and PTSes in an Org that applied Standard Tech and Policy than you would in the outside world.

        That said it is pretty obvious when an area is under suppression because that area tends to fill up with a lot of DBs who take their marching orders from SPs. Just like the policy says.

        You find a lot of “Think Tanks” filled with DBs who couldn’t get a real job if their life depended on it. Same with many Government Bureaucracies and Agencies.

        In other words this number is not static.

        To go around and say that every Organization has 18 DBs to 1 Big Being is ridiculous IMHO.

        • RV:

          “What are usually classed as DBs would not be the type seeking employment in any Organization. They’d be on welfare or social assistance of some kind or sleeping on some park bench in MacArthur Park when they weren’t pan handling or …”

          The bulletin doesn’t state or imply that, and I’m unwilling to infer it. It’s a leap of logic I’m unwilling to take. You’re welcome to believe as you like. I won’t debate you on it.

          Paul

      • Paul: “Ron talks here about the ratio in the human race of degraded beings to big beings and pegs it at 18:1, more or less. I had always assumed (since Ron didn’t otherwise mention it) that this meant that if you divided up the human race into groups of 19, 18 of each group would be DBs and the last one would be a big being”

        A statistical ratio 18:1 means that for every random group of 19, in average 18 would be DBs. However this ratio is LRH’s estimation based on the sample he inspected (he wrote “minimum ratio”).

        I got curious about the true ratio of the whole population, which could be easily calculated based on the sample size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination#Estimating_proportions_and_means ).

        If LRH’s sample size was 1,000, with 95% probability of accuracy, the true ratio would be between 1:47 and 1:11.
        If LRH’s sample size was 5,000, with 95% probability of accuracy, the true ratio would be between 1:26 and 1:15.
        And, if LRH’s sample size was 10,000, with 95% probability of accuracy, the true ratio would be between 1:23 and 1:16.

        • Thanks, MaBu. If I read it correctly, it appears that LRH’s ratio was pretty accurate? (It’s been years since my last few stats courses!)

          • There are 3 kinds of possible errors:

            a) The counting/identification error: Did LRH, in his sample, correctly identified the ratio DBs:BBs? Is there another category of neither DBs nor BBs?

            b) The sample bias: Was LRH’s sample statistically representative (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-representative-sampling.htm ) of the human race? Did LRH’s wrote “(minimum ratio)” because people who went into Scn were not a statistically representative sample of the human race?

            c) The fact that a sample’s parameter (in this case the parameter is the ratio) is not the whole population’s parameter. From the sample, with a certain probability of accuracy, it can be estimated the parameter range where the whole population’s (true) parameter lies. (In this case, the ratio’s range can be estimated from the sample size, which unfortunately we don’t know, but an educated guess could be done about it). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination#Estimating_proportions_and_means ).

            (a) and (b) are LRH estimation’s intrinsic accuracy error, (c) is the extrinsic accuracy error ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties ).

            Chris: “If I read it correctly, it appears that LRH’s ratio was pretty accurate? (It’s been years since my last few stats courses!)”

            The way I see it, LRH’s ratio accuracy would be (a) and (b). However, I was commenting about (c).

        • Never was much of a statistician but I figure Ron came up that number by finding one big being which could have been out of a hundred or a thousand or maybe even ten thousand on average and finding that for every one of these were 18 DBs.

          As far as I know from doing from reading the survey series and using samples of the population as in an Ethic Survey. The broader the sample the more accurate your survey will be. No need to get into the complicated formulas as given in Disinfopedia.

          It’s not frickin’ Rocket Science.

  10. I have a suggestion that could replace the 3D Engram blog and that is one fashioned after the Freedom Magazine.As I have stated before Rinder and Marty have been the main historians of Scientology in the field and they are pro psychs??!! After reading Ron’s incredible articles that he wrote for the Freedom Magazine and a book like ” The Hidden Story of Scientology” By Omar Garrison that really exposes the suppression on Scientology by the psychs, I really realize that it is very important for Scientologists to get educated in this area. Uneducated and unaware they can accept all manner of crazy stuff from crazy people!! there is an interesting line in Garrisons book that illuminates this -he is referring to a psych implanted idea -“The public, long accustomed to an uncritical acceptance of any authoritative broadside, soon made the idea a household commodity”

    What is different now is that the enemy is also now within!!

    I think intelligent, truthful and articulate articles such as the one written by Jim here are necessary. As Ron pointed out evil is the hardest thing for people to confront. Our SPs have been at their craft for many years on the track and they are still here and now and they won’t go away until enough of us confront them.

    • I think that is an excellent idea Ingrid.

      Besides I think the whole 3D engram idea sorta went sideways or at best turned into some freewheeling whole Scientology track effort.

      Good idea to put some order in.

      Roger that on what you say about you know who or whos who seem to be more like hoes for Psychiatry.

      I think there are a few of us like Paul, Marg and others who have done some good research who might be willing to share.

      • RV:

        “…Paul, Marg and others who have done some good research…” I appreciate the kudos, but please leave me out of that category. I’ll be glad to take credit when I’ve earned it, but I haven’t. I’ve mostly read what you folks have written and asked the occasional pointed question where an incident seems to be historically important. And nothing I’ve done even compares to Marg’s thorough research of Ron’s military records.

        Paul

        • You’re so modest Paul.

          Sheeesh

          Just the fact that you’ve started a Scientology history website deserves some applause.

          We are fortunate in the fact that we have a historical record of research and development of the subjects of Dns and Scn.

          Now all we need to do is fill in some blanks on what was happening at those times.

    • IS:

      It appears that you’re in favor of scrapping the 3D Engram Blog.

      I’m not convinced that the 3D Engram Blog idea should be scrapped yet. And good or bad, the first article there yielded quite a response. It illustrated a major divergence of opinion in the Field about the “who” behind all this. And whatever appears in its place should provide for some discussion, if only to clear up possibly omitted historical details.

      Personally, I consider the material from the 3D Engram Blog to be preparatory to material which will eventually appear in the History Project (the History Project will not allow for public discussion; any “discussion” there will be directly with the editors and of limited scope).

      I’m not sure that one article should be considered a full “shake down cruise”. I vote we give it a few more chances.

      If I’ve misread your intent, please correct me.

      Paul

      • Actually it sounded like Lana might scrap it or change it. I don’t feel what I have suggested is horrifically different-this will be less case oriented in that it will not be running out the 3D Engram per the data on 3D Engram running. However, when truth is exposed and there is an opportunity to express oneself charge can definitely start as-ising. I am interested in articles that really do tell what has happened in our history , expose our enemies and even come up with some strategies.And it will be a blog as people can respond with comments.

        • IS:

          It might also be best if we don’t refer to it as the “3D Engram Discussion Blog”, since that alone seems to incite disagreement. Perhaps just “Historical Discussion Blog” instead. Still accurate, but perhaps less objectionable.

          I’m inclined to believe that the only way this may work is with very tight moderation. No insults. On differences of opinion, you state your point and then go silent. No arguing. Questions meant to clarify details are welcome. Facts may be disputed if the person disputing them can (and does) name time, place, form and event. Etc.

          Just some thoughts. All this is above my pay grade anyway.

          Paul

        • +1 Ingrid.

          “However, when truth is exposed and there is an opportunity to express oneself charge can definitely start as-ising. I am interested in articles that really do tell what has happened in our history , expose our enemies….”

          +1 again.

        • I’m with you on this. For sure, its history WILL eventually be written, if only to contort it for serving some devious end. Or perhaps some erstwhile effort will be made to search out all the old 21st century blogs for the bits and pieces in order to sift out what might have happened. Can you imagine the alter-is!!!

          That’s why a project should be done by those who were actually there. Geesh, it’s hard not to go into a Bible analogy.

          • “That’s why a project should be done by those who were actually there.”

            +1

            That, or coordinated by a committee of those who were there.

            • I agree to a certain extent. The problem is there are some who were there that I question their veracity on what actually happened probably because they have their own agenda or some other ax to grind.

              • Actually I have more time to expound now since I’m now finished auditing but I’d just like to add that history that was exclusively by people “who were there” would purely be anecdotal.

                For instance there is a certain individual who says Ron ordered this and Ron ordered that. Yet when asked for any actual evidence such as the actual order he gets all huffy and says “I was there!” which basically creates a *Hidden Data Line* or more accurately an apparent one.

                Then again we can’t go solely on documentation only since in many cases the record has been altered either by certain individuals in the Church or by outside actors with a certain agenda.

                Thus actual source is important.

                Personally I’d say anything that from what would be considered “reliable sources” such as individuals with no obvious agenda of any kind other than conveying the truth, Scientology documents and recordings that have L Ron Hubbard’s personal copyright and were not filtered through the L Ron Hubbard Library. Those actual documents obtained through FOIA since altering such documents is considered a criminal offense.

                Just an idea but I think if we want an accurate history we are going to have to sort a lot of chaff from the wheat.

                IMHO

  11. I am amazed at how the emphasis has changed through the years. The following few paragraphs are from one of my stories I write in the first person to Dr Denk. I have excerpted the on-topic portion.

    “One final thought comes to me about that time (1977-1982), but only because of what’s going on in the present. Sure, we had a gay staff member but no one made an issue about it as he did his post. We had another staff member who would masturbate during post hours, but it was not a huge issue with anyone but, perhaps, himself. Today, these “crimes” result in horrendous actions. It was not so back then. The funny thing is labeling these as “crimes” and the resultant heavy-handed actions are attributed to LRH. You know and I know that’s simply not true.

    Now, we did have a new recruit that displayed a terrific temper. We kept an eye on him and with good reason: One day he lost his temper (again) and started destroying the org. He punched his fist into a hallway wall, was kicking things, etc. Truly psychotic. We routed him off staff and out of the org in very short order. But we never really worried about the sexual peccadilloes of our productive staff members.

    What’s really funny is we had a male prostitute on public lines. If you ever wanted to find him, you just needed to look in the Ethics Department as he really had a lot to handle before he was eligible for services.” Rachel Denk

    • Hi Rachel,

      Good to see you commenting here.

      Very true what you wrote here. 2D Rules were pretty much applied back then and no one really cared what extracurricular activities one was involved in unless it interfered with one’s ability to do their post or it affected their auditing or training in some way then it was as the policy says a Chaplin’s Court.

      I mean when I did a short stint as a Basic Course Supe I had several working girls on course who were paying for their training by turning tricks.

      Really good students and guys were lining up to get bull baited by them 😉

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