“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

LRH whereabouts project:
     The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard® chronology (2)  or
     A closer look at 1972, 1977 & 1982

(L. Ron Hubbard or not? (1972-75): Confessionals, Tech 1972-76, Snow White, Operation Freakout, Auditor restriction, RPF, PRD, GPM, ...)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology  (page 2)

Go to ‘The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology’ index

Back to Main Index Sec Checking (1):  Integrity Processing/Confessionals  (Dec 72-Jun 76)

It coincides rather nicely with the exact time period that L. Ron Hubbard boarded a plane and was not seen during about 10 months. Fact is that Integrity Processing Series #1 actually matches that very day (4 December 1972). Now, is this a situation of the cat has left the house and thus the mice are playing on the table? After all Sec Checking as a practice had been abolished since 1968 by HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”. And in December 1972 there was no valid reference in existence that condoned the practice! At least not until November 1974 with the release of HCO PL 13 Nov 74 “HCO May Do Confessional Lists” that at the same time cancelled the HCO PL that had previously in 1968 abolished Sec Checking. There is an obvious chronological inconsistency present in all these happenings.

One of the problems with this Integrity Processing is that at the time it was marketed not as Sec Checking, but as being something else, something new. Only to admit a little over 4 years later that “‘Sec Checking,’ ‘Integrity Processing’ and ‘Confessionals’ are all the exact same procedure and any materials on these subjects is interchangeable under these titles.” (from HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”).

See, none of these new references from 1972-76 had even been signed as having been written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was either copying its information from HCOB's issued during 1960-64 by L. Ron Hubbard, or it was indicated “Compiled from LRH briefings and materials by Lt. Brian Livingston, Training & Services Aide”. A notice that only appeared in the retyped version of these references which were reissued 2 months later in January 1973. An higly unaccostumary happening that hadn't been seen before.

My study about this can be consulted in the link here below, which is part of a chronology about Sec Checking:  (separate window)
    “Implementation of Integrity Processing Series & Forms (Dec 72)”

Back to Main Index Reported technical developments in the period 1972-76 

Go back Published printed materials 1972-76

In ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume X, 1972-1976’ (1991 release) we find various entries at each year in where a brief summary is given of developments and what had been going on that particular year. Such summaries (about the same text) are also found in chapter 42 in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition). These notices do not appear in the 1976 release of these same volumes, and not either in the 1978 edition of ‘What Is Scientology?’ for which reason I can not directly compare or refer to them. Various selections have been extracted from these summaries in the below analysis.

The previous year had introduced the Establishment Officer Series (EstO) (Nov 70-Feb 71). Early March 1972 came with the Flag Executive Briefing Course (FEBC). Either of these had everything to do with administration and management.
Late March/early April 1972 delivered the first Expanded Dianetics Course (XDN).
During March to May 1972 the Primary Rundown (PRD) was developed and released. ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume X, 1972-1976’ (1991 release) notes on page 1: “Ron also announced new achievements in the fields of study and education during 1972, with several new methods of Word Clearing developed and released, including the steps needed to bring about a brand-new state: superliteracy, the ability to comfortably and quickly take date from a page and be able to at once apply it.”. However the Primary Rundown that made you superliterate has not been available as a service since so about at least 20 years or so.

Noted are some “research in the areas of vitamins and nutrition”.
‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume X, 1972-1976’ (1991 release) notes further on page 469: “During 1973 Ron also devoted considerable time to discovering why a person would introvert – fixate his attention inwardly, on himself or his bank. After a major breakthrough in this area he went on to search out the means of handling the causes and consequences of severe introversion.”. This eventually was released the following year as ‘The technical breakthrough of 1973! The Introspection Rundown’ (HCOB 23 Jan 74).

The Introspection Rundown (see at 1973) was released in January 1974.
‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume X, 1972-1976’ (1991 release) makes notice on page 577 of the formation of a “music and dance troupe” in February 1974. L. Ron Hubbard “personally instructed the musicians and dancers in artistic presentation, music , composition, sound, arranging and recording”. The claim is then made that “Much of the tech he taught is now found in the HCO Bulletins of the Art Series”. The only one's of these HCOB's actually falling in the correct time frame are then #3 & #4 of these Art Series. HCOB 10 Apr 74 “Stage Manners” & HCOB 25 Apr 74 “Rhythm”. Art Series 5-17 are of a much later date (1977-89). #1 & #2 are too early. However 9 lectures given in 1974 are reported to exist with various dealings with the Apollo Stars, consult here, (pop-up window). Unfortunately these recordings remain unavailable to the public.
Although not mentioned anywhere in the summary notes there is something that is referred to as ‘The Technical Breakthrough of 1974’ which is the so-called ‘Vital Information Rundown’ (HCOB 6 Oct 74).

The only development worthy of mention were the Special Rundown lectures (Oct-Nov 75), which service later was made available and released as the New Vitality Rundown (NVRD). (see more about this in next section “Taped lectures 1972-76”)
It is noted that just a handful of HCOB's had been released in 1975.

We see the release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume I-X’ in August 1976, which was the end of a five year compilation project.
It is noted that just a handful of HCOB's had been released in the year 1976 itself.

Go back Taped lectures 1972-76

The book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition) lists various tapes from 1972-75 that have not been published and basically are not publicly available. There is in addition a cassette from 1976 that was prepared as a personal message to each individual Scientology organization, this appears published and is available on cassette format. This is an odd recording, it starts with a musical composition made with help of a synthesizer. The tape gives the impression to be a clever compilation.

The new and completely reworked 1992 edition of this ‘What Is Scientology?’ has chosen to skip the mention of various tape lectures. Noteworthy is the disappearance of listing of 5 tapes from the Flag Executive Briefing Course (FEBC) from 1971. All 12 lectures were listed in the 1978 book on page 318. The 1992 release of the book however skips to list the lectures #8 to 12. It is not really clear to me why this is? What harm would it do to have them listed as they were already in the 1978 book? Why not continue to at least acknowledge their existence? In addition all 12 of these lectures have been on sale during the early 80's pretty much to any public Scientologist. They were not advertised as such, but if requested you actually could buy copies on reel to reel. This included also the complete set of the Class VIII Course lectures 1-19 from 1968. These however are listed all of them in the 1992 book although today and already back then were considered only for those doing the course, thus confidential. As a side note extensive quotations from these Class VIII Course lectures have appeared for example in the periodical Source.

Here below I note various lectures that are all listed in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition):
       8 Mar 72 to 13 Nov 72    A miscellaneous mixture of 30 tapes. Various are about study matters and Primary Rundown. Others are dealing with Photography and film.       
  23 Sept 73 to 31 Oct 73    Miscellaneous mixture of 6 tapes about various subjects.  
  6 Mar 74 to 31 Aug 74    Collection of 9 tapes music related, choreography and talks to Apollo Stars.  
  29 Oct 75 to 24 Nov 75
8 Dec 75    
Collection of 22 tapes about the Special Rundown.
A talk.
  Dec 76 Ron's Journal 28.  
  (the listing of these lectures as published in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition) can be consulted here, pop-up window)  
Then we find that the 1992 release of the same book also here decided to not list a variety of them. The only ones that we do find that are still listed are the Special Rundown lectures and Ron's Journal 28.

In particular that the Special Rundown lectures would still be listed here may be seen as somewhat odd if we consider that for example the FEBC lectures #8-12 had actually vanished from the list. It is noteworthy as this Special Rundown is said to be a Flag Only Rundown, and they should be highly confidential (delivered as the ‘New Vitality Rundown’, see section later in this chapter). Also none of these tapes have ever been available to the public as the FEBC lectures actually were once upon a time.
It is also not very clear to me why it has been skipped to mention these 30 tapes from 1972, 6 tapes from 1973, 9 tapes from 1974, and one tape from 1975 (this 8 Dec 75 lecture “Ron's Talk” we do find listed in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume X, 1972-1976’ (1991) on page 713, as part of the Special Rundown lectures). In ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) it says quite clearly that the list is a “COMPLETE LIST OF BOOKS AND MATERIALS (= title of chapter 42). Although on page 705 it says: “The following pages contain a complete listing of Dianetics and Scientology books, technical and administrative issues, articles, films, recorded lectures, cassettes, E-Meters, insignia and special publications from 1948 to present.”. This however does certainly not account for the missing 5 FEBC lectures from 1971 and a variety of the lectures from 1972 about the subject of study and Primary Rundown!

Even if one would consider a particular confidentiality factor for specific tapes, then what to say about these “Collection of 9 tapes music related, choreography and talks to Apollo Stars.” dating to 1974? What would be so confidential about these? Nonetheless they have been exempted from mention in that tape list since the 1992 release of ‘What Is Scientology?’. Either way we have not been supplied with any explanation about these occurrences.

‘New Vitality Rundown’ (NVRD)  (Oct-Nov 75)

“NEW VITALITY RUNDOWN (NVRD).  This was also called the ‘Special Rundown’ when it was being developed in ’75 and I trained a group of auditors on it at Flag. It has never been exported from Flag. It handled cases that had not progressed well due to suppression or other factors.”
(from ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”)

“New Vitality Auditing:  Handles those elements of personal instability which cause a person to be less himself. A highly trained auditor locates the major points of stress and when complete results in a great resurgence for the individual.“ 
             (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition), page 13)   

We get a basic outline what this rundown was about from David Mayo, who was Senior C/S International during 1978-82:
sound  Sound snippet 1 (2:03) 
sound  Sound snippet 2 (1:33) 
(taken from a lecture given by him on 11 November 1984)

Then ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition) lists on page 319 those 22 tapes that make up the Special Rundown. (for list of tapes 1972-76 consult here, pop-up window)

Pierre Ethier (Class XII Auditor, since early 90's) notes on his website: “The same people are also content to tell the world that the ‘last technical lecture from LRH dates from 1972’, utterly oblivious of the fact that in late 1975, LRH gave a series of 22 lectures on the Flag Only ‘Special Rundown’ (later to be called ‘New Vitality Rundown’ or NVRD), to a group of over 40 Tech People.”.

It should be noted however that these Special Rundown tapes have never surfaced anywhere that I know of outside of the Church of Scientology. For example the Class VIII Course, Establishment Officer (EstO), Flag Executive Briefing Course (FEBC) and Expanded Dianetics (XDN) lectures –today all kept confidential– could be purchased by public Scientologists during the early 80's on reel to reel. But not these 1975 tapes! So, where are these 1975 tapes? Why is there so much secrecy around them. Are these tapes really from 1975? For all we know they be of some earlier date as well. ‘Who’ are these supposed 40 Tech People that Pierre talks about? What do ‘they’ have to say? Some of these persons should come forward. It may be all too convenient that in particular such tapes that could confirm some things would be confidential. There are still some questions that require a satisfactory answer. All we got is some claims, some mention of the rundown in some LRH ED's, and the listing of these tapes in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition).
It is commented here also that ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) notes on page 767 that they are “Reproduced on cassette for the new Vitality Rundown Course”. This should indicate that they do exist, but remain to be kept behind lock and key. Safely away from any scrutiny and verification of authenticity.

HCO Admin Letter 5 Feb 92 “Checklist of LRH Issues Issued From Mimeo Flag Bureaux January 1992”. This HCO Admin Letter notes: “This is a list of all LRH issues issued from Flag Bureaux Mimeo to orgs and missions from 1 January 1992 to 31 January 1992.”. It then lists 20 issues that make up New Vitality Rundown Case A to W. The HCOB's that comprise these 20 issues are all dated 20 October 1976. Would this mean that they have not been available at this date? After all this HCO AL does make no mention that this would be a reissue of some sort. It is to be kept in mind that HCO AL's in all the previous years did provide for such details quite extensively. Consult the listing of these 20 issues here (pop-up window).
This HCO AL also list a course checksheet for the New Vitality Rundown:
    HCO PL 27 Dec 91 “New Vitality Rundown Auditor Course”
This is the only mention of any checksheet for this rundown that I know about.

Then 1996 comes with a surprise in the form of the release of HCOB 7 Mar 96 “Handling a Read”. A Remimeo release, meaning free for distribution and copying. It was included in some packs and various. Notices found in this release tell amongst other: “Excerpted from LRH lecture on 12 November 1975, New Vitality Rundown Lecture 14. The lectures are restricted to Flag auditors only, but the following data is applicable to all metered auditing and is therefore issued broadly as an HCOB.”. It is not really clear to me why this had to be released as late as 1996. When I go through the HCOB it gives strongly the impression to be L. Ron Hubbard's way of lecturing. But can it be dated positively at 1975? Some questions remain to be answered. Just because some little piece of information surfaces at some place, it does not automatically mean that everything that comes along with it or has been part of some tale, that this has to be accepted as authentic as well.

The following response was originated by Pierre Ethier and that he forwarded directly to me through email. He had been a Class XII auditor since the early 90's but has been for some time active in this Free Zone:
    “I know personally over 30 of the people who were on that course. ...
  Then there are the pcs audited on the Rundown. I have audited some of them. I have seen some of the folders myself, including LRH C/Sed sessions from 1975 which correspond to the lectures.
  I recognized the voice of every student who asked questions during the lectures.
  They were given in the Neptune Motel in Daytona Beach October 1975 and November 1975 to all Tech & Qual Flag.
  There are numerous references in the lectures to events that took place in 1974 after the Apollo crossing of the Atlantic, such as the time spent in Curacao (late 1974 to early 1975).
  Claims that the lectures were made earlier or by someone else than LRH are simply not believable.”
And this remains being the one and only testimony given about these lectures. But it is not particularly adviced to rely on some authority, also because the person Pierre Ethier has a rather questionable repute. More about Pierre Ethier here, separate window.
So, these lectures remain a mystery tale surrounded with secrecy. If any person was present when these lectures were given or has any other interesting data about them, please contact me. I aim primarily at means to confirm authenticity, i.e. not necessarily the technical information contained on them. Although actual tape recordings would be welcome, if only for performing a comparable voice analysis.

Back to Main Index Operation ‘Snow White’  (Apr 73)  & ‘Operation Freakout’  (Apr 76)

Various operations are said to have been executed by the Guardian Office (for definition see page “The story of Mary Sue Hubbard (1931-2002)”, chapter “A note about the ‘Guardian Office’ episode”). In particular 2 of them have received a bad reputation and appear widely being referred to and presented on the Internet at a variety of places. So these are the ones to briefly address here. The details about these are said to have come to light because of the FBI raids on the Scientology's headquarters in Washington, DC and Los Angeles (including the Guardian Office) on 7 July 1977. I am not sure how these documents came to be so much discussed out on the Internet though, various of these papers therefore must have come out into the open and thus had left the courthouse. Various scannings of these actual documents appear also available although some of these are of rather poor quality and hard to decipher.

The Guardian Office as time went by would have gotten involved with illegal activities may be not as early as 1973, but various occurrences may have lead to that what happened in the few years following. Different answers can be given for the reason why this would have evolved like that. It simply could have become corrupted all by itself. The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), says on page 508 that it “had become entirely autonomous, operating without regard to Mr. Hubbard's policies”. But what if it would have been a carefully calculated infiltration attempt executed by outsiders making then the Guardian Office appear as if being criminal, which then would give government agencies (such as the FBI) a carte blanche to raid the organization. Further developments then would have made it possible to effectively overthrow the Guardian Office, the entity that had been created solely for the purpose of protecting the organization from amongst other infiltration. The time coincidence of all this is rather interesting.

Go back Ethics and justice A.D. 1970

L. Ron Hubbard “concluded” already in October 1970 that “man cannot be trusted with justice”. The solution here given by L. Ron Hubbard was “The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.” (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”). It should be obvious though that if some threatening situation exists that one naturally should take measures to oppose that. If you do not then you are likely to succumb. The consideration though should be about what measures to take in order to effectively oppose something, at the same time as you have to see to it that it does not result in some witch hunt of some sort! Man does as man does. Past world history very clearly reveals to us what can happen if things get out of control and accordingly misuse can occur with disastrous effects.
The advice of “‘Hat don't hit.’” given by L. Ron Hubbard in HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties” was actually affecting internal affairs, these referred to were thus Scientologists. Persons attacking Scientology would be an external affair. In the booklet ‘Manual of Justice’ (first released 1959) we read: “Shoot the offender for the public good and then patch him up quietly.” and a little further on “So it is mercy, not revenge, that prompts our justice. (1) We must not neglect it and (2) we must not fail to rehabilitate.”. The message then is “Axe him – but rehabilitate him too.”.

Ethics is defined as something that is done by the person him or herself. It turns to justice when some other (or group) has to put in ethics on someone else for the sake of some individual or group.

“The whole subject of justice subdivides for a Scientologist into four phases. There are
Intelligence Activities  (Intelligence is mostly the collection of data on people which may add up to a summary of right or wrong actions on their part.)
Investigation of Evidence  (Investigation is the careful discovery and sorting of facts.)
Judgment or Punishment  (Judging must be done on the basis of clear-cut evidence and the person to be guilty must be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Only then, punish. ... never punish beyond our easy ability to remedy by auditing and restoration.)
Rehabilitation.  (When you punish a man you punish also his family and friends. Even if you slayed the man you would then still have his friends and family as your enemies. If you slay everyone he knew – why, they have friends and families, too – and at last you've a whole populace against you. You punish a man. He goes away to join the ranks of the squirrels. You swell the opposition. Don't do it.)”          LRH
           (all text collected from ‘Manual of Justice’ (first released 1959))  

Obviously there is a practical side to all this. One should defend oneself, but one should not be inconsiderate either. Originally issued at the St-Hill organization in England, the ‘Manual of Justice’ was reissued in Denmark in 1972.

Things appear to have been hectic so around 1965. The Scientology organization had been under attack and measures had been taken to counteract that. At that time ethics and justice had taken a rather harsh tone. It was also the year that introduced the term Fair Game. This created some consternation on the lines for which reason it was taken out of use 3 years later in July 1968 by HCO PL 21 July 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. I tracked its history which can be consulted here (separate window).
The year 1965 had also introduced certain demands concerning with whom one was to have contact or rather with whom not, usually for a short period of time while receiving processing (auditing*) or handling. This is witnessed by HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” that says: “Any HCO Secretary* may receive evidence of disconnection or disavowal or separation or divorce ... .”  LRH.  This also got taken out of use in November 1968 by HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”. A detailed study I made of this can be consulted here (separate window).

In 1966 the Guardian Office had been established. Its duty was basically to protect the Scientology organization. It dealt with external affairs involving information, legal, public relation, and finance. There was also the matter of guarding oneself in regards to infiltration. These were the measures that were taken to counteract the corruption of so to say the technology of Scientology (see HCO PL 1 Sept 69 “Counter-Espionage”). Previously there was no need for such a separate entity such as the Guardian Office, but at this time it was evidently judged that now there was. During the late 60's the lines were set up of how this Guardian Office would operate and do its duty of guardianship. Various policy letters also were written and issued to make known these lines and also to explain the existence and the duties of this Guardian Office. These are found in various policy letters issued during that time (see ‘The Organization Executive Course: Executive Division 7’ (1974 release), department 20 section on especially pages 490 to 506).

By 1970 things had cooled down and other objectives got once again promoted: “The enemy attacks are yesterday's news. He's dead. Now you HAVE TO OPEN UP YOUR AREA AND GO GO GO!”  LRH  (from ‘LRH ED 120 Int’, 27 Aug 70 “Auditors Association Project in YOUR AREA For Class IV Orgs”).

Go back Operation ‘Snow White’ (Apr 73)

“GUARDIAN'S ORDERS – These are issued by the Guardian's Office to its staffs. They contain policy, programs, orders, directions. They do not retire. They are usually issued by the Controller or Guardian but can be issued by Deputy Guardians and Assistant Guardians if they so state but no Assistant or Deputy Guardian may issue any order on their own–it must be from the Controller or Guardian or in their name and by their authority. They apply to Guardian staffs and are filed by Guardian Offices.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”)

There was this ‘Guardian Order 732’, 20 Apr 73 “Snow White Program”. This laid out all the details of what it was about, its targets and so on. Reportedly this program was 26 pages long. It consisted of 28 subprograms referred to as SWOT 1-28 (Snow White Operating Targets).
It aimed to create an “Ideal Scene” in regards to: “All false and secret files of the nations of operating areas brought to view and legally expunged and OTC*, ‘Apollo’ and LRH free to frequent all western ports and nations without threat and all required ports open and free.”.
* OTC:  ‘Operations and Transport Corporation’.
The first page of this ‘GO 732’ that gives the basic outline of the program can be consulted here (pop-up window). It can quite easily be perceived from these program outlines of Operation Snow White that there is nothing to be found that could be pointed out to be illegal in any way! Its simple aim was to get the untruths about the vessel Apollo etc. cleared up and out in the open.

There was in fact very good reason for executing such a program. Omar V. Garrison discusses this in great detail in a chapter in his book “Playing Dirty” (Published 1980). The applicable chapter would be “4. The ‘Mystery Ship’ Apollo” (consult here, pop-up window). Efforts may have been made by various government agencies (US in particular) to get the vessel Apollo banlisted in the various ports while spreading rumours and false reports. It in fact forced them to finally go in land and create the Flag Land Base as they had by then been banlisted by all ports in the Caribbean. (see for more details chapter on this page entitled “Why ‘Flag Land Base’? (Sept 73-Nov 75)”, last section “‘Playing Dirty’”).

It has been claimed that L. Ron Hubbard had written the program for this during the time that he was supposedly in hiding (4 Dec 72 / mid-Sept 73). This is amongst other claimed by Jim Dincalci who was one of the persons that is said to have stayed with him during the entirety of this time period (source: Confidential debrief, Jim Dincalci, dated 2 Jan 75).
There also exists an additional Guardian Order issued by Fred Hare (Assistant Guardian): ‘GO 1206’, 22 June 1974 “The Snow White Program” that does attribute the program as written by L. Ron Hubbard, and the name chosen for the program. Consult here (pop-up window).
There is this scanning of this Guardian Order that is found at some places posted on some websites. It reportedly counts 26 pages, however only 25 pages appear available. The missing page, the last page that would have shown the authorship is for some reason not presented! As per HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of” these Guardian Orders as a rule may not have been written nor devised by L. Ron Hubbard.

This Snow White Program initiative appears presented unfavourably out on the Internet at various places. It is seen by these as some sort of ‘conspiracy against governments’. In reality as far as I can adjudicate from its targets, the actual plan, the Ideal Scene it aimed to achieve, and the actual situation that the Scientology organization was facing, it was rather a matter of defence and self-preservation.
Considering (1) that nothing directly can be pointed out to be wrong or illegal about the Snow White Program itself; (2) that there is sufficient with reason presented to have and execute such a program; (3) that purposely various of the targets contained in the Snow White Program and/or the program itself are portrayed as something immoral or presented with bad associations/interpretations on various places out on the Internet, when these claims can not actually be substantiated with fact strictly per the written materials and the information available at hand; (4) that authorship or co-authorship of L. Ron Hubbard of the Snow White Program can not properly be confirmed from the printed materials themselves as the last page with the signatures is absent.

Is there anyone out there that has all of the pages (including last page with signatures) of ‘Guardian Order 732’, 20 Apr 73 “Snow White Program” and in better quality? Please contact me!

Go back Operation ‘Freakout’ (Apr 76)

May be the name of this particular operation has been inspired by the debut lp (1966) of the Mothers of Invention (Frank Zappa) of the same name? Well, who knows...!

There are some inconsistencies to be found with this Operation Freakout from 1976 in regards to the actual claimed personal involvement of L. Ron Hubbard with it. The operation itself however, after going over these actual documents, may be found harder (or rather impossible) to actually defend.

Paulette Cooper had written and published a book which gave a rather unfavourable impression of Scientology. This consequently had made her a target. Per her own admission she was introduced by a boyfriend to Scientology during the summer of 1968. She did a weekend-course and decided to investigate it further. In December 1969 she published a first article about Scientology (“The Tragi-Farce of Scientology” appeared in ‘Queen’ magazine, London.). The Church of Scientology is said to have promptly sued for libel. She claims that she received her first death threat that same month. Since then she has been at odds with the Scientology organization. (source: ‘Harassment Diary’, Paulette Cooper, 1982)
Upon the release of “The Scandal of Scientology” in the summer of 1971, she and the publisher (Tower Publications) were reportedly sued by the Church of Scientology in December of that same year for “untrue, libelous and defamatory statements about the Church”. Then in March of the following year Paulette Cooper sued the Church for damages. There appears to have been sufficient with media coverage for these happenings.
In December 1972 the NY Church of Scientology received 2 bomb threats. In May 1973 Paulette Cooper got indicted for that. When the FBI raided the organization in July 1977 indications emerged that all this would have been planted by the Guardian Office in an attempt to get Paulette Cooper under control. One relates about fingerprints found on the bomb threat notes belonging to some person at that time employed at the Guardian Office and such.
Since that time various people have come forward that were employed by the Guardian Office that have given testimony for harassing paulette Cooper and amongst other fabricating and planting false evidence for these bombthreats. Actual papers and church documents about this particular matter that lay out on what orders they were operating and exactly which steps to take have thus far not been produced and become public.

The infamous Operation Freakout is said to have been devised on 1 April 1976 by the aforesaid Guardian Office. Its “Major Target” was “To get P.C. incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks.” (P.C. then would be Paulette Cooper). If these documents that surfaced at the FBI raid indeed are authentic then it is rather nasty. It lays out in minute detail how one is to impersonate Paulette Cooper, by having another person dress like here, imitating her looks (hairdo), to then act drunk or paranoid in public, and making believe that this is Paulette Cooper. Further to imitate her voice while making various threats by phone, and putting together a faked message (bomb threat) by cutting and pasting text from particular magazines that Paulette easily could be associated with.

This Operation Freakout first needed an approval (in CSW* form) before it could be executed. The attached CSW noted as data: “PC has been arrested before for Bomb threats against the C of S. We reinforce this background and get her committed.”. The approval for the plan to frame Paulette Cooper came on 5 April 1976. Some additions were added, new CSW attached which got then approved on 13 April 1976. These given approvals are interesting as these are signed with an ‘R’. At various places on the Internet I have seen that it is claimed that this would be L. Ron Hubbard that personally had approved all this. This however is indeed a very silly claim. For (1) approval lines within the Scientology organization follow an exact routing (list of particular persons/terminals indicated in the upper left corner of such a document), and L. Ron Hubbard is not among these 3 terminals that are listed; (2) it is not in the handwriting of L. Ron Hubbard; (3) there is nothing that indicate that L. Ron Hubbard would have been involved with the operations of the Guardian Office in person, also because this was ‘for’ or ‘by’ the Controller or Guardian (see HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”); (4) many during that time were imitating the mannerisms of L. Ron Hubbard, by imitating his ways and also writing just an ‘R’ for signature. It is noted that the 5 April 1976 approval note has in fact 2 different persons signing with just an ‘R’! One of these R's in fact appears to be a ‘Randy’.

I would personally judge that this Operation Freakout appears to be of a rather infantile nature. What were some people actually thinking here? If you get involved with such things then sooner or later it will backfire. On the other hand I find it equally infantile to (without proper verification) to just always try to make an association for L. Ron hubbard's personal involvement for any that may have occurred! One may wonder then why he at various occasions personally had to interfere to get something corrected because some individuals had gone off the rails once again and had started to do something they were not supposed to (for relevant reading material consult here“Inventing the wheel all over again”–, separate window). People do as people do.

This Operation Freakout by the way, as has been reported, was never actually executed. Only some papers (plans) telling these things had been found when the Guardian Office got raided in July 1977. Either way it would make for a good excuse to actually execute a raid. Various people however seem to believe that it actually was executed. Well, then, please verify your data! Even Paulette Cooper's ‘Harassment Diary’ (1982) makes no mention that she has been subjected to these exact things that this Operation Freakout plan tells about. Per the data at hand it appears so that the raid of July 1977 pulled the documents before they could have been executed, but more likely it had been abandoned. Please note that I have seen many projects/missions and so on, approved or not, being abandoned prior to actual execution. Please let's be a bit realistic about these matters. The papers that are being presented do not show any mission successfully completed and/or any debrief notices! (these are standard mission procedures) If it was executed, these would have been found during the 1977 raid! But they are not.

Go to index

Back to Main Index An L. Ron Hubbard that is drastically changing his working operation? (establishing a unit that wrote LRH issues)  (1973-86)

L. Ron Hubbard had always been writing his own references. But some changes in that were to occur. Besides an L. Ron Hubbard that seems to be withdrawing from the public view, he now also appears to be changing the setup of how he wrote his own references.

Lines were being setup that other people would start to write his references for him!

The strangest here may very well be that this occurred after L. Ron Hubbard had announced:
“So technical progress has been:
CLASS VIII - 1968.
This is quite an achievement.”          LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
See, one would figure here that this would have reduced the workload quite a bit. Freeing up time to do other things. But no, suddenly and in this instance of time we go into the direction that other people would start to get involved in writing the references for L. Ron Hubbard that then factually would be published under the name of L. Ron Hubbard.

The question may be should be asked here if it would not be possible that lines were being setup that in some way would make it appear as if L. Ron Hubbard still would be amongst us when he wasn't. This is something that the reader has to figure out for him/herself. What we however have are a whole variety of indications and tales being told as well. Now how do we put these together in such a way that they all add up and start to actually make sense. See, I just couldn't have written these lines if there were not sufficient with indicators.

There are various observations that can be made in how this line developed itself through time. You will find various information about this at link here below:  (separate window)
    “The establishment of the RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (a chronology)”

Back to Main Index Restricting the freedom of the auditor (1):  Demand for ordination  (Sept 73)

“It is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics.”          LRH
(from ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’; Book Three: Therapy; Chapter I: The Mind's Protection; 1950, 1973 edition, p168)

“The subject owes no allegiance to anyone but itself. It has no commitments to anyone. It has no politics. It belongs to those who use it.”          LRH
(from HCOB 22 May 69 “Dianetics, Its Background”)

It could be said to be a downside if one limits that freedom of the auditor to actually audit. So to say to subject it to outer control. Here this is the matter of demands for being officially ‘ordained’. A demand for this ordination prior you to be allowed to actually audit, was established by HCO PL 24 Sept 73 III “All Auditors - Ministers, Ministerial Board of Review”.
“All Auditors must hold a valid Certificate of Ordination in order to practice auditing, whether for a Church, a Mission or as an independent missionary in the field.
The Certificate granted upon completion of any training course (HDC or above) does not entitle one to practice pastoral counselling (auditing) unless the individual satisfactorily completes the requirements for Ordination and has in fact been ordained. ...
Upon proof of ordination, he is granted permission to practice by the local Church.”         Robert H. Thomas, Deputy Guardian US
(from HCO PL 24 Sept 73 III “All Auditors - Ministers, Ministerial Board of Review”)
A reference not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard. And a first time ever to have such a restriction on actual auditing taking place.

The matter had been stepping up by 1979. By this time the above mentioned HCO PL does not appear to be valid anymore. Instead we see that now restrictions were placed on any and every person that was effective in the field with auditing and they had now to be licensed and followingly had to abide to this financial obligation, a 10% tithe. It started in February 1979 with placing this demand on Dianetic Counseling Groups, then since November 1979 it was extended to include Field Auditors.
A 10% tithe in itself was not new, but thus far it had only be for those field auditors that had accepted a so-called franchise.

See the further development of this at link here below:  (separate window)
    “Restricting the freedom of the auditor (2): Making a profit (all practicing Scientologists must pay a license) (Feb & Nov 79, Apr 82)”

Back to Main Index The era of adoration celebrates its birth  or  The presentation of L. Ron Hubbard through the years  (Sept 73-present)

Pretty much during the first 23 years there had been a particular focus on the subject matter itself. There were no biographies or autobiographies around. The indications are that attempts to forward or promote the person L. Ron Hubbard was counteracted by L. Ron Hubbard himself.

And when this all changed, it changed completely and abruptly. Why is that? The question is thus if there is more than just one story to tell here? There are various areas we can look into.

Is the ‘Hymn of Asia’ (published 1974) a deliberate attempt to personify L. Ron Hubbard as being really Gautama Buddha? Then there is the LRH room, what is it for really?
The ‘SO #1 Line’ that originally was established as a humble communication and request for case information line, escalated into that you were urged trough the very Scientology magazines to write to ‘him’ about basically even your most petty wins and thoughts. We are even assured that he answered to all these himself in person.
And what about biographies or rather autobiographies. Was L. Ron Hubbard actually interested in having these in existence about his person?

And where is his family to be found in all this? The Church of Scientology appears to have banned the lot of them. The question is why?

See full overview of these at link here below:  (separate window)
    “The era of adoration celebrates its birth (Sept 73-present)  or
The presentation of L. Ron Hubbard through the years”

Back to Main Index The establishment of the ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF)  (Jan 74)

The institution of this Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) is something that is only in use by the senior Scientology organization known as the Sea Organization (or Sea Org). These persons assigned to this RPF were considered to have failed the group, and it is said that in this unit they have the opportunity to redeem themselves.

“REHABILITATION PROJECT FORCE,  brought into being in Div 4 FSO*. To it are assigned: (1) R/Sers* (2) low OCA* non-producers (3) repeated stat* crashers (4) overt product* makers. The stable datum for the unit and for its individual sections is one job, one place, one time. Its sub-products are completed cycles of action. The 5-hour daily study period for the RPF is devoted to tech. In this period, the RPF is to learn tech and get themselves handled in co-audit to fun clean-up and release. The RPF has been created by the Commodore so that redemption can occur. That is basically its only purpose. (FO 3434)”
            (from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976))   

Reference materials and lists:  (pop-up windows)
    Relevant entries found in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’  
(includes: Rehabilitation;  Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF);  RPF's RPF;  New recruits;  Deck Project Force (DPF); Estates Project Force (EPF))
  ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) reference list and related  
(includes: Original series 1974-80, 1982-85 series, 1997 series)

Go back Introduction and FO 3434

This is one of these things that has given Scientology and/or L. Ron Hubbard a rather bad reputation, usually it is briefly referred to as the ‘RPF’. It has been claimed that L. Ron Hubbard also would be the source of the establishment of this. The question is if this is actually true? In addition one should ask oneself the question if there is actually anything found in the writings or the subject of Scientology that would justify the existence of such an outfit as this RPF? How for example could it be reconciled with: “The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.” and “I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”). That what this HCO PL relates is actually an interesting development as various penalty policies were being cancelled and an workable reason and explanation was given (more about this reference consult my study “Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study”, see Scientology index page).

As a matter of fact the rules for the RPF claim that one of its purposes was to give the person the opportunity to redeem him/herself for supposed wrongdoings, at the same time as one received relevant auditing and a study program (hatting one could say). The problem however is that one could end up on this RPF a bit too easily. It is quite true that for some rather insignificant reason you could be send to this unit the RPF. There was also this frequent reoccurring habit to threaten persons with ethics handling or even to be send to RPF if one did not comply with some demand. This did not result in a particular pleasant working situation. It caused this shadow of constant pressure hanging over you. Some missionaire or some person from a senior organization could just come into the area doing some inspection, and then some things may start happening. Generally these persons did not have a very gentle way of going about this either. At least they did not make you feel appreciated. Agreed is that for example at the Flag Land Base (Clearwater, Fl) that there were particular expectations and much pressure was put on staff to service the public there. Especially at such places it appears more evident of some sword of Damocles floating over your head, and staff wondering when their head was going to roll. I am likely to exaggerate a bit here in the above, however a particular pressure was felt. I remember this, and it wasn't pleasant.
I recall an incident at Flag during the late 80's. We had this Word Clearer/Course Supervisor in the Staff College. Suddenly some day I saw her wearing black clothes and running around (those on the RPF were not allowed to actually walk, you stood either still or you run). It appeared that she had joined the ranks of this unit the RPF. Some week or so later she was back on post again. What had happened? There were some issues about that she had questioned the routine in the course room to clap and thank L. Ron Hubbard after each study period. She simply inquired what the reference was for doing so! (there does not exist such a reference by the way)  And indeed for a such wishy-washy reason one could end up on this RPF. Anyway she was returned to post rapidly as the statistics had crashed in the Staff College after that she had been RPFed. Instances as these may however not have been so common during the time that I was there, but I recall this particular incident. Unwise RPF assignments apparently did occur. One could say that this confirms that “man cannot be trusted with justice.”. So then what called for or justified this RPF to actually come into existence? Or rather why was its existence prolonged after one had moved onto land? After all we were not at sea anywhere where a strict discipline was a necessity.

It will be hard to do an evaluation about this RPF unit without having access to the main issue that actually established it. I only have access to the 1977 revision and the 1997 rewrite of it. Although I would be interested in copies of the original 1974 release. If anyone can help me with that, then please contact me. (below link will open as a pop-up window)
    ‘FO 3434RB’, 7 Jan 74 (Re-Revised 30 May 77) “The Rehabilitation Project Force”
In these rules found in FO 3434RB I actually don't see it mentioned that one was not allowed to actually normally walk while on the RPF. In fact you were not, I remember this very clearly from Flag. You saw them either standing or running. The Declaration of Anne Rosenblum lists a summary of the rules, I believe them to be correct.
    “Anne Rosenblum's Declaration:  RPF rules”  (pop-up window)

This not walking we find phrased as follows in the later released 1997 RPF Series. “Must move quickly and run on the decks on Sea Org bases. ... Shuffling, half running and walking have no part in this. The RPF must be snap-and-pop in all its actions (which includes running) ... .”  (from ‘FO 3434RE-23R’, 27 Mar 75 (Revised 2 Jul 98) “RPF—Rights and Restrictions”)

Go back Its origin  (Rocks and Shoals, Mud Box Brigade & Rehabilitation Unit)

Frequently 3 supposed forerunners of the RPF are being referred to at various places out on the Internet. Usually represented rather unfavourably. I give a detailed overview of each of these in the below. Noted are also any misconceptions that have arisen about them.

Rocks and Shoals:
When L. Ron Hubbard founded the Sea Organization (Sea Org) on 12 August 1967 and went out to sea he adopted a variety of naval terms. In a Flag Order from 1967 he makes mention of Rocks and Shoals as follows: “in most Sea Organizations a list of penalties is called rocks and shoals and is read out to the crew at muster.”  (from ‘FO 87’, 2 Sept 67 “Titles of Address”).  It also appears to be an old military naval term for ‘Articles for the Government of the United States Navy’. Article 4 lists various punishments that may be inflicted on any person in the naval service. #10 of these says: “Or intentionally or willfully suffers any vessel of the Navy to be stranded, or run upon rocks or shoals, or improperly hazarded or maliciously or willfully injures any vessel of the Navy, or any part of her tackle, armament, or equipment, whereby the safety the vessel is hazarded or the lives of the crew exposed to danger.”. We can understand here the source of the term Rocks and Shoals and how it had come about in most sea organizations (referred is not to the Scientology Sea Org here).
In this Flag Order it simply used the expression to say: “The conditions are our rocks and shoals.”  (from ‘FO 87’, 2 Sept 67 “Titles of Address (Add Etiquette)” as quoted in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976). Referred is to the conditions related to ethics (see vocabulary at end of page). This is actually all that it says here.

Out on the Internet we then see this associated with as if the US Navy Rocks and Shoals (list of penalties) were in use like that on the Sea Organization vessel Apollo. It should be clear that FO 87 did not “established a list of ‘ethics conditions’ and penalties assigned to Sea Org members which was read aloud on the ship during muster”. Please note that it simply does not say that! The FO related about Titles of Address. Mind also the correct title of the FO 87, which is not “The Rocks and Shoals” as some refer to it! It appears confused with the Rocks and Shoals that is claimed to have been established with FO 3434 RPF Series issued 7 years later in 1974-80.

Thus the original FO 87 though did not establish any means of penalties for the Sea Org. It appears then that this got amended in 1976 for use in the RPF. August of that year saw the release of ‘FO 3434R-34’, 18 Aug 76 “RPF Rocks and Shoals”. An oddity may be that this reference actually adds to the confusion as it starts of with quoting from this FO 87, which –as we in the previous established– got nothing to do with actual penalties.
This Flag Order was in 1997 reissued as ‘FO 3434RE-24’, 18 Aug 76 (Revised 8 May 97) “RPF Rocks and Shoals”. This reference relates:
“..., members of the RPF have found the simple use of running laps around their work site, or doing push-ups or sit-ups, to be an easy and effective means of maintaining discipline. This is their system of ‘Rocks and shoals’.”
This Flag Order then lists 15 misdemeanors such as “NONCOMPLIANCE”, “FALSE REPORT”, “MOVING SLOWLY, WALKING INSTEAD OF RUNNING”, “BACKFLASH”, “LATENESS”, etc. Each disciplined with either of the following:
“ONE LAP:  This is about 1/8th of a mile (660 feet) in length and is run in a circular route.
ONE LONG LAP:  This is between 1/8th and 1/4th of a mile (between 660 feet and 1320 feet) and is run in a circular route.
ONE BIG LAP:  This is about 1/4th of a mile (1320 feet) and is run in a circular route.”
Please note that the penalty is just one lap for each violation.
The list follows with the following additional notice:
“Minor corrections on the spot can be done with ten or more push-ups or sit-ups right then and there and back to work. Anything which fits into the categories above are handled with laps.”

There are some witness accounts that relate about this:
Anne Rosenblum's Declaration (pre-1995) reports: “There is an F.O. 3434 series called ‘Rocks and Shoals.’ There are penalties one gets for anything they do wrong such as non compliance to an order, not calling a senior ‘Sir,’ walking instead of running, missing a spot on a mirror you were cleaning, etc. The penalties consist of doing so many laps, sit-ups or push-ups. The laps are running up and down the garage ramp.”.
Martin Ottmann's Affidavit (19 April 1996) says: “RPFers have to do hard physical labor the whole day. Any order a RPFer has received by his senior he has to fulfill. In case he would ‘backflash’, the Flag Order 87 ‘Rocks and Shoals’, 2 September 1967, would be applied by his senior: The RPFer has to run around the next building, until he had ‘boiled off’.”.
The reference made to FO 87 in the second account is thus incorrect. It even got the title of the reference wrong. Penalties as described here above were not in use until 1976 with ‘FO 3434R-34’, 18 Aug 76 “RPF Rocks and Shoals”.

We find on the Internet various further accounts that report incidences of “running around a pole for hours” (15 hours or days) and all this in a hot burning sun. It should be obvious here that this actually violates the actual rules established in 1976 with aforementioned Flag Order. Nonetheless a steady referral is made to exactly these Flag Orders as if they would promote such a treatment.

Mud Box Brigade:
Mud Boxes are referred to as “those areas in the bilge which collect the mud out of the bilge water. Bilges means the inside bottom of the vessel where water collects.”  (from OOD's 29 Sept 71).  Persons who were caught “loafing on post and drifting with the wind” and “invisible on post, and really goofing up on one's job” were appointed to “clean mud boxes, fuel lines, water lines, bilges, etc.”  (from OOD's 4 jan 68 & ‘FO 1701’, 5 Jan 69 “Mud Box Brigade”).
This Brigade may be at times referred to as some sort of forerunner of the RPF, but is that justified? I don't actually find anything insensible in this Brigade. After all you were at sea, not ashore.

Rehabilitation Unit:
This absorbed and cancelled the previous Mud Box Brigade. Those people that were either “removed or comm-eved* as ineffective or trouble” were send to this Unit. They were reviewed by the Examiner “for outnesses in (1) case (2) ethics (3) training (Scientology and Sea Org ship training) (4) knowledge of policy. He then makes specific recommendations which if followed will rehabilitate the individual as a highly effective and worthwhile Sea Org member. The unit is worked hard during the day on a rigorous schedule on jobs assigned by the Review Chief handling corrective areas and jobs needing remedy and repair. The unit itself is thus made into an effective ship's review team. It works on a one job, one time, one place formula completing each job before moving into the next. Each individual thus earns the right to the remedial services he or she will receive.”  (from ‘FO 1848’, 3 Mar 69 “Rehabilitation Unit”).
Here indeed can we find some resemblances with the infamous and later developed RPF. Still that does not make them the same or necessarily a forerunner. There is also an explicit difference. We were at sea. One should also not forget that these were developed for life on a ship. Peoples life's could be depending on if some safety rule was not carried out properly. After all you are out there on sea, a place where safety is an issue of the highest order. Being ashore is quite a different matter. Why then was it found necessary to set forth the original initiative ashore? True is that the move ashore had not commenced as yet, however we are informed that plans for moving ashore may have started to take form as early as September 1973 (see my later chapter entitled: “Why ‘Flag Land Base’? (Sept 73-Nov 75)”).

Go back ‘Deck Project Force’ (DPF) & ‘Estates Project Force’ (EPF)

The RPF should not be confused with DPF or EPF.

Deck Project Force (DPF) was for at sea:
“An objective of the DPF is to keep a recruit or non-producer out of vital FSO and FB lines until he can pull his weight and is valuable. The main objective is to furnish valuable SO members to the SO.”  
(from ‘FSO 559’, 24 May 72 “Deck Project Force” as quoted in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976)).
* FSO, Flag Service Org;  FB, Flag Bureaux;  SO, Sea Org;  FSO, Flag Ship Order.
“At this point in Sea Org development, there are two categories of DPF members: new recruits and clinical. Clinical personnel include out-ethics cases, tiger types, persons who need extroverting from their environments, and the like. Not to put ethics in on these guys is very cruel indeed. Ethics is what is needed most; ethics and good 8-C*.”
(from ‘FO 3126’, 20 Feb 72 “Shipkeeping Series No. 1 - Duties of the DPF MAA as quoted in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976))

Estates Project Force (EPF) was for ashore:
“People who are just coming into the org could also come in through an Estates Project Force. So there's an Estates Project Force. Category A are people who are just coming in and getting in their basics before you let them onto a post and then there's Category B; those who have had a chance and they're put back there until they're handled. Do not allow these Category B's back in on your lines before they are handled.”          LRH
(from Establishment Officer lecture #4“Evaluation and Handling of Personnel, Part II”, given on 2 Mar 72)
“An Estates Project Force is established in lieu of a deck project force. Such persons do grounds and buildings maintenance at any of the SO properties under the direction of the Estate Manager and supervised by an EPF MAA as assigned by the LRH Comm.”
(from ‘FO 3118R’, 4 Mar 72 “Continental Recruit Training” as quoted in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976))

As time went by and the Flag staff went ashore in the mid-70's there was no need anymore to maintain the DPF in that respect. It is interesting to see that FO 3192 actually reflects this change:
    ‘FO 3192’, 16 Jun 72 “Deck Project Forces”
  ‘FO 3192R’, 16 Jun 72 (Revised 29 Jun 77) “Estates Project Forces”

Go back Authorship of FO 3434 and its subsequent series

A frequent and for all blunt claim made is: “The RPF was concocted and ordered into existence by L. Ron Hubbard.”. So how true and verifiable is this claim actually?
Referred is often to that this ‘Flag Order 3434’ (issued 7 Jan 74) that called into being this Rehabilitation Project Force made reference to that the Commodore, L. Ron Hubbard had created the RPF. Indeed this Flag Order does say: “The RPF has been created by the Commodore so that redemption can occur.” (see also Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976)). An easily uttered sentence. It fails to explain when or how this would have occurred. The 3rd revision from 30 May 77 however does make mention that it was ‘Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, COMMODORE’ (no other notice is found regarding this in this Flag Order). This approval however may very well only affecting this particular revision of this FO. I have not been able to consult previous versions of the FO for this. If you have any such or other relating to RPF please contact me! The subsequent defining issues (about 60 or so: FO 3434-1, FO 3434-2 etc.) regarding RPF also (as far as I remember) witness of no direct involvement or authorship of L. Ron Hubbard in them anywhere. Reference however had been made at places to advices supposedly deriving from him, but the authenticity of these is nonetheless difficult to verify.

Other claims that I find being made are “Hubbard assigned people to the RPF personally and arbitrarily, and was the only person who could arbitrarily remove people from the RPF.”. I am unable to get this actually confirmed by fact.
Then we have “From 1967-1969 Sea Org members, at Hubbard's whim, were ordered to the ‘Mud Box Brigade’ or to the bilges of the ship.”. This can also not positively be confirmed by fact, in addition this sounds to me not more than just an opinion.
And there is a claim made in regards to ‘CMO ED 411’, 29 Aug 79 “Re: Cadet Org” that is claimed to contain the ‘Hubbard’ quote: “Make it known to the children that any act of vandalism, theft or out-ethics or any crime committed by a child will be immediately followed by placing that child on the RPF under severe restrictions.”. Indeed that is quite a claim. CMO ED's are not known to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard. Did the ED may be quote from L. Ron Hubbard, if so then what would be the source of that? These sources are not provided for and thus unconfirmed for their correctness nor authenticity.

The journalist Russell Miller while he was doing research for his critical book ‘The Bare-Faced Messiah’ (released 1987) conducted various interviews with people who had known L. Ron Hubbard at various times of his life. These were reportedly all taped. Later transcripts of a variety of these appear on the Internet as the “The Bare-Faced Messiah Interviews”. Ken Urquhart was one of those being interviewed. He says relating to the RPF: “The RPF came into existence while he was in his cabin after the accident [late ’73 L. Ron Hubbard had a motor cycle accident]. A guy called Gary Watson, who was the port captain, sent in some kind of programme of action to the Commodore and the Commodore set up a unit to take care of rebellious people or those not fitting in. I set up the RPF but it became very much different from what I envisaged - which was a place where you could be removed from the stress and strains of bureaucracy, with some physical work every day to take their attention off themselves and in the other half of day they could audit each other on problems they had.”  (from Interview with Ken Urquhart, McLean, Virginia, Apr/May 86).
My response to “I set up the RPF but it became very much different from what I envisaged” is that when one goes through these regulations for the RPF as found in FO 3434, then what do you actually expect to happen? What I mean to say here is that if you have some foresight it would be fairly easy to envision what people would turn it into! In fact while going over this FO 3434, it sounds pretty rough and restrictive. I find the comment of Ken Urquhart rather ignorant in this respect.
An interesting additional note can be made with that it says in FO 3434RB: “These policies and regulations may only be put aside or amended or cancelled with the approval of the Commodore or of LRH Pers Comm*.”. The LRH Pers Comm was Ken Urquhart. It appears that he then could work on this at his own authority without needing Commodore interference or approval.
It is noted that this FO 3434RB revision does indicated as if it would be ‘Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, COMMODORE’. Ken Urquhart on the other hand is not indicated in the liner notes. We only find him in the composer initials at the bottom of the document as ‘KU’. It may be noteworthy why the actual compiler and originator of this reference is exempted from being mentioned by name or indicated even by his post in these liner notes and only appears with his initials! It would be worthwhile to find out how this is reflected in the original release from 1974 though. It would also not be the first time that a reference would get such an indication as if it would be approved by L. Ron Hubbard which in later years got denounced. An additional note may be that the FO 3434RB revision of 1977 notes as a last sentence: “NB: In the revision of 21 August 1976, the definitions of ‘Fully Cleaned-Up’ and ‘Released’ have been revised by LRH Pers Comm.”. The LRH Pers Comm being Ken Urquhart. It appears that it continued to be him that was involved in this reference also in the later revisions.

There is an irony present here. On one side we have those in the Scientology organization that are being criticized for accepting/believing the claims of the Church of Scientology for all the things that L. Ron Hubbard supposedly would have managed to achieve. On the other hand we have these same critics claiming that L. Ron Hubbard would have been responsible or had devised various when his actual involvement can not positively be proven by fact. Furthermore just that it says underneath some reference that L. Ron Hubbard either would have written something, had ordered it, or notes his approval, does not always necessarily mean that he actually did so. Various of my researches regarding this found on my site does actually confirm this.
There is this habit however from the mainstream Scientology critics to put all the blame on L. Ron Hubbard for all bad things that had happened. If I look around on the Internet I do get the impression that some appear outright delusional about some things in regards to this. Please, let us be little more sensible and investigative about these things!
An interesting review regarding this posted anonymously on a newsgroup on the Internet on 3 April 1998:
    “RPF Exposed”  (pop-up window)

Go back RPF working conditions

The schedule for the RPF is to be worked out in detail by the RPF MAA around 7 hours sleep, 5 hours study or auditing, 30 minutes for each meal, 30 minutes for personal hygiene, per day.”
(from ‘FO 3434RB’, 7 Jan 74 (Re-Revised 30 May 77) “The Rehabilitation Project Force”)

Various report extraordinarily working hours and unreasonable conditions with very few hours of sleep for the RPF at the PAC base during the late 70's, and even at later times. I do not know from personal observation how the RPF working conditions were like for example during these late 70's although the reports that I have reviewed are pretty much consistent. I do however know from personal observation that the RPF during the late 80's at Flag followed very strict working hours. I have actually worked side by side with the RPF. At the time I was involved in a Uniform Delivery Mission at the Flag Land Base, and we had al these trunks spread out in the auditorium at the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater Fl. There was an event scheduled one evening, and all these trunks were in the way (there were hundreds of them). We put them up in big stacks against the walls. So we were working like that with the RPF as we had this time pressure because of the upcoming event. Then at some time (10 p.m. I think) the RPF Section Leader came up to us and said that their working time was over. We attempted to argue but that appeared useless, they left and so we (2 persons) had to finish the job working during half the night or so getting all these trunks stacked up against the walls. Then after the event we had to sort them out again, and make a new list of where each trunk was located, so that we could pull it when the particular staff member came to try out his/her uniform. All this till the next event came around, and we had a couple of those while the Uniform Delivery Mission was ongoing. Later we moved all the trunks to another location (Hacienda Gardens) and established a Uniform Exchange Post. Various times we got help from the RPF, but not always as they were occupied some place else. They did however move the trunks to the Hacienda Gardens. In fact our Mission working hours and conditions while running it were far worse than the RPF's.

An interesting study about the RPF can be found at below link:
    “CESNUR Center for Studies on New Religions:  The Church of Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force”  (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013)

It seems though that conditions indeed are very strict at the PAC base and Scientology International (located in Los Angeles). They appear much lesser strict at for example Flag, and in Europe the conditions appear quite livable and reasonable. At Flag one still saw the RPFers running, at AOSH EU* in Copenhagen I actually could see them walking from time to time. With other words, the further you get away from the headquarters of the Scientology organization the less strict the rules appear abided to.

Go back ‘RPF’ versus ‘Sec Checking’

The basic reason about why one does wrong is said to be seated in our mind. Our so-called false purposes. There is this thing addressed as the Overt Motivator Sequence. Roughly this can be circumscribed as the calculation of having done something wrong, one is then ashamed and unwilling to take responsibility for it (keeps it hidden), but as a being wants to be good, therefore resorted is to get it justified by actually repeating the original wrong deed (this calculation is not necessarily made consciously). Either way this would indicate that man is basically good. Now, pulling these instances in auditing sessions is said to relieve the person of this burden he put on himself and eradicate its motivator to repeat and justify. As a process this can be referred to as Sec Checking auditing. Basically this is just running some lists of questions and you trace and note the reactions on this tool the E-Meter. The RPF required obviously this Sec Checking. One problem though as Sec Checking for these purposes was explicitly forbidden since 1968 and confirmed forbidden in 1970. References:
    HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”
  HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”
This got basically solved with the issuance of HCO PL 13 Nov 74 “HCO May Do Confessional Lists” (this actually cancelled specifically the 1968 HCO PL). Details about this consult my chapter entitled “‘False Purpose Rundown’ (FPRD) (Jun 84)”, see index of LRH Whereabouts study.

Go back A final note

It appears fact that this assigning to the RPF frequently has been misused and obviously has been at times in the hands of the wrong persons. There are some instances recorded within the history of the Scientology organization that it had turned into a mad witch hunt. See my chapter entitled “Witch hunts during the late 70's and again during the early 80's”. Most affirmatively we can conclude that “man cannot be trusted with justice.”. We should have learned this datum already from the walk of man throughout history. Considering the subject and the aims of Scientology would it have been probable that L. Ron Hubbard would have set forth and created such an outfit as the RPF? It was simply destined to get misused.

Go to index

Back to Main Index The ‘Primary Rundown’  vs  The incidence of a technical slip  (Apr 72-Aug 74)

The slip being that this action was allowed to go into OBLIVION.

  • HCOB 4 Apr 72 “Tech Div Primary Rundown” introduced this new action.
  • HCOB 13 Aug 72R (Corrected and Reissued 15 Aug 72) “Fast Flow Training” established what was to be considered Fast Flow Training from there on out.
  • HCO PL 31 Aug 74, Issue II “Fast Flow Training Reinstated” acted against the value of the Primary Rundown and the in 1972 established definition of Fast Flow Training. That which this HCO PL set forth was never counteracted. This HCO PL was issued as if written by L. Ron Hubbard, which authorship already 2 years later officially was denounced.
I have gone into great detail about the whole history of this Primary Rundown (see Scientology index page). All I do here in this little chapter here is make reference to some of the things that surfaced regarding the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard. Some indications can be pointed at in relation to this and what he was actually doing. In particular the following 2 sections found in my study raise questions directly in relation to his whereabouts or rather not about. (separate windows)
    “Final noteworthy comment & Where is L. Ron Hubbard?”
  “Various annotations found in HCOB 21 Aug 79 ‘Twinning’ & Summary”

Today the Primary Rundown seems to have been sort of replaced by the later released Key to Life (1981, public release: 1990), and possibly by the Standard Study Tech Drills (as part of the Golden Age of Tech evolution, 1996). Today the Primary Rundown is referred to as something that is announced to be released (since 1995, see any Grade Chart to date), which still has not occurred now 12 years later when I write this. My analysis of the Primary Rundown and anything that relates to it can be consulted here (separate window).

Either way the Primary Rundown dilemma and how it has been dealt with make for a rather strong case concerning the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard or in regards to what he was doing or rather not doing.

Go to index

Back to Main Index The significance of GPM's in regards to the reactive mind dismissed  (Jun 75)

“The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs).”          LRH
(from HCOB 17 Oct 64 III “Clearing, Why It Works, How It Is Necessary”)

This is the matter of that an incomplete definition of the reactive mind had found its way to be included in that which was supposed to be a major technical dictionary: ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (Jun 75). Whereas it thus far was found fully defined in a minor dictionary: ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965). This latter publication was in use during 1965-80 in which time frame it was printed and reprinted 19 times (lastly in December 1980).

The following year it was then discontinued and accordingly we see the release of a replacement for this minor dictionary issued as ‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology’ (1981), and this has been in use ever since in various forms. The significance here is that GPM's had been removed from the definition of the reactive mind. In addition it had also removed the entry GPM itself. Thus this instance in time signifies that no complete definition of the reactive mind was found in any since then in use dictionary. Which is a shame considering the obvious importance of GPM's in regards to the reactive mind. In essence this could be considered being a technical degrade for reason that it is vital to have a proper and for all complete concept of what the reactive mind presents, this as early on as possible.

“REACTIVE MIND:  That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks.”

“GPM:  Means Goals Problem Mass. A GPM is composed of mental masses and significances which have an exact pattern, unvarying from person to person, whose significances dictate a certain type of behaviour and whose masses, when pulled in on the individual, cause psychosomatic effects, such as illness, pains or feelings of heaviness and tiredness.”
(both quotations from ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (in use 1965-80))

A detailed study of this can be consulted in below link:  (separate window)
    “Prelude: Skipping the mention of GPM's in the definition of the Reactive Mind (Jun 75)
   (The Reactive Mind and GPM's, a study of its presentation in the various dictionaries (1965-present)



     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.

‘Routine 8-Control’.  1. Essentially and intimately the operation of making the physical body contact the environment. (5410CM08)  2. Name of a process. Also used to mean good control. (HCOB 23 Aug 65)
     AOSH EU:

Advanced Organization Saint Hill Europe’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training, located in Copenhagen, Denmark.
     audit, auditing, auditor:

The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
Commodore's Messenger Org(anization)’. A senior Scientology organization.
Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
     Expanded Dianetics (Ex Dn, XDN):
(1) “its results are freedom from cruel impulses and chronic unwanted conditions and ability to act in an optimum manner without restraint.”;  (2) about the course: “Trains a person to understand and handle irrational behavior in others and chronic unwanted conditions.” (What Is Scientology? (1978), p 10 & 12)
Flag Bureaux’.  1. The Flag Bureaux manages orgs. It does not just execute orders of others but initiates orders based on evaluation that directs orgs, handles situations and ensures continued growth. (CBO 435-3R)  2. The international management body of the SO with additional advisor and management activities. (HCO PL 9 Mar 72 1)  3. The external org taking care of the international and SO orgs over the world and planetary actions. (OODs 8 May 72)
     Flag Order (FO):
This is the equivalent to a policy letter (HCO PL) in the Sea Org (senior organization within the Church of Scientology). Contains policy and sea technical materials. They are numbered and dated. They do not decay, HCO PLs and FOs are both in effect on Sea Org orgs, ships, offices and bases. Black ink on white paper. Distribution to all Sea Org members. It is vital for SO units to have master files and quantity of FOs from which hats can be made up for SO personnel and courses. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
Short for ‘Flag Order’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). 
Flag Service Organization’. Senior Scientology service organization located at Flag in Clearwater, Fl.
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC ED's (Secretarial ED's). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     LRH Pers Comm:
LRH Personal Communicator’. This person coordinates communications from all sources to LRH. The LRH Pers Comm has full control of the Household Unit and LRH Personal Pro and all equipment, vehicles, gear, material and spaces. Thus the hat breaks down into five functions: (1) coordinating and rerouting traffic so it will be handled, (2) logging, nudging and keeping track of LRH projects, (3) library and filing, (4) keeping Household Unit matters up to the mark and the personnel busy and accounted for, (5) setting up schedules and events and getting things coordinated for them.
Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in the Sea Organization (senior Scientology organization). See further at ‘Ethics Officer’.
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     OCA, APA:
Oxford Capacity Analysis’. The OCA (Oxford Capacity Analysis) is the English version of the American Personality Analysis (APA). The OCA (or APA) consists of 200 questions. These 200 questions are divided up into series of 20 questions, each of which measures a single personality trait. Thus ten traits are measured in all. (HCO PL 3 Nov 70 II)
Orders Of the Day’. A type of ship's “newspaper” containing an item from the Commodore, the daily schedule for that day, news and notices, as well as orders necessary to administration of the ship's business. A copy of the OODs is delivered every morning to each in-basket on the ship. It should be read each day carefully so that you keep informed of what is going on around the ship and in the various divisions. (FO 2674)
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PL's are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional.
     overt product:
These are called so because they are not in actual fact useful products but something no one wants and are overt acts in themselves-such as inedible biscuits or a “repair” that is just further breakage. (HCOB 10 May 72)
     PAC (base):
Pacific Area Command (base)’. The former Cedars of Lebanon Hospital complex, a Hollywood landmark, will now serve as the Church's national seminary headquarters housing ASHO, AOLA (Advance Organization), Publications Organization, Los Angeles Class IV Organization, Guardian's Office, and Flag Operations Liaison Office. (from The Auditor 133, US Edition)  May at times also be referred to as the Cedars Complex.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
An abbreviation for ‘Rock Slam’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Rock Slam (R/S):
1. A crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches, happening several times a second. (E-Meter Essentials, p. 17).  2. As a meter representation, is the result of innumerable committed overts in a certain direction, and when you've got that certain direction isolated, that is to say the items against which the overts were committed isolated you then have of course a rock slam. (SH Spec 203, 6210C11)
  Rock Slammer:  
It means it's somebody who gets a rock slam when you ask them: “Consider overts against Scn” and that broadens out of course against Ron, against the organization or against an auditor. (SH Spec 198, 6210C04)
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Introspection Rundown. (LRH Def. Notes)  As a rule this mostly works as a corrective action and not as a mandatory part of the Bridge.
     Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’.
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).

Go to top of this page