L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order
Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after (1) (About ‘Information’, Primary Rundown, Qual Library and Tech issues.
Including also various proposals to solution)
>> 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.
“Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's 1984? Yes, yes, that's wonderful. That would be—could be the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence. ...
It's a very simple remedy. And that's---just make sure that the remedy is passed along. That's all. Don't hoard it, don't hold it; and if you ever do use any Black Dianetics*, use it on the guy who pulled Scientology out of sight and made it so it wasn't available. Because he's the boy who would be electing himself ‘The New Order’. And we don't need any more new orders. All those orders, as far as I am concerned, have been filled.”
L. Ron Hubbard
(from Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture #20 “Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic”, given on 6 Dec 52)
Sound snippet (1:52)
Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after (page 1, index page)
Disappearance of information
directs its attention towards that which was available and in use when L. Ron Hubbard was still seen in public, but later on for one reason or another went out of sight or was discontinued when he was no longer seen in public.
Arrival of new information
is about that which was newly introduced when L. Ron Hubbard was not seen in public anymore, but was not in existence or in use when he was still seen in public.
>>> Above are the criteria and all I do here is draw attention to various of these. <<<
In the last chapter on this page I give an overview of some things discussed in earlier chapters and various proposals to solution ... !
- Solving a problem: ‘compilers’ turn ‘assistants’
- An overview of issued/reissued references during 1980-81 and some examples
About new LRH materials released since Feb 1986 (after the passing of L. Ron Hubbard)
- About old OODs, evals and advices issued after Feb 1986 (some examples)
Changes in the issue authority and approval lines for HCO PLs and HCOBs
- The establishment of the RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (a chronology)
- If a reference is signed with L. Ron Hubbard, then can we still trust that he in fact wrote it?
Do we need all these excess policy letters and technical bulletins?
- LRH sources for new HCO PLs – Disappearance of information – Change of copyright
- Disputed sources for new LRH releases: ‘LRH notes’ and ‘LRH advices’
- Non-LRH and unverified sources used for new LRH HCO PLs – The ‘1981 Cramming Series’ dilemma
- About signatory section and composer initials
Implementing (copying) texts into HCO PLs that is already presented in other existing HCO PLs/HCOBs rather than listing them as a source in a reference list, then at a later stage deleting the original source indication of these copied texts and obscuring their original source – Obscuring newly added information by not printing it in script
- The statement and promise of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC)
- A new issue-type introduced in early 1982
- ‘Scientology Policy Directive’ (SPD) vs ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL)
- Approval Lines - Review - Appeal Line
- L. Ron Hubbard vs ‘Scientology Policy Directives’
- Report system
- HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports” vs HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review”
- Control factor vs Creation of a ‘snitch’ system?
- A note about HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write-ups”
- Today's reality
- Introduction of this study
- HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” analysis
- Concurrent actions that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” does not make mention of: ‘LRH ED 284 Int, 16 Sept 76 “Solution to Inflation”
- Summary of some final valuable evaluations ...
Previous technology replaced with new technology - Tech changes 1978-82
- A necessary word of introduction ...
- Chronological overview of Tech changes with source referencing and annotations
- Prelude: Skipping the mention of GPM's in the definition of the Reactive Mind (Jun 75)
Prelude (2): Re-interpreting E-Meter reads (since Dec 76/Jul 78)
- (1) ‘Ring out the old, ring in the new’: ‘Standard Dianetics’ vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (Jul 78)
- (2) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing a change in the definition of Clear? or Grades V-VII turning obsolete (Sept 78)
- (3) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing the need for ‘New Era Dianetics for OTs’? (Sept 78)
- (4) First grades then Dianetics (Nov-Dec 81)
- (5a) The disappearance of the original OT levels IV to VII (Jan-Mar 82)
- (5b) Original OT VIII dropped (Jan-Mar 82) (OT VIII end of the road?)
- Various closing considerations worthy of mention
- What are we going to do with the Qual Libraries? (includes SIR system)
- How to ascertain that something is really deriving from L. Ron Hubbard?
Situation overview of the early ’80s and the events leading up to it ...
These early ’80s marked a difference where it concerns the writing and issuance of materials. It was the first time that for example policy letters were issued not because of some situation or problem that existed and needed handling. No, it was pretty much done at a whim. This practice of issuing references attributed to L. Ron Hubbard for such a motivation (at a whim) continued in the years following, even as late as 2001.
During 1980-81 we see mostly reissues of old material being released with either a 1980 or 1981 date, and various writings that at their release were attributed to L. Ron Hubbard which authorship 10 years later was denounced. Why did it take such a long time till these got cancelled and taken out of circulation? Did L. Ron Hubbard allow these writings going around which he had not devised or approved, but were issued under his name anyway? He surely must have seen these as it is said that he passed away not earlier then 24 Jan 1986.
At this time we also see quite a few references being converted from non-LRH to LRH. There were these references (many dating to the ’60s) that originally had been written by other persons. Then some changes may have been incorporated in them (or none at all), were stripped from its original author, given a new reference date (mostly 1981) and voilá now we had some more LRH references! During 1982-86 we see HCO PLs and HCOBs continued to be issued carrying L. Ron Hubbard's signature. Most of these later dated releases are still presently in use, although various of these have been questioned if they actually had been written and/or devised by L. Ron Hubbard. Many of these swapped authorship references are still in use today.
The question thus emerges here if L. Ron Hubbard was actually in control of these matters, he had been shy of public appearances since September 1973, and since so about the end of 1979 only 3 persons were seeing him, till he passed away in 1986. At least that is what we are told. There are various theories going around about what would have happened.
We can determine though that matters particularly from the early ’80s had been stepping up and were going in a rather different direction, prices for services and materials had gone up consideringly and kept on rising, various new ways of how to go about things were introduced, or old ways were simply discarded of.
It was actually a trend that had started so about December 1972 when we see for example a resurgence of Sec Checking procedures implemented on a grand scale, when in essence L. Ron Hubbard 1968 had deemed these being of little value (ref. HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”). In 1974 the Primary Rundown had been taken down from its pedestal (ref. HCO PL 31 Aug 74 II “Fast Flow Training Reinstated”). In 1976 a monthly price increase system for services had been installed (ref. ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation”). In 1977 we saw the release of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that listed all sorts of supposed corrections, since 1978 various far-reaching technical changes were carried through, which by the end of 1981 would have lead to a significant Bridge turnaround (see details here, separate window). In 1979 it was suddenly ordained that all persons active in Dianetic Counselling Groups or as a Field Auditor had to pay a 10% tithe to the organization of their earned income, which prevously only affected so-called franchises (see here, separate window). By the early ’80s matters were simply stepping up and culminating. A new management was being worked on and we see this incorporated by 1982. We had people disagreeing and protesting against what was happening. Many persons were put through unjust hardships, were denied their rights, and so on. Because of the measures taken especially during 1982-83 very many left the Church of Scientology or were put in a condition of not being in good standing and simply thrown out (for details about these matters go here, separate window).
To that effect we see the issuance of 2 releases in where hundreds of Scientology staff and public were declared suppressive persons. There is ‘SO ED 2192 Int’, 27 Jan 83 “List of Declared Suppressive Persons”, listing 611 names. Many of these had been in the organization since decades, reportedly a variety of old OT VII's, high ranking Sea Org members and even Cl XII auditors were listed. Later we see issued ‘Flag ED 2830’, 10 Sept 91 “Suppressive Persons and Suppressive Groups List”, listing approximately 415 groups and 2,230 individuals. These lists were regularly updated and reissued. They were distributed to the various Scientology organizations around the world as an attempt “to ensure that these individuals or members of these groups are not connected to or on lines
at your org or mission in any way.”.
This is then the time that various off-shoots of Scientology like Free Zone and Ron's Org came into being. It is rather interesting here to point out that these groups pretty much all of them discarded of the materials that came about after 1982, this when the Bridge turn-around had taken place directly prior to that (Jul 78/Dec 81). These group were thus accepting the Bridge-turnaround that took place directly before that!
The above are just some brief historical notes of things that had been happening.
The disappearance of information
The disappearance of information (1):
The importance of the ‘Qual Library’
(More information about Qual Libraries is found on my page: “A printing history of the materials of Scientology”. Consult here, separate window).
“It's an org* library and you just get your hands on at least two of every pack on tech or policy or anything else that has ever been issued.
You have an actual library, not just some books lying around.
Now, you are in the business of knowledge. Well that’s where it’s concentrated in the org.
Information! Where can the guy go to see it - not to be told verbally it - where can the guy go to see it and so on? Well, that is Department 14's Library. That’s the knowledge center. And so, you don't get verbal data lines or anything of the sort.
The librarian is really the Org Information Officer.” LRH
All above quotations are taken directly from the actual lecture given 5 Sept 71 “A Talk on a Basic Qual” - an extract of this lecture is also found in HCO PL 3 Mar 82 “The Qual Library”.
Sound snippet 1 (1:22)
Sound snippet 2 (0:21)
(The sound snippet 1 is longer than the quotation from the HCO PL as printed here above.)
The HCO PL ends off as follows:
“A Qual Library is a key part of an effective Qual, and the more effective Qual is, the better the org functions.” LRH
Likely adapted from the tape where this instead is phrased as: “As the more effective this Qual is the better that org is going to function.” LRH
Please take notice that it says in the first sentence of this quotation “... that has ever been issued.” This should mean exactly what it says, you may add any Scientology periodicals, course materials, promo and so on, and so on ...!
Earlier versions of references were supposed to be included as well in such a library as per the following:
“When an HCOB or Policy Letter is revised, its original date is preserved. The word Revised follows the date. If it is cancelled again and substituted for, it would be ‘RA’.
This brings a standard to reissues and helps the reader trace back earlier issues.” LRH
(from HCO PL 2 May 72RA “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”)
“Our Qual Library has the most complete and comprehensive library of translated LRH works in all of Europe.” (from page 13 of this magazine)
Unfortunately reality shows that standard Qual Libraries as outlined by L. Ron Hubbard per the above are
disappearing. The Advanced Organization in Copenhagen (AOSH EU) –located there since 1969– only has the newest materials represented in their Qual Library. This is what AOSH EU themselves say about their library in their magazine. This particular issue was largely about ‘The Grand Opening of AOSH Europe’ (A tour in the newly renovated AOSH EU, official opening by David Miscavige on 23 May ’95):
“THE KNOWLEDGE CENTER OF EUROPE -
AOSH EUROPE'S QUAL LIBRARY
You have to see and use our new Qual Library - it's the knowledge center for all of Europe and we are very proud of it. Here you'll find every single piece of published LRH material ever translated into any language. You'll also find useful word clearing texts including educational texts and encyclopedias from 14 different countries making this the ideal environment for Method® One word clearing.” (from ‘Advance! 123 (AOSH EU Edition)’, [early 95])
These translations may very well be there, however you will not find any of the original older magazines (‘Certainty’, ‘Ability’, ‘The Auditor’, ‘Advance!’, etc ...), early versions or cancelled technical bulletins or policy letters, other issue-types, previous book publications and so on, and so on ...
The same situation we find in the Amsterdam organization (founded in 1973, located in the Netherlands). I remember very well that this org used to have an extensive library with many binders and lots of old issues and so on. This present day they have only about one and a half shelf with the newest materials. It should be noted here that the old Qual Libraries vanished when both these organizations were being patched up, AOSH EU underwent an extensive renovation, Amsterdam Org moved to other completely renovated premises. I've understood that ‘International Management’ was closely involved in all this being carried out.
In both of the above mentioned Scientology organizations you will also look in vain for any copies of the previous releases of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes (issued 1970-74) or ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes (issued 1976-80). At first I thought they may had them being stored away at some other place, so I went up and down the stairs, looked about, inquired, but they were really nowhere to be found. I was also unable to actually find out what had happened with all this old material. In fact a top classed auditor at AOSH EU (since early ’70s) confided me that somewhere around 1997 the order was given to physically destroy all copies of the previous 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes (i.e. reduce them to shreds), and so they had to go so he told me. I also got to hear this very same information from a Bookstore Officer at a Class IV Scientology organization. In both cases the order came from ‘International Management’. Now, this may or may not be true. But then, we are being faced with the fact that these volumes and all the other original old stuff are physically disappearing from the Scientology organizations.
The periodical ‘Advance! (Special Issue, US)’, [early 98] relates about the Grand Opening of AOLA (Advanced Organization Los Angeles) on 14 Feb ’98. I haven't personally inspected their Qual Library, but judging from the illustration of their Qual Library printed in this issue of ‘Advance!’ there is no reason to believe that the situation over there would be any different. Although the article assures “The new Qual Library, where you'll find any reference you could possibly need on your journey to OT.”.
Anyway I would urge any Scientology organization who has their Qual Library still intact, that they should fight to keep and maintain it! One should not allow that the history of Scientology as told in old issues, original magazines, policies/bulletins and so on disappears from the Scientology publics view. L. Ron Hubbard says it should not, so do not allow this to happen! Fight for it!
The disappearance of information (2):
An odd misconception about ‘Keeping Scientology Working’ and the ‘old red volumes’
Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.” LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)
The above is by some interpreted as if it is advised by L. Ron Hubbard to actually destroy certain old material. Presently there exist agreements about that certain older materials (specifically non-LRH) are to be considered squirrel. The argument given is that in order to prevent any of these old issues ever again to be used is to simply shred them. The idea is then that they also are not to be filed in the Qual Library. This approach seems to be the tendency of recent years, I have encountered various Sea Org members that confided to me that they wished that this old material got wasted. In fact attempts have been made to prevent me from consulting HCO PLs that were not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
I know of no reference or writing from L. Ron Hubbard anywhere that says anything like that some material is to be physically destroyed. When stored in the Qual Library in fact references not being in use anymore will have received a cancellation stamp. If they have received such a stamp they simply are not in use, these are now solely ‘used’ as reference material. This material is there for historical purposes, to help understand how things have developed, how certain processes or other came about, and to enable you to find out how things once were.
“A chronological study of materials is necessary for the complete training of a truly top grade expert in these lines. He can see how the subject progressed and so is able to see which are the highest levels of development. Not the least advantage in this is the defining of words and terms, for each, when originally used, was defined, in most cases, with considerable exactitude, and one is not left with any misunderstoods.” LRH
(from HCOB 30 Jul 73 “Scientology, Current State of the
Subject and Materials”)
Alright then, there is an additional argument. We have HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working” that was released in 1965. There exist certain rules about how policy letters are to be dealt with. Policy letters are in fact superseded by policy letters of a later date. Policy letters issued at a later date have the final say. If some action or approach has been cancelled at some point, this particular action is automatically superseded by these references released at a later date. Let's look at two references released at a later date:
“It's an org library and you just get your hands on at least two of every pack on tech or policy or anything else that has ever been issued.” LRH (from HCO PL 3 Mar 82 “The Qual Library”,
from lecture given 5 Sept 71 “A Talk on a Basic Qual”)
“When an HCOB or Policy Letter is revised, its original date is preserved. The word Revised follows the date. If it is cancelled again and substituted for, it would be ‘RA’.
This brings a standard to reissues and helps the reader trace back earlier issues.” LRH
(from HCO PL 2 May 72RA “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”)
Neither of the above 2 references say anything about physically destroying. On the contrary the first one states very, very clearly: “It's an org library and you just get your hands on at least two of every pack on tech or policy or anything else that has ever been issued.” LRH.
No auditor would ever purposely be interested to actually apply any of this older and now not in use data in sessions. Just consider the following. Only a person who willfully wants to do bad would do such a thing, such would be referred to as a suppressive person. These persons however will not be able to stay around in a standardly run Scientology organization, as they would get exposed rather easily and kicked out by an Ethics Officer. Would someone apply this cancelled material by mistake? Unlikely as they are only found in the Qual Library, in addition these issues themselves received a stamp indicating that they are cancelled. Another point is that you as a student have to be alert and in present time to be able to study properly. A Course Supervisor would spot a bad student very quickly and act. Destroying material appears to be solely an interpretation made by some, and it may very well be a faulty interpretation.
Not by L. Ron Hubbard = no good?
Some seem to think that if it is not deriving from or written by L. Ron Hubbard then it is no good, and therefore should be discarded of. An example out of many in favour of the opposite:
“Phyll Stevens CL VI, N.Z., has made the following digest of my study tapes for use in HAS and Level 0. This is a very good summary and is recommended for use pending a book on the subject.
L. RON HUBBARD”
(from BTB 4 Mar 65R “Study Materials for HAS, Lesson 1”)
We also have the interesting indication that for example the main issues that lay out the specifics about ‘Pink Sheets’, ‘Checksheets’ & ‘Demonstrations’ were not even written by L. Ron Hubbard, but they have been reissued if in fact they had been written by L. Ron Hubbard. You will find the full details about that here (separate window). In particular people seem to want to get rid of BPLs and BTBs. But a variety of the data as found in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes seem to have been taken directly from such issues. The majority of all the BPLs and BTBs were originally issued as HCO PLs respectively HCOBs, then in 1974 it was decided to reserve that issue-type for L. Ron Hubbard, and so many were either cancelled or reissued as either BPL or BTB. And now we find that same data in various references in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes as if they were derived and written by L. Ron Hubbard?
It appears that one wants to get rid of non-LRH or somehow transform that information into LRH. Whatever happened with: “... other people have authority, too.”.
“Only when I have personally written a bulletin, a policy letter or a Sec ED should it be signed ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.” LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)
“This may mean as many as five or six names may be signed to policy letters I did not personally write.” LRH (from HCO PL 20 Oct 66 “Signatures of Pol Ltrs”)
The above quotations seem to indicate that L. Ron Hubbard himself does not agree with that approach either.
Another angle of this discussion is the actual creation of the issue-type Scientology Policy Directive (SPD). We want to discard of BPLs, but we create a replacement issue for them instead and these are then ‘allowed’? (please see chapter: “The arrival of new information (2) - A closer look at ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ and
its relation/difference with ‘Board Policy Letters’”, see main index on this page)
The story of the ‘old red volumes’
With the old red volumes is referred to 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. During the early ’80s the Scientology organizations had already been stripped from their Qual Library stock of BPLs and BTBs (see introduction chapter of this page). Then around 1997 another rather curious order was given to physically destroy these old red volumes. (I mentioned this already in the previous chapter: “The disappearance of information (1)”). Because of this I was also not permitted to even purchase copies from 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes (1976-80 release) from a local Scientology organization's old stock.
Even if there would be some ground for shredding certain references, this would still not be advisable. It is to be taken in serious consideration that such issues have been in use at some time. How are you going to correct those persons who got these specific references applied on them, if you have shredded all of these? This is especially of importance in regards to technical matters as contained in those old red volumes. The Volumes I-X were issued in 1976, the Volumes XI & XII respectively in 1979 & 1980. All these 12 volumes together represented the technical issues fully updated to December 1979. People should also not forget that these volumes were reprinted at least until 1986, meaning they were exact replica's of these original 12 volumes. These volumes in fact represent the complete chronological record of the development of the technology up to the end of 1979. It was this information as contained in these volumes that made Scientology what it is today. It was very successfully used during a very long period of time. And now they needed to get wasted?
One argument that I have heard was that they contain references compiled or written by David Mayo. By examination of these 12 volumes that made up the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ series of books it appears that only Volume XII contained some references that witness of his collaboration, and there were only 3 of them. These are:
They all say: ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Founder. As assisted by Senior C/S Int.’ If these 3 references were used as an argument to physically destroy all 12 of these volumes then everyone would agree with me, that it was not a very wise decision.
Or does it have to do with that Volume IX mainly consists of BTBs? That argument is not being brought forward though, the David Mayo argument however IS.
Actually if one reads the original release notes for these 1976 volumes, it really can't be all that bad!
Click here to consult these (pop-up window). And then L. Ron Hubbard himself did not stop any of these volumes being released! In fact quite the contrary:
“It has always been my intention that you have full certainty on the technology of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY. It was with this intention that I began to write up the research in the beginning.
Over the years, I have been so busy getting the technology out and into the hands of Scientologists and the public that I never really had the chance to compile it all in one published work. It was all I could do to keep up with the demands for releases as the research and discoveries mounted and mounted!
For me, this is a monumental task completed and is the manifestation of many tens of thousands of hours of research finalized into 100% proven, workable, standard tech.
Your training is very important to me. What you can accomplish as a well-trained Scientologist is vital to the creation of a peaceful world.
There exists a vacuum of needed technology in the world today. It is up to us to fill it up. This release takes a giant step in that direction.” LRH (from ‘LRH ED 280 Int’, 20 Aug 76 “New Release Ten Tech Volumes”)
The disappearance of information (4):
“The Students Rabble Rouse Line”
The other day I overheard a conversation between 2 Scientology students. One of them said to the other: “Yeah, things are not all that perfect here in this course room.” The other one then responded: “Well, then it will just take a little bit longer.”
And I was thinking, do we have today some effective tool to handle things accurately and effectively when things are not all going that smooth in course rooms? I came to think of a handling that once existed, but nowadays has been abandoned. It was called the Students Rabble Rouse Line. It was laid out first in an non-LRH HCO PL, and then in 1975 reissued as BPL (BPL 20 Nov 70R). I know for a fact that it was still fully in force in 1978, does anyone like to elaborate on that? This BPL reference itself will lay out what it exactly was about. It appears to be an initiative from ‘Training & Services Aide’ , the initials given on the BPL are ‘JR’. This is probably Joan Robertson. You can consult the reference in full here (pop-up window).
It was cancelled by ‘SPD 150’, 25 Jul 87 “Cancellation of BPL 20 November 1970R The Students Rabble Rouse Line”. So far I have been unable to consult this issue, so I don't know what it says.
The question is: “Do we have some use for it today?”
The disappearance of information (5):
Scientology publications compiled or written by other than L. Ron Hubbard
Prior to 1982 there existed a whole variety of publications about the subject of Scientology compiled or written by other persons. Later we see that various of these releases ended up on some kind of blacklist.
Publications written/compiled for example by Ruth Minshull received this fate. Previously though these very publications were in fact sold, distributed, and also used by the Scientology organizations around the world. In particular I want to name the by her written little pamphlet carrying the title ‘What Every Preclear Should Know’ (1969). I recall that I was to read this little publication at Amsterdam org prior to receiving processing, this was as late as 1986. A further introduction to me of Ruth Minshull were her books ‘Miracles for Breakfast’ (1968), about raising children & ‘How to Choose Your People’ (1972), about the tone scale. I became acquainted with these, when we were moving Amsterdam organization to new locations (just across the street) in 1983 or so. Various unused copies surfaced from a forgotten closet at the attic of that organization.
Another one of her books, a compilation of quotations from L. Ron Hubbard this time, carrying the title ‘When in Doubt, Communicate’, I recall was avidly in use by the Mimeograph Officer at the Flag organization located in Clearwater, FL.
Then we have ‘The Application Series’ this was 4 booklets of which 3 were written by Ruth Minshull.
Note: I have these all listed on my recommended book list here, separate window.
Later during the early ’90s I was confided by Virgil Wilhite (old-timer Scientologist, LRH collector and bookseller) that he had received a list of books from New Era Publications (or some place) that he was not allowed to actually sell. It listed amongst other all of the publications by Ruth Minshull. It appears here that the Church of Scientology then follows in the tracks of for example the Catholic church, they also issued their lists of forbidden books. Sure, if some particular books were unauthorized or are given misleading information about the subject of Scientology, in such a case one at least could understand this. However these books we are discussing here were fully authorized at their time of issuance and for a long time afterwards. They had even printed in them: ‘Permission for Publication granted by Issue Authority, Flag’ or ‘Issue Authority WW*, office of LRH WW’. Many of these publications were issued by local Scientology organizations, Ruth Minshull's books were issued by Scientology Ann Arbor in Michigan. These books deriving from Ruth Minshull are probably the most known and most widespread of them all.
Ruth Minshull's book ‘How to Choose Your People’ (1972) even made it to a fourth printing, and this particular book is really not very rare at all. Some booksellers on the Internet however are having a ball and are asking perfectly ludicrous prices for the book, this seems to have made various persons believe that the book is very rare (something). Well, it is not rare! A fair price would be $15-20 in good condition, little more with the dust wrapper. Not any of her books are in fact particularly rare. Take note that all these originally authorized publications are also found listed in the book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition).
Rumours tell that Ruth Minshull was making financial profit from these books for her own behalf. The source of this rumour can be tracked to the ED Int, Captain Guillaume Lesêvre. He said on the US Mission Holders’ Conference held in San Francisco on 17 October 1982:
“To get the new public into the mission, give them Book One* auditing, sell them DMSMH* not Ruth Minshull's books, not Peter Gillham's books as that's off-Source! That's not the way. You sell LRH books ONLY! Those other people are just trying to make money out of the L. Ron Hubbard's technology.”
A little further on in his speech he then says:
“I suggest definitely that you get rid of all those Ruth Minshull and Peter Gillham and other publications and you just get on LRH books. Just go down in your reception in your bookstore and just get those other books out of there.” (both quotations from ‘SO ED 2104 Int’, 7 Nov 82 “The Flow up the Bridge,
The US Mission Holders Conference,
San Francisco 1982”)
A question to ask is what the off-Sourceness of these books are actually all about? ED Int did not tell at that US Mission Holders’ Conference. Also any of her publications are in fact copyrighted in the name of ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. And then, would it not have been fair if she would have earned some funds because of it? Her books were quite popular and they drew many public into the Scientology organizations. In fact the Church of Scientology has this system in use about FSM (Field Staff Member), in where one gets a certain percentage credited to you of what a person that you got into Scientology spends on materials and services. How was Ruth Minshull actually credited for her efforts? Claiming “Those other people are just trying to make money out of the L. Ron Hubbard's technology.” could be considered a rather improper generality. Basically all what Ruth Minshull did was in very gentle and practical manner introducing how easy the principles could be used. She gives many examples in her publications in which people could identify themselves. You could say that it was Scientology principles forwarded in a form that was easy to digest for the common public. They definitely were forwarding Source data, and effectively disseminated people into Scientology. Anyway, since 1983 (if I remember correctly) the whole of Scientology Ann Arbor, including Ruth Minshull were considered not being in good standing with the Church of Scientology. It is all a bit odd, because this organization had been very active in getting Scientology to really a lot of people. Many came into Scientology because of them. They published books, and they also had this little eye-opener ‘What Is Scientology?’. A little leaflet that provided for a quick and easy answer when someone would ask that question. Promo from 1980 notes: “FSMs love them. Some Orgs and Missions buy them by the thousands.”.
Once these were all so much appreciated and got lots of people interested into Scientology, today these are forbidden. In fact they are referred to as actual squirrel. A word that actually stands for offbeat practices or simply changing Scientology procedures. If these publications are guilty of that, then why were these authorized at their time of release? L. Ron Hubbard himself also appears not to disapprove of them! If he would have, he would not have allowed them to have been issued, or allowed them to have been continued to be distributed as they were. I think the answer is a different one. They were not written by L. Ron Hubbard, and some made the decision that this is no good (for some unexplained reason), and so they had to go.
There is some irony present here. We have this ED Int, Captain Guillaume Lesêvre saying on that US Mission Holders’ Conference held there in San Francisco on 17 October 1982: “You sell LRH books ONLY! ... I suggest definitely that you get rid of all those Ruth Minshull and Peter Gillham and other publications and you just get on LRH books. Just go down in your reception in your bookstore and just get those other books out of there.” (from ‘SO ED 2104 Int’, 7 Nov 82 “The Flow up the Bridge, The US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco 1982”. We see however that at present we have a variety of material that is being offered that is not actually written or compiled by L. Ron Hubbard, although his name is put underneath make it appear as if being the compiler of it.
Mary Sue Hubbard
It appeared to be harder to take out of circulation for example ‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’, compiled by Mary Sue Hubbard in 1965. Its Foreword though was written by L. Ron Hubbard. The solution chosen for handling this was to reissue this and simply remove every reference to Mary Sue Hubbard. Here it goes even so far as to physically erasing her name on photographs from these early publications! The details about all this and the treatment that ‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’ received you can read here (separate window).
He has not published any books about the subject of Scientology. But in his capacity of being Flag C/S (1973-78) and Senior C/S International (1978-82) he was responsible for the issuance of a whole variety of HCOBs and HCO PLs. A study about him and the things he was involved with is found here (separate window).
‘as directed by’ turns ‘based on’ vs ‘written by others’
An oddity is to be found here in regards to getting rid of Scientology publications written by others. If we have a look at for example the little book ‘E-Meter Essentials’ (1961), we see then that it was written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard himself. The ‘EDITORS' INTRODUCTION’ of the 1988 reissue says:
“In preparing this new edition of E-Meter Essentials, meticulous research was conducted into the Founder's literary archives for all data concerning this work on the subject of the E-Meter.”
This actually sounds dangerous to me. It continues with:
“The result is that this new edition contains refinements, as directed by LRH, from his further research.”
This “as directed by LRH” is purely an opinion, it is not so that LRH did the revising himself. When we further consult the 1988 reissue, we then see that it says on the very first page as you open the book with the heading ‘TO THE READER’:
“This book is based on the religious literature and works of the Scientology Founder, L. Ron Hubbard.”
This publication then is truly not anymore “by L. Ron Hubbard”, no, it is as clearly stated “based on L. Ron Hubbard”. When we compare both the LRH original and this 1988 release, we can see that they are in fact different. The original publication for example had only listed “ten main needle actions”, the 1988 revision lists “sixteen” of them. I am sure that my readers can see the irony in how one does go about these things, this in regards to the above handlings and on the other hand discrediting or disposing of Scientology publications written by others. To use a word it is inconsequency.
..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. 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. Black Dianetics: 1. Hypnotism. (5109C17A) 2. There are those who, to control, resort to narcotism, suggestion, gossip, slander–the thousands of overt and covert ways that can be classified as Black Dianetics. (Journal of Scientology Issue 3-G, Sept. 1952, Danger: Black Dianetics!) Book One (or Book I):
Refers to ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ that functions as ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Therapy’. It was first published in 1950. BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked. BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked. C/S:
A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc. (HCOB 23 Aug 71) CBO:
‘Central Bureaux Order’. An issue-type mainly distributed to Sea Org sections and executives. cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments. DMSMH:
‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’. The first book published on he subject. ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Procedure.’ ED:
‘Executive Directive’. Issued by any Executive Council and named for the area it applies to. Thus ED WW, meaning issued to Worldwide. They are valid for only one year. They contain various immediate orders, programs, etc. They are blue ink on blue paper. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R). Note that the rules for LRH EDs are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. FSM:
‘Field Staff Member’. FSMs get people into Scientology by disseminating to bring about an understanding of what Scientology can do thus creating a desire for service, and selecting the person for that service. (BPL 15 Jun 73R I) HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window). HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window). LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. LRH ED:
‘L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC EDs (Secretarial EDs). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R) ‘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 PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs 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). org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’. Pol Ltr:
‘HCO Policy Letter’. See at entry ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary. Qual Library:
‘Qualifications Library’. Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction). 1. There is a Qual Librarian, whose duties are essentially those of a librarian, collecting up the materials, logging and storing them safely, making up cross reference files so that the material can be easily located. (BPL 21 Jan 73R, Use the Library to Restore Lost Technology) 2. Now that takes an interesting librarian because he's the Technical Information Center. (7109C05 SO, A Talk on a Basic Qual) 3.Qual is in the business of finding and restoring lost tech. (BPL 22 Nov 71R, Qual Org Officer/Esto) Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PLs and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617) Sea Org (SO):
Abbreviation for ‘Sea Org(anization)’. This is the senior organization within Scientology that runs the Advanced Organizations and also see to it that Class IV organizations (lower level services) do function well. If needed they may send out missions to correct if things don't run smoothly. Sec ED:
‘Secretarial Executive Directive’. A Sec ED is an early LRH ED.An Executive Directive that is written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard. squirrel: 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 HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window). tone scale: 1. Essentially an assignation of numerical value by which individuals can be numerically classified. It is not arbitrary but will be found to approximate some actual governing law in nature. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis, p. 59) 2. A person in apathy rises through various tones. These tones are quite uniform; one follows the next and people always come up through these tones, one after the other. These are the tones of affinity, and the tone scale of Dn and Scn is probably the best possible way of predicting what is going to happen next or what a person actually will do. The tone scale starts well below apathy. In other words, a person is feeling no emotion about a subject at all. On many subjects and problems people are actually well below apathy. There the tone scale starts, on utter, dead null far below death itself. Going up into improved tones one encounters the level of body death, apathy, grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm and serenity, in that order. There are many stops between these tones. A person in grief, when his tone improves feels fear. A person in fear, when his tone improves feels anger. (Problems of Work, pp. 77-78) WW:
‘World Wide’. Located in London, England. The corporation that owns and controls Scientology organizations.