1980/81: Establishment of the Happiness Rundown (HRD) (Nov 80-Mar 81)
This Happiness Rundown was based on the Way to Happiness booklet. This little publication carried 21 chapters that were divided up in 37 precepts. In spite of that this rundown had a sort of gentle approach, it still functioned pretty much as a Sec Check procedure and followed its procedures and type of questions. The revised 1984 version even more so. The original version (1980 David mayo release) still instructed to run Earlier Similars, whereas the 1984 revision (after David Mayo was kicked out) abandoned that altogether and turning it into a very typical Sec Checking procedure and leaving the preclear stuck with not run charge from Earlier Similars.
Various further notes on this can be consulted in the link here below: (separate window)
1982: A package of changes - Brief overview and authorship (6-10 Mar 82)
The times they are a-changin’, quite so. March 1982 came with a package of new directions in regards to confessionals. As follows:
HCOB/PL 6 Mar 82
“Confessional Tech Policies”
HCOB 7 Mar 82
“Confessionals Included in Expanded Grade 2 Processes”
HCO PL 8 Mar 82
“SHSBC - Confessionals”
HCOB 8 Mar 82
“Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone”
HCO PL 9 Mar 82
“Eligibility for OT Levels”
HCOB/PL 10 Mar 82
“Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required”
It should be rather obvious here that all these listed changes from March 1982 regarding confessionals were part of the very same package. It does appear that matters relating to this topic at this point in time were really stepping up and on all fronts. Some implementations were minor, some other had significant ramifications. Interesting is as well that all 6 of these references also share the same author, and that author wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. The author was David Mayo, at the time posted as the Senior C/S International (basically the highest Tech person after L. Ron Hubbard).
In these 6 references the signature area all indicated: ‘L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER; Assisted by Senior C/S International’, with composer initials ‘LRH:DM’ (composers are indicated in uppercase, typists in lowercase). Prior to 1977 this would simply have meant, written by David Mayo for L. Ron Hubbard. According to the information (change of rules) that we find in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, this denotion of ‘Assisted by’ would mean that the assistant was the actual author (see here, separate window). And so the author would thus have been David Mayo. In so far what it concerns the involvement of L. Ron Hubbard, that is a lot more unclear. Here in this case, as some persons have claimed, it could however be interpreted that David Mayo received instructions or notes, which he then turned into a properly written HCO PL and/or HCOB. David Mayo then believed/assumed/was told that these instructions/notes were send to him by L. Ron Hubbard. The question is also, why did L. Ron Hubbard need someone to write his issues?
It gets interesting here when we find that in the reissues of these references neither of them carry anymore an indication of David Mayo's involvement. Reason for that was that David Mayo had been removed from post less than 6 months later in late August 1982. In the final end he was expelled from the organization and received his suppressive person declare on 2 Mar ’83. As he now was considered a very evil person every indication of his involvement in anything had to be removed. Some of these 6 references here have been reissued (with minor corrections), some were cancelled and another was rewritten. One of them (HCOB/PL 10 Mar 82 “Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required”), had only been stripped of the David Mayo referencing. Today it appears as if it had been written by L. Ron Hubbard, as did the other 3 that were reissued. The one's that had been cancelled indicated that they were cancelled because they were not written by L. Ron hubbard. So, how was it actually established which was actually written by L. Ron Hubbard and which not?
Various publication information about each of these 6 references can be consulted in the following chapters at “1982 1):” to “6):”. But you also find various of that data represented on my “Chronological David Mayo reference list”, see at respective issue date. Consult here (separate window).
Coincidentally March 1982 also is the exact time that the original OT Levels IV-VII were replaced with so-called NOT's (NED for OT's) Levels. See details here (separate window). This would not have been a coincidence, after all David Mayo has been indicated/identified as the author of this NOT's. He was also the person that officially announced and released them.
The strangest thing however here is that David Mayo was since that time considered the worst of evils, that he had been altering tech, and all such sort of things. Nonetheless the Grade Chart (or called Bridge) that got turned upside down during his time of reign (1978-82), while being posted as Snr C/S Int. Well, this virtually was kept just as it was (a complete overview of 1978-82 tech changes can be consulted here, separate window). It did not revert back to the status quo prior to him coming on that post. The very same goes for all these implementations in these references that were stepping up Sec Checking procedures. None of these were reverted. It was all kept as it was when he left, only signatures were changed in references, and when some references were rewritten it was giving the same message and instruction. More information about David Mayo can be consulted here (separate window).
1982 1): “Anyone who refuses a Confessional ... should be turned over to the Ethics Officer” (6 Mar 82)
In 1982 we see the release of HCOB/PL 6 Mar 82 “Confessional Tech Policies”:
“Any executive found to be discouraging or forbidding Confessionals or refusal to permit the tech to be applied or omitting the application of it ... is subject to immediate suspension from post, it to receive a Confessional and a Comm Ev* on a charge of: NON-COOPERATION WITH ENFORCING CONFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY.”
“Anyone who refuses a Confessional or who refuses to answer a reading question should be turned over to the Ethics Officer and the Guardian's Office notified then and there.”
“Confess ór have ethics action taken!”
The signature area at the end of this reference says first ‘L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER’, directly followed with the notice ‘Assisted by Senior C/S International’ and the composer initials ‘DM’ that tells us that this was David Mayo. But then per the rules as they were established in 1977 by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” (more info here, separate window), it actually means that it was written by this assistant, and so we can conclude that this reference was actually compiled and issued by David Mayo.
David Mayo however is not anymore in the organization and for that reason we find the HCO PL today in a revised form as HCOB/PL 6 Mar 82R (Revised 10 Dec 88) “Confessional Tech Policies” which says at the top “(Revised to update the section of this issue entitled ‘Reports’ and to correct the signatory.)”. Practically it meant here that the mention of “Guardian's Office” was updated with instead “Inspector General Network”. And accordingly all the indications of the contribution of David Mayo had been stripped from this reference, although he still was the person to have written it.
1982 2): “Confessionals Included in Expanded Grade 2 Processes” (7 Mar 82)
HCOB 7 Mar 82 “Confessionals Included in Expanded Grade 2 Processes” folds out:
“Scientology Level Two covers the vital survival technology of dealing with contra-survival acts of commission and omission (overts and withholds) and this includes the technology of Confessional procedure.
It is on Grade 2 processing that a pc is audited to relief from the hostilities and sufferings of life, using all of the technology which applies at that Level to achieve the result.”
“Therefore, any list of Expanded Grade 2 Processes must include:
A Joburg (HCO PL 7 Apr 61RB, Rev. 22.10.80,
JOHANNESBURG CONFESSIONAL LIST REVISED).
Any other prepared Confessional List which may be C/Sed for the case by the Case Supervisor to ensure that the pc is fully cleaned up on this lifetime overts and withholds.”
Apparently the message is, better too much Sec Checking than too little ...
I don't see really what significance this reference carries with it? Other than it being an overzealous effort. Grade II is a standard step part of the Grade Chart. It was all already accounted for. We see that it actually got cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 30 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues”. For reason that “None of these issues were written by LRH and were incorrectly issued as HCO Bulletins.”. Which notice confirms a false signature.
HCOB 7 Mar 82 “Confessionals Included in Expanded Grade 2 Processes” was written by David Mayo, indicated as ‘Assisted by Senior C/S International’, and composer initials ‘DM’.
1982 3): “SHSBC checksheet has been revised to require that SHSBC students give and receive a successful Confessional” (8 Mar 82)
HCO PL 8 Mar 82 “SHSBC - Confessionals” dictates:
“Level C, the Confessional Section of the SHSBC checksheet has been revised to require that SHSBC students give and receive a successful Confessional or they retread that section until they do.
Students and internes who have completed the above are required to successfully audit OT Preparation and/or Confessionals in the SH HGC.
Internes who audit additionally in the HGC over and above their interneship requirements and produce rave results on OT Preparation (including Confessionals) may be recommended for an 'HONORS' certificate on graduation.”
Here again an increased attention on the Sec Checking ingredient. Receiving it as well as giving it to some other person.
This was cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 21 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues”. I have not been to consult a copy of this, but all these issues cancelled by HCO Administration Letters were cancelled for reason of that “None of these issues were written by LRH” and subsequently incorrectly were issued as HCO Bulletins or HCO Policy Letters. It is assumed this being the case here as well.
HCO PL 8 Mar 82 “SHSBC - Confessionals” was written by David Mayo, indicated as ‘Assisted by Senior C/S International’, and composer initials ‘DM’.
1982 4): No-Interference Area outruled? (8 Mar 82)
- Where are HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone” & HCOB 8 Mar 82R (Revised 24 Apr 83) “same title” ?
- HCOB 23 Dec 71R (Revised 2 Oct 83) “The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced”
- HCOB 27 Mar 84 “Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved”
- HCOB 23 Dec 71RA (Re-Revised and Updated 1 Jul 85) “The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced”
- HCOB 23 Dec 71RB (Revised 2 Aug 90) “The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced”
Where are HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone” & HCOB 8 Mar 82R (Revised 24 Apr 83) “same title” ? and their authorship
“It has long been known that people do not make gains when audited over undisclosed overts and withholds and that a withhold missed in auditing can cause quite an adverse reaction.
Because it has not previously been specified whether Confessionals could be done during the Non-Interference Zone, it tended to leave the matter open to interpretation, and a common interpretation has been that one must not do any kind of Confessional or O/W pulling during the Non Interference Zone.” (from HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone”)
It should be pointed out here that a “Confessional”is in fact a “major auditing action”! This was thus not a matter left “open to interpretation” in regards to “that one must ... do” or “... not do” “any kind of Confessional ... during the Non Interference Zone”, as it implies here in this HCOB from 1982.
Mind also that if the situation would be that a person reverts to building up having these “undisclosed overts and withholds” and of such a serious nature, that this in itself would be an indication that the previous auditing levels were not actually run flat. A standard action then would be to return to those previous actions that were not run flat, and then run them actually to full end phenomena. This would be a skipped gradient so to say. Something had to have been missed on the person much earlier. You see, auditing procedures aim at relieving an individual from unpleasant past experiences and fixated behaviour. It does that through getting to the bottom and thus source of matters. If the procedures are properly carried out, he is then very unlikely to build up such things like overts and withholds again. This in principle is how these procedures are advocated. The purpose of these procedures is to get the person up in tone. A person that is high toned does not fall back easily at all into occupying him/herself with bad deeds and withholding. Thus if the person has been progressing well this should not even be a particular bother.
This 1982 HCOB continues deepening this:
“But what about a case who is out ethics and not making progress due to continuous overts and withholds or even worse, undisclosed overts or crimes against Scientology? Such a case won't make any progress until these are gotten off.”
It says “... against Scientology”? Which thus appears to be of a rather serious nature. Well, up to a certain point the person must have been progressing well. Just spot the moment that he was not doing well anymore and address that in auditing.
Including any person and on any OT-level:
“This applies to pre-OTs as well as pcs and specifically also applies to pre-OTs on OT III; on New OT IV, OT Drug RD; on New OT V, Audited NOTs; on New OT VII, Solo NOTs—the same as it applies to any other grade or OT section.”
And any “Such a case won't make any progress until these are gotten off”? Then how did they actually got to arrive on these OT levels? You see, one does not arrive there by collecting or building up that type of overts and withholds. No, they got there because such things would have been pulled already, and the person would have gotten pretty clean from them. From this follows that it would not be very likely at all for people that properly would have done the previous levels that they would suffer from such things case wise!
The 1982 HCOB is then turning to addressing it as a “gross error”:
“It is a gross error to let a pre-OT get onto an OT Section in that condition in the first place, but when that error has occurred one must not continue the error by not handling the matter.”
(from HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone”)
The revision of this reference issued one year later expressed it even stronger than that and calls it instead a “CRIME”, and adds that it should be attended to “right away”. It thus rephrases the sentence as follows: (the text in this type style was added in 1983)
“It is a CRIME to let a pre-OT get onto an OT section in that condition in the first place. And it is also a CRIME to continue the error and not remedy the matter right away.” (from HCOB 8 Mar 82R (Revised 24 Apr 83) “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone”)
I have attempted to pinpoint various illogics involved with all this. It was true enough 10 years earlier in 1971 to not interfere at all with this Non-Interference Area, so why now 10 years later in 1982? What had exactly changed since the last 10 years? Well, for one we had “The dawning of ‘Religious Technology Center’ and new management (1982-83)”, (consult here, separate window). Also we had seen a turnaround regarding the tech during the time span 1978-82 (consult here, separate window). Now, is one resorting to unusual solutions here, instead of going back and undo the tech changes?
`Now, something is rather tricky about this reference as for some reason it is not included in the ‘Technical Bulletins’ update volumes released in 1985 in USA which evidently should have included this 1983 revision, it is certainly not listed in its index.
* Be it noted here though that this was the scene as we find it in USA. Oddly enough the publication of HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone” had slipped through here in Europe. We do find a copy of it included in the HCOB compilation update volumes issued by New Era, located in Copenhagen, Denmark. Where inclusion of even its revision was omitted altogether in the USA release of these HCOB update volumes.
This coinciding with the realization that it is not either implemented in the October 1983 revision of the original 1971 ‘The No-Interference Area’ HCOB (i.e. HCOB 23 Dec 71R (Revised 2 Oct 83) “The No-Interference Area, Clarified and Re-Enforced”). Note this being issued more than 5 months later! We find however that it is implemented in its 1985 revision (RA version), but it takes its data from another reference, it says: “Re-Revised and updated 1 July 1985 to align with HCOB 27 Mar 84, C/S Series 119, STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR: SOLVED”.
This HCOB 27 Mar 84 “Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved” itself notes: “This bulletin modifies any earlier HCOBs on the subject of what can or cannot be run on Dianetic Clears.”. It proposed the very same outset as the earlier HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone”. This 1982 HCOB had an earlier date, but is nonetheless not referred to by HCOB 23 Dec 71 “The No-Interference Area” or any of its later revisions. But we see that HCOB 27 Mar 84 “Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved” actually does list HCOB 8 Mar 82R (Revised 24 Apr 83) in its list of references. So why does HCOB 23 Dec 71, which is the main reference about this, why does it not list it at all in any of its releases?
One gets the impression that HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone” was not really implemented or circulated until later. Nonetheless it was itself, so it appears, revised even on 24 Apr ’83. The obvious question to ask is: “Why had it been neglected?”.
As already explained at chapter “1982:” in this chronology, the original version of this reference was actually written by the then Snr C/S Int David Mayo. Less than 6 months later he was expelled, and everything that carried an indication of his involvement got either cancelled, revised reissued or rewritten. But this David Mayo was considered a very bad dude that was changing tech and all that. And thus it is not very logical why this proposal to interfering with the No Interference Area was not looked into more closely. Instead it is stepping up the actions.
Anyhow, it would explain why initially this HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone” had been neglected! But it does not account for why its ‘corrected’ revision was excluded as well from inclusion in this USA version of these HCOB update volumes issued in 1985.
Revision notices of HCOB 8 Mar 82R (Revised 24 Apr 83) “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone” inform us of the following: “Revised to correct the 6th paragraph, include the datum that one must first get a C/S okay, add the pertinent reference issues on page 1 and correct the signatory.”. The interesting part of these notices are the last 3 words: “correct the signatory”. In reality and in this case it means that the authorship got transferred from David Mayo onto L. Ron Hubbard, just like that. And all this without any further explanation.
Composer/typing information in the signing area of HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone” and its consequent revision from 24 April 1983 went from:
Accordingly we see one set of composer initials (‘LRH’) and a double set of typing initials (‘rm:iw’). This was issued in the beginning period of the establishment of the unit LRH Technical Research and Compilations (RTRC), although this is not yet indicated so in the signing area of this reference. The second set of typing initials say ‘iw’, which stands for Irene Woodruff, who in fact was one of the RTRC typists (or would become so shortly thereafter). Now what about the first set of typing initials, it says ‘rm’. At this time a new Senior C/S International had previously been appointed (David Mayo had been removed from this position in late August 1982), it was Ray Mithoff who acted in this capacity at least starting from late September 1982. And here we see the initials ‘rm’ appearing, an interesting coincidence. Now does Ray Mithoff function here as an overseer prior to this HCOB being actually typed out? This at least I appear to have confirmed from various persons that previously were employed in the RTRC unit. Meaning, from this time on, typing initials do not always mean typist anymore, but may also indicate overseer.
HCOB 23 Dec 71R (Revised 2 Oct 83) “The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced”
Notice to keep in mind: The original reference from 1971 that established the No Interference Area affected only the band Grade VI to OT III. Since the first revision of this reference a whole 12 years later in 1983 this band is being covered by the newly introduced categorization ‘I’ & ‘II’. Also since this year 1983 it has extended this with the band OT III and above, this is covered by ‘III’. Suddenly then in its 1985 revision this turned to be referred to as ‘Section I’, ‘Section II’ & ‘Section III’. Then since its 1990 revision it appears to have abandoned this categorization altogether.
This first revision of HCOB 23 Dec 71 “The No Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced” issued in October 1983 implemented the interference in a rather subtle manner:
“While these factors do not change the original No-Interference Area, they do give us two additional zones which flank it on either side and which are sensitive areas in themselves. Each has its own guidelines and rule concerning which services are permitted within that range.
Therefore, to handle any uncertainty anyone might have on the subject, what CAN and what CANNOT be delivered at any point within the No-Interference Zone and its two flanking areas has not been laid out very specifically here.
This is vital data that Orgs of all levels must have and duplicate well, as it is up to every unit delivering the tech to ensure that the No-Interference Area is correctly enforced.”
Later on in this reference it lays out these specifics in the part of the reference with the heading “THE NO-INTERFERENCE CHART”. It denotes 3 sections as follows:
BETWEEN CLEAR AND OT I, FOR PERSONS WHO WENT CLEAR ON NED:
A. CAN BE GIVEN:
Auditing/Solo Training: ...
A Confessional, if required, per HCOB 8 Mar 82R, CONFESSIONALS AND THE NON-INTERFERENCE ZONE, ...”
FROM R6EW TO OT III (OR FOR THOSE PERSONS WHO WENT CLEAR ON NED, FROM OT I TO OT III):
A. CAN BE GIVEN:
A Confessional, only if needed. (Per HCOB 8 Mar 82R, CONFESSIONALS AND THE NON-INTERFERENCE ZONE.”
THOSE PERSONS COMPLETED ON OT III AND/OR COMPLETE ON ANY LEVEL ABOVE OT III:
A. CAN BE GIVEN, BETWEEN ANY OT LEVELS ABOVE OT III:
A Confessional, if needed.”
It is to be noted that at “I” and “II” it is noted specifically that this was “Per HCOB 8 Mar 82R, CONFESSIONALS AND THE NON-INTERFERENCE ZONE”. To that effect however it is actually odd that this very reference is actually omitted from inclusion in the list of references found at the first page of this HCOB!
Mind that this new rule in particularly actually interferes with and alters the original rules as previously set by HCOB 23 Dec 71 “The No-Interference Area”. Rules that were in use during more than 10 years.
HCOB 27 Mar 84 “Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved”
The release of HCOB 27 Mar 84 “Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved” then made a more clear statement. In particular note the second paragraph here below:
“There is no reason to interfere with a Dianetic Clear who is progressing on that route or who is progressing on the route between OT I and OT III and doing well. They should not be interfered with by Sec Checking or anything else, really.
But where the person in this zone is moving slowly or stalled, there is a technical factor which must be known and taken in consideration”
Then allowing in such a case amongst other “Confessionals, including Sec Checking on evil purposes”, “The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes or evil intentions”, “False purpose checks” and “O/Ws”.
And later in the reference concludes rather interestingly:
“What stalls the person is lack of sec checking and discovery of any PTSness or black PR or evil purposes and the like – all of them counter-survival.”
HCOB 23 Dec 71RA (Re-Revised and Updated 1 Jul 85) “The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced”
The next revision of HCOB 23 Dec 71“The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced” issued in 1985 adds another 2 pages to it, and at this time is counting a total of 12 pages. To that effect the part of the reference that lays out its specifics is renamed “THE COMPREHENSIVE NO-INTERFERENCE CHART” (we see that it added the word COMPREHENSIVE). And indeed the list of what CAN BE GIVEN has been extended. See here below:
BETWEEN CLEAR AND NEW OT I, FOR PERSONS WHO WENT CLEAR ON NED:
A. CAN BE GIVEN:
1. Auditing/Solo Training: ...
NOTE: Clears progressing well on the above route should not be interfered with by sec checking or anything else. However, when a Clear is stalled or moving slowly, any of the actions listed below, as appropriate, can be ordered by a qualified C/S. (Ref: HCOB 27 March 1984, C/S Series 119, STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR: SOLVED.): ...
The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes or evil intentions.
False Purpose Rundown.
Black PR handling”
At “SECTION II” it lists the same. Also the “NOTE:” carries the same message: “..., when a Pre-OT in this zone is stalled or moving slowly, ...”, listing the same reference “HCOB 27 March 1984, ...”.
Also at “SECTION III” it lists the same. The NOTE however is not relisted there.
A notice however can be placed at that this referenced HCOB 27 Mar 84 “Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved” is in fact listed in the list of references found at the first page of this HCOB (HCOB 23 Dec 71RA)! Mind that with the previous version of this HCOB (HCOB 23 Dec 71R), this was omitted in regards to HCOB 8 Mar 82R “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone”!
In addition we find that in this version of the HCOB (HCOB 23 Dec 71RA), that in the text itself reference to HCOB 8 Mar 82R “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone” has been removed as well! Nonetheless even today it is still considered a valid reference. It still remains not listed even on the first page of the HCOB in its list of references. This all gives an indication of it being rather inconsistent. It is as if one doesn't want to know about that reference.
HCOB 23 Dec 71RB (Revised 2 Aug 90) “The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced”
HCOB 23 Dec 71 was revised/reissued again in 1990. This time we see that the previous 12 pages had been cut down to only 5 pages. The previous text now appears in a rearranged and summarized form. That which CAN BE GIVEN appears now as:
Pre-OTs progressing well in the No-Interference Area should not be interfered with by Sec Checking or anything else. However, when a pre-OT is stalled or moving slowly, any of the actions listed below, as appropriate, can be ordered by a qualified C/S (Ref: HCOB 27 Mar. 84, C/S Series 119, STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR: SOLVED): ...
Confessionals and O/Ws
The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes or evil intentions (False Purpose Rundown) ...
Only a bit later in this reference it refers to Clear:
“Persons who go Clear on NED and who are progressing and doing well should not be interfered with; however, when a Clear is stalled or moving slowly, and of the actions listed earlier under the ‘Exception’ section may also be given to pcs between Clear and New OT I”
Interesting here is that this new revision of this HCOB continues to make reference to HCOB 27 Mar 84 “Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved” in the text of the HCOB itself, as it did in the previous version. This was omitted for HCOB 8 Mar 82R (Revised 24 Apr 83) “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone”.
Indeed this HCOB went through various transitions. Mind however that the very first reference that started this trend, i.e. interfering with the No Interference Area, was written and likely devised by David Mayo with the release of HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone”.
Mind also that in spite of the repeated assurance that are being given in regards to that “The No-Interference Area is still the No-Interference Area, with exclamation points!” (from HCOB 23 Dec 71RB (Revised 2 Aug 90)), it is actual fact that the original No Interference Area as established in 1971 in has been interfered with! And not enough with that, the present status quo even gets violated starting during the late 80's and till this day with ‘New OT VII’ and its obligatory ‘6 months Sec Check’ (see later section).
The transitions of HCOB 23 Dec 71 “The No-Interference Area” (publication history)
The reference that established this No-Interference Area was HCOB 23 Dec 71 “The No-Interference Area”. The rules at that point in time were rather clear-cut and simple. This however significantly changed in its 1983 revision. It went from a 2-page format to a whole 10-page format. Its subsequent 1985 revision had a 12-page format. Only to have it cut down in size again in 1990 to a 5-page format. Here below I present a brief publication history of this reference. Interesting is also the change of title of the reference. It added the text: “Clarified and Re-Enforced”, although it involved an actual change in the original approach as opposed to what the original 1971 release said. Re-Enforced would indicate as if something was not in use. And indeed the new rules had not been in use, and thus it was found that attention to this needed to be given. This at least would explain the title change of the reference.
We have the following releases in sequence of release:
HCOB 23 Dec 71
“The No-Interference Area”
HCOB 23 Dec 71R
(Revised 2 Oct 83)
“The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced”
HCOB 23 Dec 71RA
(Re-Revised and Updated 1 Jul 85)
“The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced”
HCOB 23 Dec 71RB
(Revised 2 Aug 90)
“The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced”
Here below I give the revision notices that are found on the original mimeo print-off releases of these references:
♦ HCOB 23 Dec 71R (Revised 2 Oct 83):
“(This HCOB has been revised extensively to clarify and re-enforce the No-Interference Area in view of the development of the New Era Dianetics and persons going Clear on NED, the development of the NED for OTs Levels, and the many additional technical advances made in recent years. It includes specific lists of what can/cannot be delivered to Clears and OTs at any point within the No-Interference Area, immediately prior to it and following it.)”
Although this revision does not make any mention of revisions indicated “in script” or “not in script”, it appears that these are “not in script”.
♦ HCOB 23 Dec 71RA (Re-Revised and Updated 1 Jul 85):
“(Re-Revised and updated 1 July 1985 to align with HCOB Mar 84, C/S Series 119, STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR: SOLVED; and to correct typographical errors in the text.)
(Revisions not in script)”
♦ HCOB 23 Dec 71RB (Revised 2 Aug 90):
“(Revised to update the issue per later LRH materials and refinements in the Grade Chart. Revisions not in script.)”
This revision notice however does not account for nor explains the cut down to 5 pages. What happened with the other 7 pages from the previous 12-page 1985-version? It in addition fails to account for the source of these “later LRH materials ...”. Consider also that this was issued most definitely 4½ years after his passing. L. Ron Hubbard apparently has no say in what had been done here.
It is rather interesting to see the violation of previous standards: “Revisions not in script” (underlining is mine). You can't compare anything directly without first really digging into what actually had changed! In particular this should have been mandatory in the 1983-revision. The use of “Revisions not in script” was pretty much turning into a habit particularly starting during the early 80's, prior to that these were always indicated either in script or in italics. Prior to 1980 one really to go at great length to very carefully note the littlest of differences compared to earlier versions.
‘New OT VII’ and the ‘6 month check line’
It has been reported that this line had been established based on a BFO written by RTRC I/C Int. The applicable part said: “... in 1982 LRH was consulted regarding a situation with SOLO NOTS auditors at the time, to which LRH responded ‘get them in, get them cleaned up, and keep them cleaned up’. Thus, the six month check line was born ...”.
Solo NOTs Auditor Course
Solo NOTs Auditing
New OT VI
New OT VII
Minding that this Solo NOT's only turned into these named OT levels since March 1982, which is amongst other confirmed in the periodical ‘Source Special Edition’, folding insert, [Mar-Apr 82]).
This Solo NOT's (Solo NED for OT's) came into being first in December 1980. But only when it was rechristened into being called New OT VII it was thus directed that people on that level should be subjected to such checks (= confessionals) for each 6 month time period.
Obviously as a result of all that we saw the issuance of HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone” that directed:
“Because it has not previously been specified whether Confessionals could be done during the Non-Interference Zone, it tended to leave the matter open to interpretation, and a common interpretation has been that one must not do any kind of Confessional or O/W pulling during the Non Interference Zone.
But what about a case who is out ethics and not making progress due to continuous overts and withholds or even worse, undisclosed overts or crimes against Scientology? Such a case won't make any progress until these are gotten off. ...
One would not embark on a series of Confessionals during another Grade or OT Section, but it is imperative that pre-OT's on these sections who have missed withholds get them off and a specific Confessional can and should be done to accomplish this.”
But it also added a “CAUTION” notice directing:
“A pre-OT who is running well and making case gain should not be interrupted.”
One was obliged to follow up on this and one had to travel all the way to Flag (Clearwater, Fl) for receiving them. One could ask the question here though how necessary these Confessionals actually would be? What withholds would there be left to address?
But it is also here that we run into trouble because those persons on New OT VII had to submit to these Confessionals even if they were “running well and making case gain”. I have this positively confirmed that this was the case and confirmed by quite a few persons on this level that were subjected to that.
Remarkably enough HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone” also noted:
“A person who is NCG, nattery, critical or otherwise exhibiting O/Ws or out ethics must be handled so that he can make case gains. And must be continued in auditing until this is done.”
Now why would someone who is on OT VII suffer from such things? Is it not so that a person must already have had significant case gains prior to getting up to that level? NCG stands here for No Case Gain. It thus doesn't particularly make very much sense at all to claim here “so that he can make case gains”. You are assumed to be in a very good condition for having arrived on that level. This is just not your typical “NCG, nattery, critical or otherwise exhibiting O/Ws or out ethics” type case!
Another interesting notice we find in the HCOB 23 Dec 71R (Revised 2 Oct 83) “The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced” that directs:
THOSE PERSONS COMPLETED ON OT III AND/OR COMPLETE ON ANY LEVEL ABOVE OT III:
A. CAN BE GIVEN, BETWEEN ANY OT LEVELS ABOVE OT III:
A Confessional, if needed.”
It says very clearly “BETWEEN”, and should imply not while on these levels! This direction thus is being violated. This guideline actually prohibits these 6 month checks.
We are being given 2 rather clear directions here, but neither of them are particularly well followed up on. These directions also did not change in later versions of these references.
So why is any person while on New OT VII obligated to submit to those 6 month checks? What reference actually justifies that very action? Thus far none has been shown or forwarded.
The limitations of confessional procedures (culling of Overts/Withholds) outlined and acknowledged as early as 1960:
“Before I would permit you to believe that the overt-withhold mechanism was a total way of life, I would point out that it applies only to a strata of existence and that it stems from failures to help. ...
‘Love thy neighbour’, when it is no longer a willingness, is enforced by the theory of O-W. ‘Love thy neighbour’ can exist only when help, control and communication are high. When all these go, the O-W comes into vogue as a method of enforcing peace.
O-W is a theory which sets in when aberration sets in. It is not a high natural law. ...
The reason we run O-Ws is that most pcs are on O-W by Transfer, which is to say, when they kick George in the head they get a headache themselves. This makes them think they are George. We use O-W since it explains phenomena found at a low humanoid level. ...
Fortunately, it drops out, both as a governing law and necessity in life.” LRH (from HCOB 22 Dec 60 “O-W a Limited Theory”)
Now, at what level are OT VII's supposed to be at? Would they not have outgrown long since to be at some “low humanoid level”? This evidently offers a grave inconsistency!
Now, there would exist 2 possible reasons for making a grab at, what can here be referred to as, unusual solutions. See, it is breaking the set rules! One consideration could be that there is something wrong with this New OT VII itself, this seems confirmed as I have been informed that from time to time corrections on this level have been made. Another consideration could be as a means to get in guaranteed funds these every 6 months. Mind that one had to get to Flag (Clearwater, Fl) for this, and auditing at this place came with a betokening price tag. Nothing short of saying that it would cost you.
Well, and then may be we should reflect for a moment on this one:
“You can get a much better fee—I tell you as auditors quite frankly—it's... it's much easier to get a great deal of money out of somebody who's on a down spiral into becoming MEST* than it is to get money out of somebody who is going on an up spiral toward becoming theta*.”LRH (from Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture #15 “The Logics, Infinity Valued Logic”, given on 4 Dec 52)
Sound snippet (0:15)
Rather interestingly the entire above quoted paragraph had been edited from the 1991 re-release of this lecture. Either way it has been reported by various persons that the money angle could have been a factor why this line was installed. The one thing here that we know for a fact is that there are a variety of inconsistencies observed in the whole matter of these repetitive 6 month checks for those on New OT VII.
1982 5): “Eligibility for OT Levels” vs Confessionals (9 Mar 82)
HCO PL 9 Mar 82 “Eligibility for OT Levels” tells:
“When a candidate for OT Levels has passed a Confessional showing that he has ... not have any undisclosed or unhandled overts on Scientology, he or she is awarded a chit signed by the Confessional minister and the ethics officer which states that that person has ‘Eligibility for OT Levels’ and the date.
Persons returning ... for further OT Levels after an absence are to receive a Confessional before starting on their next OT Level and when the Confessional is passed a new, current ‘Eligibility for OT Levels’ chit is issued.”
And not free of charge either:
“Such Confessionals are done as part of HGC or Review service and are not a free service as there is much gain to be had from getting off O/Ws.”
But how much gains are there still to be had on the running of these same lists of question over and over again?
Nonetheless insisting on that:
“Besides, a person with undisclosed and unhandled overts on Scientology does not make case gain.”
It has been observed that persons subjected to these recurring same Confessionals that they in the end started to mock-up incidences that bear no significance. The littlest misdemeanor gets exaggerated and then registers on the E-meter. Thus you get false reads. Later of course this has to be corrected again with more auditing hours purchased. This will get you upset customers.
Adding additional opportunities for more Confessionals:
“Confessionals may also be ordered for other reasons by case supervisors and executives and ethics officers.”
The last paragraph repeats again:
“It has long been known that people do not make gains over undisclosed withholds and overts against Scientology, ...”
And let it follow with the justification:
“... the attention here is to ensure that the majority of Scientologists make the fullest possible gains.”
There sure is lot of attention on this about overts, withholds for these people on these OT levels. It means really a lot of Confessionals. The question is if this would be warranted, because of already forwarded reasons already given in the earlier chapters.
Noteworthy is that it is claimed that it all would be for benefit of the case, but is that really being the case here?
In the original version of this policy letter it had said that “When a candidate for OT Levels has passed a Confessional”. In a later revision it was now specifically referring to a particular form. It says in that revision: “The form used to establish eligibility for OT Levels is HCOB 84 I, FPRD Series 10-B, FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN ELIGIBILITY FOR OT LEVELS FORM”. But in addition noting that “The C/S would of course add any questions applicable to the particular pre-OT.” (from HCO PL 9 Mar 82RB (Revised 6 Jan 85) “Eligibility for OT Levels”).
We should have it established here though that this Eligibility (or Eligibility Check) means the very same as subjecting a person to Confessionals or more correctly Sec Checking.
HCO PL 9 Mar 82 “Eligibility for OT Levels” was written by David Mayo, indicated as ‘Assisted by Senior C/S International’, and composer initials ‘DM’. Thus far I have not been able to track copies of of either the R or the RA version of this. All I can tell is that compared to the RB revision issued 6 Jan ’85 this appears about entirely rewritten.
Can anyone help me with a copy of HCO PL 9 Mar 82R (Revised -date-) “Eligibility for OT Levels” and HCO PL 9 Mar 82RA (Revised -date-) “Eligibility for OT Levels”? Then please contact me!
1982 6): “Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required” (10 Mar 82)
HCOB/PL 10 Mar 82 “Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required” notes:
“It has recently been noticed that there was an omission on the part of ministers doing Confessionals: they were not writing reports to Ethics on matters relating to the offences of others that were revealed during a Confessional. ...”
Mind that it says “others”. This would be according to the listed reference “HCO PL 17 Jun 65 STAFF AUDITOR ADVICES” that says:
A pc is not sent to Ethics because of withholds gotten off in a session. However, on the Invalidation button one commonly finds suppressive persons around the pc and the auditor must send the pc to Ethics at session end to get the matter disconnected or handled.
Sometimes one finds another person's offences than the pc's in getting off withholds. These are reported to Ethics for investigation.” LRH
Also mind here that it says “STAFF” in the title of this referred to reference. We find it is indicated at several places in HCOB/PL 10 Mar 82 “Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required” that it is indeed directing itself only to staff. This has to be made clear here for proper understanding.
In the 2nd paragraph it then incidentally says:
“Apparently this was due to a failure to differentiate between a pc ‘getting off’ only other people's withholds and a pc revealing knowledge of another's overt or crime against Scientology, its organisations or Scientologists.”
I actually fail to recognize the significance here! I don't think that this would be so apparent! We have no indication to that effect, and none are given in this text.
Now, HCO PL 17 Jun 65 “Staff Auditor Advices” did not actually target the pc. It was only interested in handling or unburdening a particular situation. We find however that HCOB/PL 10 Mar 82 “Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required” in fact starts to raise to point a finger at that very pc, as it says in the following 3 paragraphs:
“A person who only talks about others' overts or withholds is often withholding an overt of his own or engaging in a Black PR campaign.
But a person who has knowledge of another's overts or crimes against Scientology should have made out an ethics report himself and having failed to do so, would have a withhold of knowing about another's offence and not having reported it, even it if were only suspected.
There are various reasons why a person might withhold from reporting the offences of another: similar overts or withholds of one's own; fear of consequences or retaliation from the person being reported on; not having all the facts and so only suspecting the offence and not being certain enough, are among more common reasons.”
Now the pc him/herself is being found at fault with. It is interesting here that it is shifting the focus onto that pc! It is as if a pc would be “A person who only talks about others' overts or withholds is often withholding an overt of his own or engaging in a Black PR campaign.”. I interpret this as an exaggerated suspiciousness that is lacking a solid base!
It goes on in this HCOB/PL:
“There is another side to this. Some pcs, viciously, can begin a Black PR campaign against another by ‘getting off the other's withholds’ which are false.”
Thus targeting the pc again, being referred to with “viciously”? And here we have this “Black PR campaign” appearing once again! I still don't understand where this is actually coming from! This HCOB/PL basically implies that these pcs that tell overts or withholds involving others would commonly be found to be subjected to this. Which in itself would be a false assumption. You simply need more data and confirmation that this would be the factual situation in a particular case.
The HCOB/PL is summarizing as follows:
“So the minister reporting all overts reported by the pc serves a triple purpose.
It catches crimes by others which might otherwise remain undetected.
It gets rid of withholds from the pc which he knows he should have reported and
It gives evidence of a Black PR campaign in progress against principal people of Scientology and executives.”
“A)” addresses the ‘others’; “B)” and “C)” address the pc.
And this “Black PR campaign in progress” is named here for a 3rd time. Here it goes a step further claiming as if “It gives evidence of” such a thing, and then suddenly involving “principal people of Scientology and executives”? We simply have no clear indication to that effect, and none are given! Just think about that for a moment! So, where is this coming from?
To sum this up. Now, why did the basic outset of the original HCO PL 17 Jun 65 “Staff Auditor Advices” change here? Why is the pc being targeted to this degree?
Another angle of this that we find in this HCOB/PL is this: (underlining is mine)
“Failure to make such a report can result in the pc (or staff member) being named as an accessory or at least being charged with condoning the offence.”
Which line of operation we find set forth 4 months later in HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”. This reference goes at great length to point out this being made an “accessory” to this and that. This HCO PL list 8 points that are all about that. They are in all in style of that one “becomes an ACCESSORY in any justice action taken thereafter”. You can consult these 8 points and an analysis of this HCO PL here (separate window)
As an indication to where this all is coming from we may find some answer when we regard a particular situation we had indirectly because of “The dawning of ‘Religious Technology Center’ and new management (1982-83)”, (consult here, separate window).
HCOB/PL 10 Mar 82 “Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required” was written by David Mayo, indicated as ‘Assisted by Senior C/S International’, and composer initials ‘DM’.
Reissued as HCOB/PL 10 Mar 82 (Reiss 20 Jun 86) “same title”. It notes: “(Reissued 20 June 1986 to correct a typographical error in the signatory)”. This only meant practically that it stripped the text ‘Assisted by Senior C/S International’, and composer initials ‘DM’. Text wise the reference is today unaltered in use, but now thus fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard as the author. Just like that! This treatment is though rather remarkable!
Indirectly related to this process that started with HCOB/PL 10 Mar 82 “Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required” in a sense got stepped up in HCOB/PL 7 Jan 85 “HCO Confessionals” in where “Overts disclosed in the course of Confessional done for investigatory or justice purposes (generally called ‘HCO Confessionals’) are always the subject of Knowledge Report to HCO and are actionable on the person.”. Basically meaning a thin line between that which is revealed in auditing sessions and may turn actionable on the person is getting thinner and thinner. See in chapter “1985:” in this chronology.
A matter of ‘confidentiality’
1984 1): Written confessionals (O/W write-ups) send to person's auditing folder (Mar 84)
Here we learn that confessionals that were written down in the O/W write-up format at the discretion of the Ethics section of an organization were to be routed to the person's auditing folder.
“The original of the O/W write-up must go into the person's pc* folder, regardless of whether or not any copy is additionally given to the MAA* or Ethics Officer.” (from HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write-ups”)
You can read more about this here (separate window).
One should understand here that auditing matters are of a rather different nature compared to ethics matters. Where it concerns auditing matters this is considered confidential and the auditor may not reveal any of these things that he hears in sessions. Matters that are revealed to an Ethics section in an organization can however be made actionable. As a rule these 2 identities were always kept separate for obvious reasons. Here we are thus informed that this rule is being broken. The cycle was completed in 1985 when it was ordained that reports had to be written about matters that were revealed in these so-called confessional procedures, which included FPRD confessionals. See further my article in chapter “1985:” in this chronology.
1984 2): Establishment of False Purpose Rundown (FPRD) (Jun 84)
First mention of FPRD & introduction (includes notes on Expanded Dianetics (Ex Dn))
The earliest published mention of FPRD I found in ‘The Auditor 193 (US Edition)’, [Sept 84], it said:
“Ron has recently made another incredible technical breakthrough! He has researched and developed a dynamic new auditing procedure and a mighty new Rundown coming to you soon: FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN™ auditing. And this Rundown includes new LRH breakthroughs direct from the realm of high level OT Research!”
We are further informed that:
“Right now technical personnel are in training on this rundown and its materials and will be delivering the rundown and course at ASHO VERY SOON”
‘Advance! 84’, [ca Oct-Nov 84] dedicated 2 pages for its release (quotations from HCOB 5 Jun 84 and some promo). Then we had to wait for ‘The Auditor 195 (US Edition)’, [Jan 85] that had a ‘Special Auditor Supplement’ dedicated wholly to the FPRD. It had an overview (HCOB 5 Jun 84, False Purpose Rundown Series 1 “False Purpose Rundown” quoted in full), success stories and the usual promotion. The basic idea of the FPRD was:
“Where a being has accumulated nonsurvival purposes and intentions, he will be found to be having, doing and being far below his potential. Having committed overt acts (prompted by false, nonsurvival intentions and purposes), he then restrains himself from action. Achievement, stability, certainty, respect for self, and even the thetan's innate power can seem to deteriorate or disappear altogether.
And it can be found that many of these contrasurvival purposes have been fettering the being for a VERY long time. Recent upper-level research breakthroughs have led to the development of a new rundown designed to slash straight through to the root of such false purposes and unwanted intentions and BLOW them.”
(from HCOB 5 Jun 84, False Purpose Rundown Series 1 “False Purpose Rundown”)
The marketing went for the name False Purpose Rundown. Although I am told that at the time the Evil Purpose Rundown had been considered as a possible name. However from a connotative point of view probably not very wise though and it had been abandoned. Indeed False Purpose is more neutral than Evil Purpose.
The False Purpose Rundown is usually referred to as the ‘FPRD’. The False Purpose Rundown was first introduced in 1984, although previously its principles were already in use in Expanded Dianetics (XDN). Be it noted though that this action appears not listed on the Grade Charts issued from March 1982 to 1991. The FPRD is said to have been specifically designed to detect evil purposes or evil intentions. It is also that action that in particular is in use today by those that are on that Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF).
The claim is that “this Rundown includes new LRH breakthroughs direct from the realm of high level OT Research!”. It is quite unclear to me what new breakthroughs would be found in the FPRD from high level OT research, as the basic outset is Sec Checking focusing on just what the person did to another person.
There are some discussions ongoing in so far if L. Ron Hubbard would have been responsible for its writing or not. After all it was already in use as Expanded Dianetics (XDN). To this effect the course checksheet lists the following 7 lectures, that includes all the XDN lectures:
“TAPE: 7203C02 ESTO 3, EVALUATION AND HANDLING OF PERSONNEL
TAPE: 7203C30 EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE I
TAPE: 7204C07 EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE II
TAPE: 7204C07 EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE III
TAPE: 7204C07 EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE IV
TAPE: 6110C03 THE PRIOR CONFUSION
TAPE: 6403C19 FLATTENING A PROCESS”
The bulk of the remainder of the material studied on this course are the FPRD Series references alongside with various issues from the 60's-70's.
Arguments have been made regarding it containing too many contradictions with previous used technology. The FPRD can also be noted for that it became an action that could be done at any point on the Grade Chart. XDN was done as part of your path on the Grade Chart, it was part of clearing your past in regards to things that appeared to slow down your progress. It was also fact that not everyone was required to do this step. FPRD may have turned to other purposes, separate from your path on the Grade Chart.
There is another rather significant difference with the original XDN compared with the FPRD. This is about flows. There are 4 flows: (from HCOB 4 Apr 71 “Use of Quad Dianetics”)
“F 1, FLOW ONE, something happening to self.
F 2, FLOW TWO, doing something to another.
F 3, FLOW THREE, others doing things to others.
F 0, FLOW ZERO, self doing something to self.” LRH
XDN takes evenly care of all 4 flows. The FPRD however appears to primarily focus on Flow Two. This is actually interesting, as this outset points in a particular direction. Which is Security Checking procedures.
It has been brought to my attention that the FPRD by various persons is not considered being a rundown per sé. The word rundown for this auditing action may even be considered a sort of a misnomer. It is argued that this FPRD isn't run as a level. It's a way of basically running a Sec Check. Also any Sec Check list can be run ‘FPRD style’. Basically a C/S can compile any kind of tailor made FPRD list for a preclear. After all these lists are just a collection of questions.
Remember also that the FPRD focuses on “F 2, FLOW TWO, doing something to another”. It is not an all-round action as XDN that addresses all flows.
‘Senior Security Checker’ versus ‘FPRD’
The FPRD was developed alongside with another course. Course checksheets for these were issued on the very same day:
This “Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course” was actually a prerequisite for the “Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor course”. So they came hand in hand.
‘The Auditor 195 (US Edition)’, [Jan 85] in its ‘Special Auditor Supplement’ said: “The Hubbard Senior security checker Course contains all the recently restored LRH tech on Sec Checking – the tech that delivers relief and freedom from the hostilities and sufferings of life!”. It then makes the claim: “Over two decades ago, Ron developed sec checking to a high skill. Now all this vital tech – plus all developments and discoveries on the subject since – is available on this comprehensive new checksheet.”.
To be more precise this would be dating to 1961-64. Which was the time period in where these procedures thoroughly were researched en worked upon, this by L. Ron Hubbard and others. We see however also that it was not deemed very workable, for which reason, 4 years later in 1968, these procedures in regards to security checking were abolished by a policy letter (HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”). So..., why this effort getting it all back?
Course length estimates:
“Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course”
- One week or less full time
“Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor course”
- Two weeks full time
Further annotations on the FPRD & studies
A site on the Internet forwards some interesting studies and reviews on the FPRD:
It has been figured by some that it would not have been a coincidence that this FPRD came about in 1984. This may have been due to that in the 2 foregoing years many staff and publics had been put through some ordeal or were expelled as an after-effect result because of “The dawning of ‘Religious Technology Center’ and new management (1982-83)’, consult here (separate window). These years had been very hectic and insecure days for many. It also had caused that the public lost confidence for the changes implemented in management and the new management itself. Some method was required to remove the insecurity from people, and get those back in that had been scared away. And to keep those that were still in the organization to stay by exerting a fear factor. It has been suggested that these may have been reasons why this rundown came about during exactly this time period.
1985: “Overts disclosed in ... Confessional ... are ... subject of Knowledge Report to HCO and are actionable on the person.” & “Evidence of a crime...” (“gotten off in routine auditing”) “...knowingly withheld by a pc until he is in session is actionable by HCO.” (Jan 85)
(A thin line between that which is revealed in auditing sessions and may turn actionable on the person is getting thinner and thinner)
In November 1970 we had:
“HCOs may not do Confessionals or ‘Sec Checks.’
HCO may only do Meter Checks. This consists of putting the pc on
a meter and noting down the TA, state of needle and attitude of pc. ...
Overts disclosed in sessions may not be used for justice purposes. Therefore only crimes discovered by routine investigation are actionable.” LRH (from HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”)
But since January 1985 this had turned into:
“Overts disclosed in the course of Confessional done for investigatory or justice purposes (generally called ‘HCO Confessionals’) are always the subject of Knowledge Report to HCO and are actionable on the person.” (from HCOB/PL 7 Jan 85 “HCO Confessionals”)
This actually would clash with the data that is forwarded by the earlier quoted HCO PL. In 1970 it directed that “only crimes discovered by routineinvestigation are actionable.” (thus not revealed in auditing sessions). This actually got reversed by its revision issued as HCO PL 15 Nov 70R (Revised 21 Sept 74) “HCO and Confessionals”, it is then odd that the original version was restored again as it was that which was actually included in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. It is rather confusing to have this sort of conflicting information spread about in these volumes, forcing one to locate the small liner notes found at the bottom of some references. (discussed in detail already at “1974:” in this chronology)
Now let's see what else HCOB/PL 7 Jan
85 “HCO Confessionals” is saying:
“There has evidently been some confusion among a few auditors, Sec Checkers and C/Ses as to the proper administrative handling of overts and withholds gotten off during sessions.
Overts disclosed in the course of Confessionals done for investigatory or justice purposes (generally called ‘HCO Confessionals’) are always the subject of Knowledge Reports to HCO and are actionable on the person.
Overts and withholds divulged during routine auditing may not be used as grounds for ethics actions on a preclear. This is part of the Auditor's Code and has been well known to auditors for many years.”
But then it says in the section following:
“One does not send someone to HCO for an overt or crime gotten off in routine auditing. HOWEVER, EVIDENCE OF A CRIME KNOWINGLY WITHHELD BY A PC UNTIL HE IS IN SESSION IS ACTIONABLE BY HCO. In other words, the purpose of auditing is not to provide a means for an out-ethics person to ‘avoid the Ethics Officer.’”
Now do you see where this is all going? A confession made in “routine auditing” can thus be made “ACTIONABLE BY HCO”if you find some “EVIDENCE” for it to make it stick!
It is then justified with this tale:
“Actually, the end result of ‘waiting until one is in session’ to reveal a crime is often far far worse than any ethics or justice action one might receive at the hands of HCO! I recall a person a person who knowingly withheld a serious crime he'd committed until he got an auditing session. no ethics action was taken by HCO. He was not brought to justice for it in any way. And he went straight ahead and tried to punish himself most severely. He wound up in the hospital for an operation that he need never have undergone. He promptly started administering his own punishment.”
So how are you going to determine which is which? This is largely made subject to the adjudication of the terminals involved with the confessor.
The line gets thinner and thinner:
“HCO Confessional actions can include running a False Purpose Rundown form or other related rundowns that address O/Ws and nonsurvival intentions.”
Nonetheless we are reassured:
“The fact that a Sec Check or False Purpose RD form is being done as an HCO Confessional does not mean that the procedure is changed. The auditor's procedure is the same. But the overts are reported to Ethics for handling and are actionable. It should be clearly marked on the Knowledge Report that it is from an HCO Confessional action.”
“I depend on auditors, C/Ses and HCOs to intelligently and effectively apply the data in this HCO PL to assist the pc in keeping his hands clean and his case advancing.”
As it was in 1970:
Thus neither Tech nor Qual should assist investigations but should work on the case against proper C/Ses to get off the overts and withholds for the case benefit.” LRH (from HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”)
Alright, now the question is if we can still rely on that?
Obviously tremendous risks are involved if you make this line this thin as has been done. The point is that if someone wants bad, all you got to do is scan through these session folders, find something you can use, arrange some evidence (after all you already know what to look for!) or just claim that you have evidence, and then go ahead. With this is does not appear that any confessions made in any sort of auditing (routine nor HCO confessional) would be safe!
“I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.” LRH (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)
Obviously this is all a long, long way from:
“Overts disclosed in sessions may not be used for justice purposes. Therefore only crimes discovered by routine investigation are actionable.” LRH (from HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”)
Further related information concerning the use of confessional data can also be found in my article “(6) HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports” vs acquiring information about people & control”, click here (separate window). See in particular the sections “A note about HCO PL 2 March 84 ‘O/W Write-ups’” & “Today's reality”.
Finding the criminal vs Case benefit for the individual
Matters indeed have been stepping up in regards to its application. Today within the Church of Scientology this phenomena of Security Checking and Confessionals has permeated to virtually every corner. It is pretty much all on demand as well.
Well, we have this piece of information here. Or rather, we used to have this piece of information, as the reference that shared it has been retracted (cancelled). It says:
“THE E-METER AND THE CRIMINAL
The joker in all this is that the E-Meter reads on Reality.
So you can have a guy who reads on none of your questions, but you find out the next day he had done exactly what you asked him. Yet it didn't read! A real criminal just doesn't read on having killed his grandmother in cold blood five minutes before the Confessional. Even if he admits it it doesn't read! ...
You have to handle it on a gradient of reality. ‘Why wasn't that an overt?’ is one way you could try. He would at first be very surprised at the very thought of it being an overt. But you could get a stream of justifications off.” LRH
(from HCOB/PL 30 Jul 70 “The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals”)
Regarding this, now what good would it do go around and occupy so much attention on getting everyone to confess everything all the time? It wouldn't do any good in regards finding the real culprit anyway, now would it?
And do you remember this one?:
Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the
‘security’ furnished is often a false security.” LRH
(from HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”)
That reference was gone too (cancelled in 1974).
Now, the other angle here would be to ask why those persons that have progressed onto these so-called OT levels. Regarding these wouldn't one think that they should be pretty clean by now? See, if you eradicate the reasons and the motivators of people doing bad things and building up a bad conscience then how much of that would a person on that level still contract? There are some rather apparent illogics present here. With regard to this data, why would anyone reinstate these practices? There are basically only 2 options here, it is either (1) that the technology was not considered really working or that effective (for some unclear reason); and/or (2) that someone just wants to control. Although there are some further ramifications to this, it basically comes down to these options.
Do you remember these ones?:
Security checking is often done without regard to the point where the person feels better and so became overrun.
Security checking is often done in disregard of the state of a person's case.” LRH
(from HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”)
Auditing or processing for case benefit is therefore something very different from Sec Checking. In addition if you run Sec Check type actions all the time you are sure to overrun the person as well which will make him rather upset. None of this is in favour of the benefit of the case or individual.
Put this all together with HCO PL 6 Mar 82 “Confessional Tech Policies” that directs that “Anyone who refuses a Confessional ... should be turned over to the Ethics Officer”. Then with HCOB/PL 7 Jan 85 “HCO Confessionals” you can make them “actionable on the person”. Now you really got something going there!
Publication history of HCOB/PL 30 Jul 70 “The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals” - A satire
The publication history of this HCOB/PL 30 Jul 70 “The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals”, that is quoted in the previous section here above, is also a tale worth telling. Originally issued as both an HCO PL and HCOB under the same date. Both of these were reissued as BPL and BTB for reason that it was not an original release by the hand of L. Ron Hubbard. The original HCO PL and HCOB indicated at the beginning: “Compiled from a briefing to 3rd Mate and 4th Mate Flag given by L. RON HUBBARD.”. And in the signature area it notes: “Written into published form by 4th Mate Flag”.
The HCO PL release history goes thus as follows:
HCO PL 30 Jul 70
“The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals”
BPL 30 Jul 70R (Revised 25 Jul 75)
And here it ends, I have been unable to find any cancellation information on the BPL release. But all BPL's were considered void in 1980, and so this has not been in use nor available for quite some time now.
The HCOB release history gives the following:
HCOB 30 Jul 70
“The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals”
BTB 30 Jul 70R (6 Mar 77)
HCOB 30 Jul 70 (Reissued 6 Jun 84)
This reissue of 1984 is more than interesting as it gives some well worth knowing release notes about the reference. Please do note that it is all written in the ‘I’ person (=L. Ron Hubbard). It reads:
“This HCOB was written up from a briefing I gave on Flag in July 1970. It was originally issued as an HCOB but others reissued it as a Board Technical Bulletin on 6 March 1977. Relegating it to ‘BTB’ status caused the data to be dropped out of wide use. I have reviewed this and it is an accurate compilation of my original briefing and is hereby reissued in its original form as an HCOB.”
A person signing with L. Ron Hubbard thus confirms its authenticity and validity. So far all is well. But we are not done yet here. Only 4 years later in 1988 the next step follows, which is that it gets cancelled by the following reference:
Which could be taken as a sort of notorious irony as this cancelling reference is actually a Confessional Form that is subjecting a person to a total of 113 questions of a typical Sec Check type nature. And the data from that original reference HCOB/PL 30 Jul 70 “The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals”? Well, that data is past and gone forever. Or is it? At least it does look like that someone does not want it around.
..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. ASHO:
‘American Saint Hill Organization’. A higher level Scientology organization residing in Los Angeles. 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. 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 PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's 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 HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked. Clear: 1. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16) 2. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111) C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’. 1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R) 2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.”He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545) C/S:
A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc. (HCOB 23 Aug 71) Comm Ev:
‘Committee of Evidence’. A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 28) Earlier Similar (E/S):
Whenever an auditor gets a read on an item from rudiments or a prepared list it must be carried to an F/N. If you know bank structure you know it is necessary to find an earlier item if something does not release. What has been found as a read on a prepared list would F/N if it were the basic lock. So if it doesn't F/N, then there is an earlier (or an earlier or an earlier) lock which is preventing it from F/Ning. (HCOB 14 Mar 71R) 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) FPRD:
‘False Purpose Rundown’. A specific auditing action aiming at disclosing hidden ‘false purposes’ of which the person him or herself is not aware of, but is undermining this person's own survival in various ways. The FPRD is basically an extension of Expanded Dianetics. Grade Chart or Gradation Chart:
Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. On the right side of the chart there are various steps called the states of release. The left-hand side of the chart describes the very important steps of training on which one gains the knowledge and abilities necessary to deliver the grades of release to another. It is a guide for the individual from the point where he first becomes dimly aware of a Scientologist or Scientology and shows him how and where he should move up in order to make it. (The Auditor 107 ASHO) HCO (Division):
‘Hubbard Communications Office’. It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications. 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). HGC:
‘Hubbard Guidance Center’. The department of the technical division of a Scientology organization which sets you up for and delivers auditing. LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. MAA:
‘Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in the Sea Organization (senior Scientology organization). See further at ‘Ethics Officer’. MEST:
A coined word, meaning matter, energy, space and time, the physical universe. All physical phenomena may be considered as energy operating in space and time. The movement of matter or energy in time is the measure of space. All things are mest except theta. Operating Thetan (OT): 1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08) 2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09) 3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10) ‘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). original mimeo print-off: Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window). OT:
Short for ‘Operating Thetan’. See at that entry in vocabulary. 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-withhold mechanism: ‘overt-motivator sequence’: 1. If a fellow does an overt, he will then believe he's got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator. (Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress, Lecture #2, 6012C31) 2. The sequence wherein someone who has committed an overt has to claim the existence of motivators, the motivators are then likely to be used to justify further overt acts. (The Phoenix Lectures glossary) O/W:
Short for ‘Overt/Withhold’. See at ‘overt-withhold mechanism’ in vocabulary. O/W Write-up:
‘Overt/Withhold Write-up’. Basically writing down overt acts and withholds in a particular format on a piece of paper that is then forwarded to the Ethics section of a Scientology organization. It's purpose is to relieve the conscience of the person, and make him feel better. It is also a standard practice to be done prior to receiving auditing, as one is told that it will save the person costly auditing hours. pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary. PR:
Short for ‘Public Relations’. preclear (pc): 1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20) 2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69) 3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62) PTS, PTSness:
‘potential trouble source’. 1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08) 2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I) 3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68) R6: ‘Routine 6’. It means the exact processes and aspects of case handled at Level VI of Scientology (BTB 12 Apr 72R) R6EW: ‘Routine 6 End Words’. When the pc has taken the locks off the reactive mind itself, using R6EW, he attains Fourth Stage Release. (HCOB 30 Aug 65) [Grade VI Release]. reactive mind: 1. 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. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11) 3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58) Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor. Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’. SHSBC:
‘Saint Hill Special Briefing Course’. See at that entry in vocabulary. theta:
Thought, life force, the spirit or the soul. thetan: 1. The living unit we call, in Scientology, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scientology to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Ability Magazine 1)2. The person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Auditor 25 UK) Withholds, W/Hs:
Something a person did that he isn't talking about. Basically, it is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival. (from Marriage Hats booklet) XDN or Ex Dn:
Short for ‘Expanded Dianetics’. See at that entry in vocabulary.