This is 2 August, 1970. A short briefing to Guardian’s Office Technical Personnel. All right. Now, even though it will be reissued, it will not be changed in text. There’ll be a few little things added in here, smoothed out. But that’s some time in the future.

That’s HCO Policy Letter of March 7, 1965. Now, this is your bible. And particularly your bible is the Section 3 on page 2, under Crimes. Now we’re getting into the Guardian’s Office. See? And to give you some idea of what all this is about, not bringing a preclear up through the grades, but overwhelming the preclear with high levels. Where it sat, in 1965. Now, nobody ever enforced this. And when they did bring them up through the grades, why, they just hasted it up, don’t you see?

Now, if anybody paid very much attention to this, why, they would have had something to go on. Now, where you get usages, there will be some expansion of this, but this is nevertheless... it talks about legal aspects of Technology. Now, when you get into this zone and area, you’ll find all kinds of wild things are going on, condoning a suppression of the word “Scientology” and its use and practice: there’s one going in the United States right now. That’s that Horner Group, with repointing and so forth. You get quite a bit of that. But here we’re a bunch of things which foresaw, and was using background material of... Ethics aspects.

Now, what has happened at Saint Hill wasn’t in here, because I never dreamed of it. But it will go in here, on a rewrite of this. By a system of saying “It’s all old, and we don’t use that any more”, they knocked out the whole of the Saint Hill course. Then we started to make, quote, “Eights” who had never been Sixes. So, actually, I was given too much in this direction about wins and that sort of thing, and so on, and I hadn’t actually caught up with the degree that this had gone out for about a year and a half or so. I was trying to find out who knocked out the Laws of Listing and Nulling. Because they were obviously missing.

Well, I kept investigating this. We eventually found it out. It was Horner Group, with repointing who took it off the course. But what I didn’t investigate, and didn’t find out, until the Spring of ’70, was that they had thrown the whole subject away. Now one couldn’t have possibly imagined anything this broad. And when I say something will be changed about this, it’ll just be in that direction – just adding what we’ve experienced since.

Which is quite remarkable. So actually, Saint Hill at this moment is guilty of not teaching a full – and maybe it’s been remedied – not teaching a full course. See? London isn’t even running an academy, or wasn’t. And the errors which are going on now are in the errors of instruction.

Now you haven’t too much been studying instruction, but if you’ve got your HGG two-way comm on the use of students, pushing them on through, the second we started we removed all punishment on students, and the second we started using two-way comm on every student that bogged, then in one or two or three very difficult students, the learning drills of the late ‘50s, which Brian Livingston has down there – that’s on very difficult students, that’s not an ordinary action – why, he’s brought some through that way – we’ve had a high attendance. We’ve had high attendance, and high points, here on the ship. And we learned that you cannot force people into study, you cannot discipline them during study, and you have to handle the whole thing with two-way comm, and that way you don’t lose students.

The main problem which you have right now is blown students. And the main omissions are, I can assure you from long experience, just these: inadequate or no materials, no supervisor, courses not starting on time, supervisor double- or triple-hatted, no administrator for a large course, no attention paid to the student, and two-way comm not used to straighten out his difficulties, and harsh ethics or duress being applied rather than do one’s job.

And I think you will find that that is a fairly complete list. Now, you notice each one of those are gross. On Saint Hill there was this additional one: they threw the whole subject away. The whole subject. Now I earlier caught up with this, that they weren’t using Dianetics to cure guys that had bruises and illnesses and so forth... they just weren’t using Dianetics, that was all. And I caught up with that, and in 1969 I got some old Dianetic auditors who were bored and we worked out a highly standard Dianetics course, and we got this whizzing, and then of course in 1970 in looking for the causes of downstats I tripped over this one where the subject itself, Scientology, had more or less disappeared.

So we’re getting that back in. Now, you’re going back at a time when Full Grades are back in. And you’re going to run into all kinds of randomity, and all kinds of legal questions, legal Eagle, you know, like what is and what is, and shouldn’t you run this before you run that, and doesn’t it go this way instead of that way, and is it true that this belongs to that level or this level, and all of that. Because that has not been well covered. We had to throw this together in a hurry.

As a matter of fact, a Qual auditor on the ship went down and culled the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course for processes in an awful hurry, in order to put together the processes of the level. And we did a 40-page HCOB of processes of the level which was genned up, and some of them turned into triples and so forth – but there are more processes for the level. We had not exhausted all the processes of the level, but where we’ve got them, they’re pretty well placed.

Now, we’re so bad – well, it was very corny, actually – we had a guy here, of all places – what shame – who had a constant hidden standard, and he was so ignorant of the subject that he used to say “I don’t have a hidden standard. They say I’ve got a hidden standard. I just don’t – won’t – believe that Scientology works until it handles this somatic.” (laughs.)

There were two or three of them around like this, and they give you the exact definition, don’t you see? Well now, this guy had been put through almost everything and anything you could shake a stick at, see? He’d been put through the lot, and it just hadn’t occurred to anybody just to use the technology that applies to hidden standards. And we brought him through the woods. Actually, he hasn’t totally found out about it yet, but we brought him through the woods. He hasn’t had that somatic any more, anyhow.

So this has landed us in the interesting position of practically anybody who has entered Scientology since ’67 – ’66 or ’67, mostly ’67 on up – have never had their lower grades. So of course they’re walking around with hidden standards, with chronic problems, with this, with that, with the other thing, and they haven’t been made into the people that Scientology can make them into.

So discarding of the subject also then discarded a high quality of staff member that we used to have. So you have the difficulty now, of working with the staff member, in a majority, who has never had his lower grades, who doesn’t know Scientology exists really, and if anybody goes above Grade One, without having Grade One put in, you have exactly the same number of suppressives that you have on the street. Because it’s Grade One that unmakes a suppressive. The problem. Of course. The guy’s being audited with a problem, he gets no change. If he gets no change, that’s the definition of a suppressive. You see what I mean. Well, so all you would have to do to remedy the Ethics situation is under Cases and Morale. The Cases and Morale PL, which was issued in late July, and that will hold the fort, to some degree, in orgs, and if that same thing is applied to the public, it will also hold the fort. If you just make it a rule that people don’t walk out of the org unless they’re F/N VGIs at the Examiner, why, you’ll straighten the public out too. And meanwhile, get in the lower grades. And it’s always one of these hellish things where you’re catching up several years of work. Now they’ve hurt the reputation of Scientology in the field, and messed us up, and it hasn’t done the Guardian’s Office any good to have this much bum Scientology around – undone, I might say – and therefore some policy with regard to this is needful.

Now, I can get a Policy Letter to back that up, but your concern in the Guardian’s Office is of course external. Now if this has gone one internally in orgs, why, the pcs that are in orgs, that is to say on staff, their reality isn’t all that good. You’ve got people trained up to Eight who have never been Sixes, and it’s one of these jolly old balled-up technical messes. Now, it is... look at the Ideal Scene: the Ideal Scene would be all these cats knew what they were doing. Well, in view of the fact they don’t, you have to make a bit of make-do. Therefore you have to make retread rather inexpensive – retread of the SH course, don’t you see, retread of Academy courses on the new checksheet – popularise that.

But these are internal actions. Now your problem is actually: how are you going to now handle the public effect of all of this neglect? And the best way to do that is to check the downward spiral of lost tech and get it done internally just as a usual action. But the Guardian’s Office is mainly interested in external. So a person, when he walks out – really just before he walks in – and just as he walks out the door of the org, would of course be Guardian tech property.

Now that means that your concentration will be on ARC break registry programmes, and seeing that an adequacy of promotion is done to continue to inform people that they should come in and get their full expanded lower grades. You’ll probably be at that for the next year or two. It’s one of these long, continuing programmes. Now, if that type of programming is done, and that promotion is kept in – I know it sounds like a Division 6 action. It isn’t, see – why, you’ll cut down the field enturbulances and difficulties.

Do you see? That will be cut down so they don’t accumulate further than they have gone. And then your ARC break registry is of course the hot one. You know that that’s detected from accounts and detected from refunds and detected from various other sectors. And if you, and all Guardian’s Office technical staff, rode down on that very hard, why, you would find yourself in very... you’d fine yourself winning.

Now a blown student, as found by Craig Beeny out in the US, a blown student, that is a serious thing. What the hell do you mean, a blown student? It’s almost impossible to blow a student. You’d have to never run the course, or never give him his materials, or come down on him with heavy this and that, never appear for this and that, have him go or schedule him unreally.

Now, we might have blown a lot of students, just guessing, by making them come five nights a week instead of two nights a week and so on. Or in that sort of case, why, you’d handle them on an individual basis. But they had the whole grade slowed down on a two night a week Dianetics course. What the hell were they doing? Now, that could have hurt them, but I haven’t heard that it did. We don’t know the answer to this. Now this once more, because it has such a heavy effect upon the public. Now you get how this emphasis is. Because it has such a heavy emphasis on the public, it becomes an interest zone to the Guardian’s Office.

Now whereas you might find this was the case, and you might even find why, and you should yelp to straighten it out in the orgs for sure, but that actually goes on a different network. That actually swings back to a management network, stationship, Sea Org, and that sort of thing to straighten it out in the org. As long as we’re advised... as long as we’re advised as to what goes on, you see, you have your own authority, you could go in and tell them to do this and that and the other thing, it’s perfectly all right, there’s nothing wrong with that, but your main concern are those blown students.

Now, because that will just go on and on and on, with more and more and more blown students, unless it were handled, you have interest in why students are blowing because you can’t, in fact, return them to a course that is still sour. But your concern would be with the blown student. Now, the org will always ride with the new student, and try to patch it up. See? Patch up the course now. So they don’t blow further students. The truth of the matter is they’re not going to pay much attention to the students who have blown. Do you follow?

Now, there’s where you can catch it up. And then catch that up, and you’ll also catch up somebody who is upset, and so on... well there are ways and means that this can be handled. It is such a heavy, large problem at this particular moment that I can’t give you any fast remedy how a few Guardian’s Office personnel can remedy several thousand, maybe tens of thousands, of blown students and preclears and that sort of thing, but you have to make some service available ordinarily, and it’s really the org’s problem, so what you should do is force in the lines very very heavily in terms of the old ARC break registrar caper, see? Make them do the work. You spot them, you make the org do the work, see?

Now, for instance, I spotted William Burroughs, and I got somebody to go see him, and he was already straightened out to some degree, cooled off, but they pulled his ARC break, and that was fine, but I don’t think they ever finished up the job. I don’t think they even finished up the job slightly. Because Burroughs was being audited in a period when Scientology tech wasn’t even being used. So the thoroughness with which a celebrity is cleaned up would be of interest to you, so that all of these ARC break registry actions should be done by an org to clean up its area, and every blasted one of those sessions or notes concerning an action, even getting a student back, should, by routing, come straight into the hands of Guardian tech.

In other words, you’ve got several technical pieces of paper which ought to come into your hands. Which is lists of blown people, lists of ARC breaks in areas, lists of celebrities policed up to make sure they’re still in good shape, and all of the sessions run to patch them up, including a two-way comm session with a blown student. Those pieces of paper ought to come back through your hands.

Now, with those pieces of paper, with those pieces of paper now, you have an opportunity to catch a lot more crime, because in the two-way comm what happens will be in the text. And a lot of policing that we do here on Flag and so on comes through in this fashion. We maybe don’t get the folder where we find a case that is bunged up and fallen on his head. And then we use two-way comm sessions to find out where, when and so on, and before we get through, we have the story. This is what’s known as detection through worksheets.

Now, there’s a word of warning on this. Just because a pc said so in session, does not necessarily make it a fact. And the more guys you jump on when you have only session evidence, the sorrier you will be. See? So you’re not in the business of slaughtering auditors particularly, but you are in the business of putting them right. So I would invent another piece of admin here, and this piece of admin would be a did you.

Now you can write up a mild, and I emphasise mild, interrogatory, and where you only have slender evidence with regard to something, which is two-way comm, a two-way comm session, and he says “Jojo the dog-faced boy knocked him over the head with a club...” and so forth, and did this, that and the other thing – without exposing your source to danger... That is another point: these pcs are sources, although I will sometimes give a PC, because it isn’t all that desperate, you want an interrogatory which says “Could you please give us the background data and the facts concerning certain sessions that you were running at such-and-such a date and time, and in these sessions did so-and-so occur?” And leave a blank there to write in, the so-and-so that did occur, and let him have the benefit of his side of the story.

For instance, we had one pc here, who was actually one of our top auditors who was being slammed around by this pc, who said the pc was doing wild things and so forth, and the truth of it is not so. I noticed that all that happened there is I think his frequency of... I think that auditor wouldn’t audit him any more, I think that’s all that happened in that. You don’t punish the pc, of course, for telling you a fancy tale. But where you cannot get the folder, and you only use two-way comm, I again advise you to be very very cautious, and not accusative.

Now when you have the folder of the pc, and a Folder Error Summary can be made of the thing, and these things are very time-consuming, and I developed the habit of drama-ing on to interns – I’d put it in the line-up that an intern is assigned for a short period of time to the Guardian’s Office under training and get him to do Folder Error Summaries.

And where you’ve got a folder, and you get an error summary in this folder, why, you’ll very often find a lot of balderdash. And where it has resulted in a public upset of any kind whatsoever, you are particularly interested in it. And then you want to call names. And at that, the best you do on such a thing is you require the fellow to get a retread in the near future, and which arrangements can be made in order to do this.

And he says yah yah yah, I don’t need any retread, you’ve been very nice about the whole thing, and so forth, I want to call to your attention that under Crimes, on HCO Policy Letter 7 March, and so on, you can suspend certificates. And it’s only under a High Crime that certificates can be cancelled.

But this, of course, requires something that is very unpopular, which is a Comm-Ev. And you could even put out an interrogatory which, after the person has said yow yow yow, your next piece of administration on the thing would be “Would it be convenient for you to attend a Comm-Ev regarding your certificates, such-and-such and so-and-so?” But that’s only after somebody’s given you a hard time. I would normally try to persuade the man to get a retread, and the more auditors you can persuade to come in for a retread that have been trained in the last three years, the better off we’re going to be. Of course, you know you can hold a Comm-Ev if a guy out there refuses to attend.

Now that means that the whole roster of Saint Hill graduates from about 1965 on, or course attendees or course enrolments, and all other enrolments in academies which have been teaching subnormal courses, are naturally potential Guardian’s Office territory. And one of your administrative actions should be to collect those enrolments. You’ll probably find out they’re difficult to get, but very often they can be culled out of invoices if they have not kept their roll books up to date.

And then you want to get a broad mailing out, and not to give the org a black eye or something like that, you get a broad mailing out on such a thing that retreading on expanded lower grades is the stuff, and you send them a blank of intention. And they say they intend to get a retread, and a retrain, and this particularly applies to Academy in Saint Hill students, and they intend to get a retread or a retrain on this so they’ll be qualified for expanded lower grades. And you can just invent this offhand, you see, that somebody has to be qualified to run expanded lower grades. You don’t have to say that he does have to be, but you can infer it. And... because they aren’t qualified to run expanded lower grades, don’t you see?

So the net gain of all of this is that you would then have those full rosters and you would clean up the field, and there’s an awful lot of cats out in the field right now who not having been taught how to audit, can't audit, and aren’t auditing. And now after they haven’t sent you in an intention, you see, if you’ve got a card file of this sort of thing, why, you can mark it down that this guy has given an intention depending on “All right, let’s mark it up” – why, you’ve got some guys left who aren’t intending to do anything, and you’ve got some guys who didn’t answer you at all, and then you want to put some pressure on that particular line, of whatever kind of pressure you find it expedient to take at that time.

In this way, you will have an opportunity to clean up all of this background of this mob of auditors, particularly in the last three years, and probably growingly in the last five, who can’t audit, at Six, and you can clean that up. Some such programmes, programmes of this particular type, will bring you out in the open. And if you’re carrying out programmes of that administrative nature, rather than programmes of particularity, Maisie-Ann Blutz’s folder... actually, you know, I sit here and look at some of these folders that have come in in recent times and so on, and my hair stands on end. The last one that came across my desk, it’s just the last one that came across my desk, the guy had a GF 40 assessed which was totally live – you just don’t leave it with it reading all over the place – and he came and reported to the Examiner immediately afterwards that he had a headache! So the C/S was written to give him his Power.

Now this happened a very short time ago. So somebody really, really was flubbing it even though he’s had Eight training and everything else... he’s really goofing it. Now the AOs, the AOs have a programme, or should have a programme of retreading Eights, but you see, an Eight who was never a Six is going to fall on his head anyhow. And that’s what’s the matter with these Eights. I finally traced this down, and it was of interest to trace it down. What the hell was going on here?

Well, I remedied it to the degree that I forced Eights finally to get their Dianetics course so they could audit Dianetics, and you know, there’s been a hell of a technical breakthrough: we have found out that a guy who can’t audit Dianetics can't audit Scientology. But the complexities of Scientology mask the fact that he can’t audit. Now, if we can get a guy to audit Dianetics, we can then teach him to audit Scientology. So we try to make it a prerequisite. But we’re not going to make it a prerequisite for a while. We’re not going to tough it up all that way.

We’ll make it a prerequisite to the Saint Hill Course, we’ll make it a prerequisite to Eight courses, but we won’t make it a prerequisite to Academy courses, that he have a Dianetics course first. Because if they teach a lousy Dianetics course, don’t you see, then he’ll never get any training, and they actually will eventually go and study how to be a Dianetics auditor if you’ve made him into some kind of a Scientology auditor. So it’s actually a better academy level to enroll in. And of course the stress right now is on enrolling auditors.

So if you work on programmes, whatever they are, or whatever you evolve, which handle the blown student, and then make sure that the same faults won’t go and blow them again, and some are persuaded to retread, or finish their course, and if you handle the... you have programmes which locate and straighten out the PCs where they need it, without making a huge hue and cry about the fact that their auditing’s no good, you know that that’s not true either, and then if you ensure that all of the auditors who have been trained during this slack period are retreaded, why, you’ve got the programmes, from my point of view that the Guardian’s Office should be working on at this particular time.

And if your administrative lines, as I gave them to you before, are in, and you’ve got the data with which to work, why, you’re all set. I would try to prevent people from setting you up as a Czar in a technical line, “Well, should we...?” and so forth, I’ve given them “Oh my God...” (laughs...)

“Really, should we, should we actually finish our Dianetics before we go on with this, and what is your opinion of this particular preclear?”, or something and something and something, your think should go immediately into the quality of training that this person has had, just as a public protection. The Guardian’s Office is basically a public area action, and there isn’t anyone now taking care of that sphere of technology.

Now you will probably get technical applications of Scientology in other lines of country. They will probably also wander in to you. God knows there’s enough of them. But I would tend to farm those out to FSMs. If you’ve got, for instance, “How are we going to handle retarded children in England?”, that will of course roll straight into your lap in the field of tech, right?

Well, you’re putting your best foot forward if you give them this kind of an answer: “We will appoint a committee of Scientologists who, in company with a doctor or two, will survey this field.” And use your FM public technique which is so effective in Guardian lines. Let them go ahead and do something about it. Give them some regularization in the Guardian’s Office. Pay some attention to what they’ve worked out. That’s how you should handle it. You shouldn’t be passing out an “Ah Yes”, or “No” or upside down or otherwise – it’s the committee, and these guys will probably turn up with some good stuff.

Now maybe there are some other zones and areas which you will not... which I haven’t covered, and I imagine that... I can only think of one of them, and that is the safeguard of the technology which is done on Guardian’s personnel. And I would make it a High Crime or something like that to misaudit Guardian personnel. When I hear one of those squirreled up one way or the other, and so on, I would make it my business just the protection of Guardian personnel.

Otherwise, I think that’s about the zone and area which from my point of view would best be served by Guardian tech. Are there any questions?

Audience: One thing I have views about is that you have pointed out, this is that we must not get involved with particularities. In other words, it’s always... you know, this is what up to a little extent in Craig Beeny’s reports, this is what he’s been getting involved into. People are writing him from all over the United States, “Well, in the expanded grades, what about this process? And should this process...” and so on. You see, so they’re using him for technical advice, which is not...

LRH: ... which is deadly.

Audience: Which is deadly. Right.

LRH: The thing to do with that query, anytime you get that query, I can give you its proper routing: it is to ACS 5, or Flag. Just get rid of those, or find out who hasn’t got his head screwed on right... who doesn’t really properly belong in your zone.

Audience: Right.

LRH: This is not a public action.

Audience: No. [inaudible] ...the celebrity who might be messed up or who might be [inaudible] and not handled. Also, another thing: that we do get on our lines, and this is... and we have to watch this. It’s like sometimes these government people, like even an MP, comes in to be audited... and that sort of auditing really should be done under close supervision...

LRH: Well, you’d call it VIP auditing.

Audience: VIP auditing, right.

LRH: VIP celebrity auditing. Add that to it... Your motto should be also that you’re not so much interested in taking away anybody’s certificates, you’re interested in helping them do the tech better. You’ll find out you’ll get a lot of co-operation of that as a policy statement.

Audience: Oh, Yes.

LRH: Okay? All right. Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you very much.