Alteration of Scientology Materials Report

Alter-is of LRH Materials in Published Church Materials
Misapplication of Scientology Materials

Introduction to Scientology Ethics Book

Life Orientation Course Materials

Division 6 Course

Researched & Written by

Gene Zimmer

Clearwater, FL 33763


The situation described in this report is especially significant because Scientology public and staff in orgs and missions all across the world are using an incorrect definition of the Second Dynamic as a basis for various Scientology methods and processes.

When a basic definition is changed, such as the “second dynamic” in this case, then what any PC or student is “doing” with their mind changes when the process is now ”applied” with a different understanding of basic terms. Exchange by Dynamics does not result in the same “process” if one uses “creativity” as the definition of the Second Dynamic instead of “sex and family”. In fact, WHAT the person will be “doing” will change as the definition changes. The results are different. The EP cannot be the same because the person is “doing” something different. This is true for anything done using Scientology where a correct understanding of the “second dynamic” is required.

MAA’s have been steering public and staff to use the “new” definition of the 2D.

There is no minor thing and anyone in charge of the application of Scientology processes in any org should be concerned about what is happening under their jurisdiction. Please read on. This is a KSW violation of severe magnitude.


Section One

The quote below is taken from the most recent printing of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. This quote also appears in the LOC pack, and in a basic course pack (the name of which I do not recall). Apparently it is also appearing now in other publications.

Please read the paragraph below. Ask yourself if it makes sense, and if it aligns with the rest of extant LRH data in the related areas.

The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family unit. It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.

Break it down into sentences and consider each of them.


Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity.

The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family unit.

It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.

Ask how each line can be that way, and ask how each line could not be that way. Pull out the Data Series and apply the various ideas to these statements. Compare these statements with all other extant LRH references on the second dynamic and creativity.

If you notice or realize that the first two sentences are totally false, that the last two alter the pure meaning of the second dynamic, and shouldn’t exist in print as legitimate LRH materials, close this report, because there is no need to read any further. Then take immediate actions to get the false data canceled and the books reprinted with correct LRH data.

If you somehow think, consider, maintain, believe or remain convinced that the above sentences “make sense” in any way, and are consistent with all other LRH data on the second dynamic, then please continue reading the report.


Non-Contradictory Definitions of The Second Dynamic

The definitions given here are taken from LRH books and issues. I have recently re-read over 15 LRH books. I also sat down with all the OEC, Management and Technical Volumes, Tech Dictionary, Admin Dictionary, What Is Scientology, and the Volunteer Ministers Handbook. I have searched and read every index listing for “second dynamic”, “dynamic”, “sex”, “family”, “procreation”, “create”, “creativity”, and “creation”. A sampling is given below of definitions from many different sources that consistently define the second dynamic as sex, family and/or the continuance of the race.

There were NO definitions found in any reference that define it as given in the LOC pack and new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. In fact, there was not one reference even remotely close.

There are a few non-definition type cases where the second dynamic is discussed in relation to the idea of creation or creating, and these are discussed in another write-up included in this report.

THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. This can be called the SEX DYNAMIC. (Fundamentals of Thought, Chapter Four)


2. Survival through Children (includes sexual act). (Advanced Procedures and Axioms)

2. Sex and family (future generations). (The Creation of Human Ability)

The SECOND dynamic is SEX. This dynamic has two sections, 2s and 2c. The first section is sex itself, the sexual act, anything relating to the physical action of sex. The second section is the urge for survival through children, the product of sex. This dynamic also includes a portion of the family since the family as a unit affects the rearing of children. (Handbook for Preclears)

THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. (P.A.B. No. 83)

The second dynamic is the urge toward survival through sex, both the act and the production and raising of children. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics – Previous Edition)

The Second Dynamic is the urge toward survival through sex, or children. (Scientology 0-8)

Second, the urge to survive through sex in the procreation of children. (Scientology 8-8008)

Second dynamic has two divisions – first – Sex as an act. Second – Children and the family, the future. (Notes on the Lecture)

Second Dynamic – Sex and Family (Notes on the Lecture)

THE SECOND DYNAMIC is the urge towards survival through sex or children. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. (Notes on the Lecture)

DYNAMIC TWO is the urge of the individual toward ultimate survival via the sex act, the creation of and the rearing of children. It includes their symbiotes, the extension of culture for them, and their future provision. (Dianetics)

DYNAMIC TWO is the urge of the individual toward survival through procreation; it includes both the sex act and the raising of progeny, the care of children and their symbiotes. (Dianetics)

The Second Dynamic is divided in two parts.

The first part of the Second Dynamic is the sexual act, which is as itself for itself. That includes sensation, pleasure, pain and other things people get out of it.

The second part of the Second Dynamic is children, care and raising of. (The Second Dynamic book)

This is the column devoted to the second dynamic. This dynamic would normally be called sex. In Dianetics, one considers sex to be divided into parts; the sexual act; and the product of sex, children. (Science of Survival)

Dynamic Two is the urge of the individual to survive through his progeny. The second dynamic has two main sub-divisions, the sexual act and the creation of children and their rearing. (Science of Survival)

The second dynamic is the urge toward existence as a future generation. It has two compartments: sex; and the family unit, including the rearing of children. (The Scientology Handbook, chapter The Dynamics of Existence)

Creating the Second Dynamic Lectures – A dynamic is an urge toward existence in an area of life. The second dynamic is the urge toward existence as a future generation. It has two compartments: sex, and the family unit. (Description: The Scientology Handbook)

THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. This can be called the SEX DYNAMIC. (The Volunteer Minister’s Handbook)

The second dynamic has two compartments: one is sex and the other is the rearing of children. This dynamic is man’s urge toward survival as a future generation. On the first dynamic he is an individual. But by sex – procreation – he creates other individuals and future generations. This is an urge toward survival through children. (Personal Values & Integrity Course pack)

THE DYNAMIC OF SEX embraces the procreation of progeny, the care of that progeny, and the securing for that progeny of better survival conditions and abilities in the future. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis)

2) Children (How to Live Though an Executive, glossary)

On the second dynamic, family and sex, we have gotten into a winning position. We know the answers to marriage, children, and sex. (HCOPL 23 June 1960; The Special Zone Plan)

The dynamics are: One, self; Two, sex; Three, group; Four, mankind; Five, life; Six; the physical universe; Seven; thought; Eight, universal thought or infinity. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis)

On the second dynamic, the individual is conquering future MEST wherein theta is assured a line of conquest into the future. It requires for this both the sex act and children. If one is to assure the future conquest of MEST, then it is necessary to insure that one’s children can conquer MEST. (Notes on the Lectures, chapter Group Dianetics)

* * *

That is a fairly extensive listing of the LRH DEFINTIONS of the Second Dynamic, but there are plenty more if you want to take the time to look further.

It should be noticed that among all of these definitions not one of these ever comes close to describing the Second Dynamic as "creativity”. There are no LRH comments that suggest even slightly that the second dynamic “includes any creativity”, and every extant definition, in fact, specifically refers only to sex, children and their care.

In quite a few of the definitions LRH calls the dynamic the “sex dynamic”. From this it is clear that this dynamic has much (or all) to do with sex. There is no way that the following two statements can be true at the same time:

The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. (bogus version in new Ethics book)

The SECOND DYNAMIC is SEX. (Handbook for Preclears)

Unless we are supposed to dispense with all logic and reason, and accept or believe that:

Sex = Creativity (which is a falsehood)

Simple logic rules give us:

If A = B, and A = C;

Then, B = C


If One Dollar = Four quarters, and

One Dollar = Ten Dimes;

Then, Four Quarters = Ten Dimes

That is simple two-valued Aristotelian logic. If you are not familiar with that, then look it up in the Tech dictionary or review any simple text on logic. The following two statements are also mutually incompatible because they directly assert contradictory things:

It (the second dynamic) also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival. (bogus version in new Ethics book)

THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. (FOT)

The second dynamic cannot include sex as a minor factor (“incidentally”) and at the same time be an urge to exist as a sexual activity. The two statements cannot both be true at the same time. Of course, thetans can conceive, imagine, assert and believe that these two ideas are consistent, but in fact, they are not.


LRH clearly defines the second dynamic as having very much to do with the activities of sex and family. He consistently refers to it that way, and weighs the definition heavily in that direction time after time, yet the “new” definition relegates sex to some minor and unimportant role. The definition of the word “incidentally” is “aside or apart from the main subject”. LRH makes it very clear that SEX IS THE MAIN SUBJECT of the Second Dynamic. A review of the above references makes that very clear. Sex cannot be both “the main subject” and, at the same time, “a minor aspect” of the main subject. The two ideas are wholly inconsistent and incompatible to any fairly observant and rational person. The second dynamic doesn’t “also incidentally include sex”. The second dynamic IS sex. That is, unless we ignore or cancel all of LRH’s earlier writings in the area. It sadly seems that many Scientologists have chosen to disregard all forms of logic and somehow have made it so that these conflicting facts no longer conflict. These data cannot agree or align yet thetans have somehow mentally forced them to do so in their apparent goal to make sense and ensure consistency of anything and everything.

Since the definition in the new Ethics book (and the LOC pack) is the ONLY example of it, and since there are numerous examples along the very different lines of sex and family, it makes complete sense to throw out the version in the new edition of the Ethics book. They cannot both be true because they describe very different things. The words and concepts involved refer to different things, situations and realities.

The wording of the new version in the Ethics book, even after discarding the first two sentences about “creativity” still leaves the reader with a different understanding in sharp contrast to the many examples given above here. Sex drives the second dynamic, and it alone propagates the life forms of any species. Sex is NOT some overall “creativity”, the second dynamic is NOT creativity, and saying so and putting such into print, besides being false, can only cause a student difficulty in understanding and application.


Please go ahead and conduct a survey if you doubt this. Most people choose to ignore the nonsense about “creativity” and simply think with and apply the ideas of the second dynamic as sex and family as they have for years. But it shouldn’t be necessarily for anyone to have to selectively filter out bogus data from real LRH data when one is reading “approved” LRH material in Scientology books or courses.

Sex applies equally to cells. Obviously, there is much less “family” and “rearing of children” for a cell or for many types of lower life forms such as bacteria, viruses, amoebae, paramecia, hydra and so on. While plants and trees definitely have a reproductive function that propagates the species, they wouldn’t be said to have much of a family life. They sure don’t have or exhibit much of anything resembling “creativity”. The second dynamic of these life forms makes sense only when one views it primarily as a sexual or procreative activity to put a future race there. All of the above LRH definitions make total sense when applied to lower life forms. When one tries to apply the new version from the Ethics book though, to such examples, one is left with a very different set of ideas. Try to align the concept, “The second dynamic is creativity”, with the second dynamics of cells, amoebae or plants. The idea is ludicrous. Yes, you can align the idea of the “creation of a future race”, but that is very different than “any creativity” or “creativity”. In fact, the “creation of a future race” is simply one example of many possible creations along all of the dynamics. Creations and creativity are NOT limited to the second dynamic. That is a loony idea. But trying to make sense of the words written about the second dynamic in the new Ethics book and aligning it with all the other extant data on the dynamics cannot help but result in loony ideas. Of course, as most people probably do, if you simply disagree, pass by it, ignore it or fail to truly understand the concepts involved, then the reader will have no problem at all.

This new definition is less able to clarify and explain activities of life, because it has changed the very meaning of this category of life as previously defined by LRH.

Words and ideas mean things and are supposed to refer to real things. At least, that is what I choose to assert. All the above definitions are consistent and refer to observable phenomena that are real and existent. The new definition means and refers to an entirely different set of things and events not necessarily involving sex, families or children at all (and sex only “incidentally” when it does).

We could talk about the way certain beavers build dams to create slow moving lake systems, since this activity involves “creativity” and falls under “any creativity”. This, technically speaking, would therefore qualify as a “second dynamic” activity, because it involves and falls within the purview of “any creativity”. Of course, that is ludicrous, but thetans can conceive of anything to make sense, whether it truly is or isn’t. That is a good part of the real problem here. People are choosing to make sense of nonsense. Making sense of nonsense, sadly, is a very common human “ability”.

The entire section in the LOC pack and new Ethics book on the second dynamic has been altered and added to, distorting what LRH originally meant and referred to. There are also additives, distortions and alterations of meaning in most of the definitions of the other dynamics in the same books. Words and phrasings are used, and ideas implied, that LRH would never relay or condone himself.

All cases where these “new” definitions of the Dynamics have appeared should be canceled in due haste and replaced with already existing correct references to the Dynamics (there are many).

Sections Where LRH Associates the Concept of the “Second Dynamic” with the Concept of “Creating”

Below are examples of LRH quotes where he mentions sex in some relationship with creating, creation or creativity. He never comes even close to ever suggesting that “the second dynamic is creativity” or “the second dynamic includes any creativity”, but this apparently hasn’t prevented someone from coming up with their own weird ideas about it and publishing these errant ideas in the new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book and in other publications.

At the highest MEST point of the tone scale, 4.0, one finds monogamy, constancy, a high enjoyment level, and very moral reactions toward sex; but one also finds the sexual urge acting to create more than children, and so comes about a sublimation of sex into creative thought. (Science of Survival, Book One, chapter 18)

It must have required a considerable mental gymnasticism to have combed everything down to sex . . . (P. A. B. 92 A Critique of Psychoanalysis)

It must be recognized that simply because two words occur in close proximity within the space of a sentence does NOT mean that the ideas represented by these words are closely related or identical. The bank has a tendency to make everything equal due to identification. People on Earth have a horrible tendency to confuse things together that do not belong together conceptually or do not observably relate in actual life. Of course, a large part of that problem is that far too many people think instead of look and thereby never get out of their heads and instead wallow in a never-ending and complicated interrelationship of significances (ideas, concepts, abstractions).

In P.A.B. No. 11, LRH writes:


The useless “thought” is the thinkingness that results from enturbulated and condensed effort (as one passes down the Know to Mystery Scale), and it is a substitution for an ability to predict (P.A.B. 8). It is quite true that endless significances and confusions of meaning characterize typical human thinking. The good or positive “thought” is that related to analytical thinking, reason, logic, postulates and Theta (pure thought). These are each a different thing by the way, and covered extensively by LRH in his materials.

Please bear with me here because it is necessary to understand how unrelated concepts can be made to appear related, even when they are not, and how the human mind goes about doing this.

Most people confuse Darwin’s ideas of “natural selection” with “survival of the fittest”, simply because both ideas were part of his theory. Each involves a different concept, referring to different functions and activities, yet people equate the two through identity type thinking because they are related. Some people claim socialism and communism to be equal. They have similarities and are related, but they are not the same at all. The second dynamic is related to creativity, but it is most definitely not equal to creativity.

Interestingly, I picked up a newspaper today, and the writer, talking about the need for increased airport security due to terrorist threats wrote:

Airlines face a Darwinian process that favors the efficient.”

Darwin’s theory was put together to explain the origin of the various species. The name of his famous book is “The Origin of Species”. The theory doesn’t explain that at all, but most people believe that it successfully explains where the various species came from. But, the writer in the example above isn’t talking about the evolution of anything. He is referring to the idea of “survival of the fittest”. It means that the airlines will need to adapt to the current demand of the environment, become more able (i.e. fit), and that those who do so will survive and win. In this case, becoming fit means becoming more efficient. Those who don’t will fade away and die. The idea of “survival of the fittest” is not the theory of Darwinism, although his theory contains that concept as part of it. The “Darwinian process”, in fact, is not “survival of the fittest”, yet some people incorrectly use the terms to mean this. The Darwinian process is actually that process spread over a tremendous amount of time where 1) accidental genetic mutations result in changes in life forms, and 2) where some of these new life forms are better able to survive in their respective environments. By the way, this is simply a theory, although many esteemed college professors will claim it to be a fact and believe it with a near religious fervor.

This is just another example of poor thinking, and poor definition of ideas and concepts. I can pick up any book, magazine, or watch any TV reporter, and within 30 seconds find obvious errors in the writer’s ability to observe and connect ideas. This phenomenon is rampant and goes on everywhere at all times. This is especially true of the “higher” educated “professionals” in the world of liberal arts education, including the fields of philosophy, political science, economics, journalism, psychology, sociology, anthropology and more. The world is very idiotic and LRH concurs:

One of the things about study itself is that there are a great many things around that are false and you could study a lot of false things and therefore become disabused of studying because you had studied something false.

The thing here is that most people haven’t taken the time to closely examine the world involving these fields, like I have, and therefore don’t really know what LRH is saying. In other words, unless you actually look at, study and investigate the writings in sociology you cannot possibly know how nutty their ideas and theories are. You can believe things because LRH says so, BUT you will never ever know for yourself unless you observe it for yourself.

There are a GREAT MANY false ideas, theories, assertions, and beliefs. Part of the problem though is that most people first, are so poorly educated that they cannot confront these subjects, much less understand them, and second, are too low toned to be able to differentiate between the legitimate and false data even when they do become “educated”. Please don’t take this as undue criticism. Almost every subject on Earth, based upon the investigations of the “brightest” folks on the planet, is largely filled with biases, false data, poor observations and invalid theories, yet each is presented as a FACT or TRUTH. Confusion is the norm here and not the exception.

I look around the world and see idiocy every second of every day, and correctly so. People are people and they chronically confuse ideas with facts. They chronically confuse different things with similar things and identical things. The reactive mind is nothing but making unequal things equal (identification; A=A=A).

I am guessing that the same thing was done here leading to someone’s confusion of ideas and placing the distortions of meaning in the new Ethics book. The second dynamic is related to (or associated with) creativity. There are similarities and relationships. But, the second dynamic is not creativity as an equality or identity statement. This is a classic example of a violation of simple Data Series basics where things not equal are stated to be and made to be equal, when they in fact are not. From Data Series 1R, The Anatomy of Thought:

Sanity is the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities.

Two or more facts or things that are totally unlike are DIFFERENT. They are not the same fact or same object.

Two or more facts or things that have something in common with one another are SIMILAR.

Two or more facts or things that have all of their characteristics in common with another are IDENTICAL.

Of course, possibly LRH wrote the new definition in a fit of insanity. But I personally doubt that. And if he did, well then he shouldn’t have, because it contradicts everything he has ever said elsewhere in a tremendous number of places.

Please understand that the top level FACT about all this is that the data referred to here are contrary and inconsistent with all extant LRH data in the same related subjects. That is the senior datum about all this. The senior datum is not that, “LRH wrote it”, or that, “it is in an LRH book”. Those two statements may be true, but they are not the most senior fact about all of this. The second dynamic definition is FALSE, because any aware and intelligent person can (or should) clearly know it to be so by honest observation and study. Well, maybe I am being too generous, but to me anyway, any sane person should be able to see that clearly. At least an honest person will know this to be true if they don’t play mental games with themselves, invalidate what they know to be true or compromise their own reality. And if LRH did write it, then the question is not, “how does it make sense”, but “why would he write something so weirdly at odds with everything else he ever wrote in the area”?

How it came to be in print, who wrote it, and so forth matter little in terms of determining the legitimacy of the data. Even if LRH did write it, well, then he should not have. But because I consider LRH to be one of the most aware, observant and intelligent fellows to ever walk the Earth, I personally doubt he wrote it. The other option is that someone altered LRH material and that is how this “data” came to appear in the new Ethics book. Whatever the reason or WHY, it should be quickly removed. It is exceedingly nonsensical.


I now go through each of the quotes given at the beginning of this section and detail how each one is incapable of adequately explaining the new definition of the second dynamic.

At the highest MEST point of the tone scale, 4.0, one finds monogamy, constancy, a high enjoyment level, and very moral reactions toward sex; but one also finds the sexual urge acting to create more than children, and so comes about a sublimation of sex into creative thought. (Science of Survival, Book One, chapter 18)

Let’s start by looking at the definition of the word sublimate.

Sublimate – to divert the energy of (a sexual or other biological impulse) from its immediate goal to one of a more acceptable social, moral, or aesthetic nature or use.

The reader should realize that the concept of “sublimation” is a psych idea. It was originated and used by psychs – specifically Freudians. Do your own research. Study the word, it’s history and it’s derivation. See the attachment following this section. It means what it means. “Creativity” from a Scientology viewpoint involves the very stuff underlying all existence on every dynamic. It stems from THETA and thetans. The concept of sublimation involves purely biological urges, and has nothing to do with theta or “thought”. The ideas are wildly different.

In this view the energy of the second dynamic as the sexual urge is diverted. It’s not changed or metamorphosed into another form of the same energy. Also, the definition of “sublimate” correctly identifies the impulse or energy as biological. Sex is almost totally biological. Take a thetan out of his body, completely, and he will yawn at the sight or thought of sex. Put him in a body, and it becomes “gimme gimme gimme”. As LRH correctly observes and states, “a thetan without a bank has completely different responses” (KSW Series Number One). True, so one does.

Sex is Sex is Sex. It is a biological urge or impulse heavily ingrained into the GE lines of all life forms to ensure the propagation and continuance of the body form of the species. Thetans have an abundance of charge on this area. They have an abundance of significance attached to this dynamic. And up until the distortion of meaning in the newest version of the Ethics book, the words of LRH correctly communicated and explained his very accurate observations in this area of life.

When I sit down and write a song or develop a new web site, both very clear examples of creativity, these have nothing to do with sex or biology. I am not “channeling” or “diverting” or doing anything with or to my sexual urges.

My creative actions stem from my ability to create as an invisible, but aware Theta Being. So do yours. Also, LRH wrote the above while researching Dianetics. The comment is true as far as it goes, but Scientology went much further and investigated aspects of creativity rooted in the invisible realm of Theta and not just those limited to the visible world of MEST and biology. I do not channel my sexual energy when I write a song. He confirms this when he says in Scientology 0-8:

None of the postulates and early discoveries in this research outlawed any concept concerning the human soul, or divine or creative imagination. (Chapter: A Description of Scientology)

From a viewpoint of Theta this description is largely insufficient. LRH qualifies everything he states above in The Science of Survival by prefacing it with “at the highest MEST point of the Tone Scale” (4.0). When a person goes up to 8.0 and creates Aesthetics, sex is basically gone from the equation. The being is here using creative imagination and not a sublimated biological urge of sex. In fact, most anything he creates with thought is done with creative imagination and not with diverted sexual energy.

The reason I take the time to destroy any idea that this quote is a suitable intellectual or logical justification for the nonsense in the new Ethics book is because a few people have told me that this datum helped them understand how the second dynamic could be named “creativity”. They didn’t understand anything really, but deluded themselves. These people tricked themselves by accepting a stream of logic that is illogical. The process of accepting illogics is a tremendously common practice with human beings. (Data Series)

Yes, you CAN sublimate the energy of sex, the biological aspect of the 2nd dynamic to higher forms of creativity, of thought, of the 7th dynamic, and channel this along ANY of the other dynamics. This is as far as LRH has ever stated it (Science of Survival). This is the ONLY way the notion of creativity can relate at all to the 2nd dynamic and the other dynamics and make sense. The way it is presented in the new Ethics book and LOC is false, inaccurate, and can only cause the reader to develop false ideas and confusions.

This reference is not a suitable explanation for the newest definition of the second dynamic, although I am quite sure many people have incorrectly accepted it to be so.

Thetans in mutual agreement created and maintain the entire physical universe as their playing field (reference: PDC tapes, The Phoenix Lectures). They did so utilizing their inherent creativity. So much of a thetan’s creative actions have nothing to do with sex. Anyone trying to use the above quote to somehow support the idea that the “second dynamic is creativity” and “includes any creativity” needs some extensive word clearing, probably KTL and PRD, Method 1 Word Clearing, the PRD, and possibly more. Or possibly they simply just need a good hard smack on the back of their heads.

LRH writes, “This dynamic would normally be called sex.” Is there some reason that things are no longer “normal”, and we should abandon that usual tradition and begin calling this dynamic “creativity”? I suspect not.

As with anything on any dynamic, a marriage must also be postulated into existence and kept created or it will not be there and survive. A marriage, while related in some way usually to sex, though not always, is actually a group. For any group to exist, its members must actively and continuously create it. This quote says nothing about any link, relationship or equality between sex, the second dynamic and creativity. It just says what is true for anything to exist on any dynamic – it must be postulated and created.

I have been told by some that this quote helped them understand and make sense of how “the second dynamic is creativity”. Again, this is more self-trickery and deluded thinking. This quote shows simply that creativity is necessary to make anything. There is no limitation of creativity to the second dynamic or unusual connection of importance between a marriage and creativity.

There is no equality between the second dynamic and creativity. That is a false statement of identification. The statement, “the second dynamic is creativity”, is not true.

The above phrase has been used by some to excuse, through some weird concatenation of logic, the validity of this new definition of the second dynamic.

Sex is only one kind of creation. There are many types of creative impulses. The urge to create and survive as a group is a creative impulse (third dynamic). The urge to create and survive as one’s business is a creative impulse (third dynamic). The urge to create and survive as a well-landscaped garden (5th dynamic) is a creative impulse. The urge to create and survive as one’s paintings or art is a creative impulse (7th dynamic). I could supply a near infinite number of examples, because creativity underlies all existence. Creativity is senior to and encompasses the second dynamic. In fact, creativity includes the second dynamic. The second dynamic does not “include any creativity”. The idea is ass backwards. Completely so!

Sex is not even within the active control of a Thetan and is simply an automatic biological urge. It has little to do with the active creativity of an aware thinking being. Just because sex is one type of creation, and sex is a major part of the second dynamic, does not somehow make it necessarily follow that “the second dynamic is creation”. That is such an absurd connection of ideas. It is very poor thinking. It is errant logic. But besides that, it simply is false because it does not describe the actual relationship of observable things.

The above quote does not in any way state or imply that “the second dynamic is creativity”.

It must have required a considerable mental gymnasticism to have combed everything down to sex . . . (P. A. B. 92 A Critique of Psychoanalysis)

LRH here contradicts the idea that sex is sublimated into creative thought, which is inherently a false psych idea, and comes right out and says that people create themselves. Their ability to create does not stem from sex, and it surely does not belong in the second dynamic. Anyone who has been around Scientology awhile knows that LRH contradicts himself at times. I can have that, understand that and deal with it. If you want to claim and demand that LRH doesn’t ever contradict himself, then you are choosing to place your beliefs above simple observation of facts. He contradicts himself at times. When he does contradict himself you need to examine all of the related data and choose that data which align best with the rest and with what you observe yourself to be true.

Just as “it must have required a considerable mental gymnasticism to have combed everything down to sex”, so must it have required a considerable mental gymnasticism to have combed all creativity down to the second dynamic. What Freud did with sex, in error, by making it all-inclusive, someone also did here with the second dynamic. The second dynamic has been redefined as the dynamic that contains the source of all existence - creativity. That is simply not so. That is such a false statement and idea. Worse of all, the idea does not correctly describe what goes on in real life.

Notice that LRH doesn’t say that sex is a lock on creation or creativity, but that it is a lock on the joy of creation. It is a lock on the emotion or feeling any person experiences when creating anything. Most people feel exhilaration when they create. Sex is a lock and perversion on that feeling of exhilaration. It is quite a leap of meaning to go from this to “the second dynamic is creativity”. There is no sane way that the ideas expressed in the above quote can lead to the idea that “the second dynamic includes any creativity”.

There is not any extant LRH reference that can suitably explain the definition of the second dynamic in the latest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. The only explanations are:

  1. LRH wrote data directly in severe contradiction with everything else he ever wrote about the same topic,

  1. Someone else altered the definition of the second dynamic based on their own confusions with other legitimate LRH references, or

  1. It was intentionally altered to confuse and screw people and Scientology up.

There are no other explanations. I am not in a position to investigate to discover the actual truth of the matter. You, the reader, are in a position to do so, and should. But first the reader needs to understand that the “data” is false and not in alignment with extant valid LRH data.

THAT is the senior datum about all of this.



Volney P. Gay

"One of the most common criticisms of Freud is that his theory cannot satisfactorily account for religion or artistic creativity. Gay's revision of Freud's theory using Gibson' s theory of perception al lows the Freudian concept of sublimation to function in a positive way that squares with artistic creativity, religion, and common experience. Gay has made a significant contribution to psychoanalytic theory and to the understanding of human creativity. "

" I found this book very interesting to read. It synthesizes and discusses an amazing range of evidence from the philosophy of Kant to the physiology of perception of Helmholtz, the linguistic theory of Lacan and Ricoeur, art history, religion, etc., all applied to Freud's theory of sublimation. It is clearly the work of a mature scholar."-- Harold Coward, University of Calgary

This book is the only full-length treatment of the relationship between aesthetic truths and psychoanalytic discoveries-- of art, artists, and a new concept of sublimation. It provides a radical and unique study of the concept of sublimation and proposes a modest replacement for it. In the first third of the book the author

reviews critically the psychoanalytic sources of the concept of sublimation. In the second third he shows how the concept developed from Freud' s nineteenth-century notions of perception. In the last third he revises a concept of sublimation using a contemporary theory of perception. In the final chapter he examines four works of literature: short stories of John Cheever, a Japanese novel, portions of Hamlet, and sublimation and perversion in Orson Welles' Citizen Kane.

"Dr. Gay's book brings together fruitfully several lines of argumentation: aesthetic theory, hermeneutics, psychoanalytical practice and criticism, and good sense. It ought to fill an important gap in the relevant literatures, but particularly in expanding our purview of Freud on sublimation and our ongoing project of determining an adequate contemporary aesthetics. The value of Gay' s work is that it relates these two issues in ways that are mutually illuminating. I would have expected such a contribution from the author, whose previous books have been solid contributions. The scholarship is sound: it is in fact superlative, with a wide range of materials cited carefully." -- William G. Doty, The University of Alabama

"This is really a very fine book. Philosophers, psychoanalysts, students of the arts, and religious studies scholars will all find something of interest. I know of no study that re-works Freud on sublimation and art so thoroughly and makes such a commanding use of Heinz Kohut's psychoanalytic theories of the self to this end." -- Don Browning, University of Chicago

A volume in the SUNY series in Religion

Harold Coward, editor

374 pages September 1992

paperback ISBN 0-7914-1184-2

hardcover ISBN 0-7914-1183-4

State University of New York Press

90 State Street, Suite 700

Albany, NY 12207

For more information contact SUNY Press at

For Current Prices and Ordering Information See Order Form

Return to home page

The TRUE Meaning of the Word “Creativity”

“Creativity” is formed from the root word “create”. Both the word “creation” and “creating” are also formed from the root “create”. The concepts are closely related.

If anyone wants to understand what “creativity” really means and relates to, then it would be best to read references by LRH on these related words, such as “create”, “creating” and “creation”. Doing so will make it abundantly clear that it is a gross error to call or define any Dynamic as “creativity”, whether it be the 2nd, or the 7th.

The concept of “creativity” is a fundamental concept of Scientology. It underlies, encompasses, and is senior to the Dynamics, all life, and even all existence. In Fundamentals of Thought, chapter Two, Basic Principles, LRH clearly states:

In very ancient books it is written that from chaos came birth, from birth there was growth, when growth was achieved there was then a gradual decay, the decay then ended in death. After death there was chaos.

Scientology expresses this more briefly. THE CYCLE OF ACTION IS AN APPARENCY AS FOLLOWS: CREATE, then SURVIVE, then DESTROY; or Creation, Survival, Destruction. First there is Creation. Then this is followed by Survival. Then this is followed by Destruction.

The ACTUAL CYCLE OF ACTION is as follows: CREATE, create-create-create, create-counter-create, no creation, nothingness.

CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness = CREATE.

Create-create-create = create again continuously one moment after the next = SURVIVAL.

Create-counter-create = to create something against a creation = to create one thing and then create something else against it = DESTROY.

No creation = an absence of any creation = no creative activity.


In other words, the entire cycle of action, from the smallest to the largest, from the tiniest atomic particle to the largest galaxy, is made up of nothing but various versions of creating. Notice that SURVIVAL itself is a special case of continuous creation. So is destruction. Please notice and realize that “create” underlies and is senior to survival or surviving. Creating is what one does to survive. Read again what LRH says above.

You can go and read more of this chapter, but the obvious simplicity is that every part of any cycle of action involves creating. Every thought, idea, condition or reality anyone experiences anywhere first and foremost involves creating and creativity. It also involves one’s awareness because one can either know or not know one is creating. Creativity is very basic, and far above and underlying all life and existence, however you choose to define and understand these things.

Survival and the concepts about the Dynamics, as parts of a single primary Dynamic (the overall urge to Survive for anything or anyone), directly involve nothing but creativity. Why? Because SURVIVAL is nothing but create-create-create (see above).

Survival exists where there is a continual creation of something.

That’s the long and the short of it. Obviously, since the overall Dynamic of survival is broken down into 8 sub-sections known as the Eight Dynamics, each must also possess a similar “create-create-create” for each Dynamic to survive and exist in any form or condition. In other words, for anything to exist on any Dynamic in any form requires continuous creation. What do any of us use to do this? We use our inherent “creativity”.

Creativity” is the source of all creation, and the source of survival as create-create-create. Creativity is about as close as you get to a thetan.

In diagram form this would appear as:

(ability to create)









splits up and manifest as cycles of action in each Dynamic area





| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D 7D 8D

(Note: D = Dynamic)

LRH says in Chapter III of Dianetics, The Goal of Man:

The goal of Man, the lowest common denominator of all his activities, the dynamic principle of his existence has long been sought.

TIME, SPACE, ENERGY and LIFE have a single denominator in common. As an analogy it could be considered that TIME, SPACE, ENERGY and LIFE began at some point of origin and were commanded to continue to some nearly infinite destination. They were told nothing but WHAT to do. They obey a single order and that order is “SURVIVE!”


The goal of life can be considered to be infinite survival. Man, as a life form, can be demonstrated to obey in all his actions and purposes the one command: “SURVIVE!”

The methods of survival can be summed under the headings of food, protection (defensive and offensive) and procreation. There are no existing life forms, which lack solutions to these problems.

LRH goes on to say in Chapter IV, The Four Dynamics:

From the survival dynamic, in this fashion, were evolved four dynamics. By survival dynamic was meant the basic command, SURVIVE! which underlay all activity. By dynamic was meant one of the four purpose divisions of the entire dynamic principle. The four dynamics were not new forces; they were sub-divisions of the primary force.

It will be seen immediately that these four dynamics are actually a spectrum without sharp division lines. The survival dynamic can be seen to sweep out from the individual to embrace the entire species and its symbiotes.

Life, the atom and the universe and energy itself are included under the symbiotic classification.

(Note: Life became the 5th Dynamic, and the MEST universe became the 6th Dynamic in the later writings of Scientology.)

I could not locate any definitions or even uses of the word “creativity” by LRH in any book or issue. It is not listed in any subject or book index.

Here are definitions taken from a few dictionaries.

Concise Oxford Dictionary

creative adj. 1) inventive and imaginative. 2) creating or able to create. + + creatively adv. creativeness n. creativity n.

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary

creative adj. 1) having the power or quality of creating 2) resulting from originality of thought; imaginative. 3) Facetious. producing deceptive or fraudulent information, etc. creative bookkeeping. [1670-90] -- creatively adv. creativeness n.

creativity n. 1. the state or quality of being creative. 2. the ability to create meaningful new forms, interpretations, etc.; originality. 3. the process by which one utilizes creative ability. [1870-75]

Oxford American Dictionary

creative adj. 1) having the power or ability to create things 2) showing imagination and originality as well as routine skill, creative work. creatively adv. creativity n.

Simply, “creativity” is the ability to create.

That is, unless you choose to accept or believe the definition in the new version of the Ethics book. Then creativity is the second dynamic. But it’s not the second dynamic!

Interestingly, and quite contradictory to the second dynamic definition in the new version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, the definition of the seventh dynamic in the latest version of the same book is given as:

It (The Seventh Dynamic) includes one’s beingness, the ability to create, the ability to cause survival or survive, the ability to destroy or pretend to be destroyed.

So, we now have, in the same book and in the same section two conflicting datum. The second dynamic is defined to be “creativity” and to “include any creativity”, and the seventh dynamic also defined so it “includes the ability to create” (which is nothing less than creativity). So somehow the second dynamic includes the seventh dynamic which includes the second dynamic which includes the seventh and so on forever. Of course this is sheer lunacy, but that’s what it says. Try to demo it. You may go insane. Trying to make sense of nonsense is not good for thinking beings. Of course, thetans can make sense of just abut anything and have been doing so for a near eternity.

While I didn’t spend the same amount of time checking all references for the seventh dynamic as I did for the second dynamic, a quick check shows up the same situation for the seventh dynamic definition in the new Ethics book. There are NO existing references that discuss and define the seventh dynamic in this way. It is also an alteration and most likely somebody’s own weird ideas on the subject that they are passing on to others.

The Seventh Dynamic – is the urge toward existence as or of spirits. Anything spiritual, with or without identity, would come under the heading of the Seventh Dynamic. This can be called the SPIRITUAL DYNAMIC. (Fundamentals of Thought, chapter The Dynamics)

VII: THE THOUGHT DYNAMIC concerns the urge of the individual to survive as thought. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis)

The phrase “the ability to cause survive” doesn’t even make any sense and is grammatically incorrect. This phrase is not some older archaic usage of the English language but is simply very bad English. Where does LRH say anywhere that the seventh dynamic includes “the ability to destroy or pretend to be destroyed”? While it does make sense in alignment with other things LRH said or wrote, he never stated it this way. Like the arguments I have made about the second dynamic, beingness must be assumed on any dynamic to create and have on any dynamic. It’s not that it’s not sort of true, but LRH never said or would say it like it is written here. IT IS NOT BY HIM – obviously and clearly. I don’t need “evidence” or “proof” to know that or to not know that. It is obviously not by him, and any intelligent and aware thetan should see that as so.

The author(s) write, “Thus there is an effort for the survival of life source”. I beg anyone to please refer me to any actual pre-1985 (when he was still alive) written LRH material where he states this or says this in a tape. Theta, thought in its “pure” form, and thetans cannot do anything but exist. They are eternal beings. LRH would never state that the “life source” is trying to survive, or possesses or needs any effort to survive. Yes, the life source does exert efforts to survive along each of the dynamics, but no, the life source does not exert an effort to exist as itself. That is ludicrous. It is so very much not something LRH would say because it is not true. I suspect somebody has been playing in the cookie jar.

The source of life and the source of everything cannot do anything but exist. There are efforts to survive on and through the various dynamics, and there are all the various related emotions, thinkingness, counter-efforts, etc. relating to attempts to survive along these dynamics. But there is no effort for theta itself to survive as theta or as life source. The notion is absurd. Refer to the theta-MEST theory in basic LRH books and issues. Life results as theta involves itself in the attempt to animate and conquer MEST. Once theta involves itself with MEST, life results, and life manifests along each of the eight dynamics. Life is subdivided into the eight dynamics as a convenient way to analyze and understand “life”.

In Scientology 8-8008, LRH says:

The principal of survival was never intended to embrace theta itself for this has, of course, immortality and does not even necessarily move in MEST time.

The Creation of Human Ability, section R2-59 Survival:

As a thetan is immortal, he cannot do other than survive.

Obviously, these statements by LRH directly contradict the idea that:

Thus there is an effort for the survival of life source”

This is also in the new version of the Ethics book and it is false data. It can only confuse someone if they take it seriously and attempt to think with it.

While we are on the subject of totally nutty stuff in the Dynamics section of the new Ethics book (it is basically all nuts), please take a look at the latest definition of the Sixth Dynamic. It states:

The sixth dynamic is the urge to survive of the physical universe, by the physical universe itself and with the help of the physical universe and each one of its component parts.

This is utter nonsense! Who wrote this? It was surely not LRH. The above sounds like some weird extrapolation from the United States Declaration of Independence (i.e. “of the people, by the people and for the people . . .”). The MEST universe has absolutely no urge to survive as itself or for anything else. It does not and cannot exist independently of Theta and thetans. If the reader doesn’t know that then please read all the LRH books, especially The Phoenix Lectures, and do the PDC course.

The 6th dynamic is an INDIVIDUAL’S urge to survive as the physical universe, by actual LRH definition. Any single dynamic or the dynamics taken collectively belong to a thetan. Please get the distinction. It is very severe and great. The only thing that has an urge to survive anywhere ever at any time is a thetan or Theta. This is so obviously simple that it is scary that such lunacy can surface in a purported LRH book as LRH data. You might think, and it surely may appear that the MEST universe exists “out there” all on it’s own, in a sort of modern materialistic sort of way. But, in fact, postulates are senior to mechanics*, and per the Factors, all that is was postulated into existence by me and thee. End of story.

* Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy and time. Considerations are senior to these things. The reason we have space, energy, time, objects is that life has agreed upon certain things, and this agreement has resulted in a solidification. And so our agreed-upon material is then quite observable. (The Phoenix Lectures, chapter four)

Just who do you think “life” is? Again, only thetans can agree. MEST and “stuff” do not agree, think or anything else. The physical universe behaves in accordance with MEST laws that you and I agreed with and still agree with. We agreed the entire MEST universe into existence, we agree upon its continuance (survival, create-create-create), we agreed on solar systems and planets, we agreed on life forms and how they behave, we “agree” each of our dynamics into existence, and we CREATE the details of their survival on a day to day basis.

From The Creation of Human Ability, section called A Summary of Scientology, LRH states:

Man, therefore, has an inverted view. Whereas, considerations such as those he daily makes are the actual source of space, energy, time and forms, Man is operating so as not to alter his basic considerations; he therefore invalidates himself by supposing another determinism of space, energy, time, and form.

MEST comes from considerations. It derives from the considerations made and agreed with by you and me.

Again, a full study and research into the extant material by LRH on the 6th dynamic will show this definition to be absurd. It is FALSE DATA. It can only confuse the reader. I will give an example, but leave it to you and whoever else is supposed to guarantee that Church materials are legitimately by LRH to perform the full research and verification.

VI. THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE DYNAMIC is the drive of the individual to enhance the survival of all matter, energy, time and space. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis, chapter The Dynamics).

Any Dynamic is an URGE TO SURVIVE of an INDIVDUAL in some area, at least that is so when we are dealing with any human being. Yes, birds seem to have an “urge to survive”. But since the subject was written to be applied by thinking human beings, I suggest it is best to understand it that way. Additionally, LRH correctly defines it that way in the above reference. The dynamics are simply LRH’s convenient way to break up life so one can look at and make sense of it all. A Dynamic is not a “thing” like objects or MEST or the entire MEST universe. MANY people simply forget about the “to survive as” part and call the dynamic by the name of the thing or area the being is attempting to survive in relation to. There is much Scientology slang. The second dynamic is the “urge to survive as a future race”, using sex and family as the means. It has become common to drop out the idea of “urge to survive as” and use the term “second dynamic” to indicate one’s spouse or significant other. (My 2D just got a new job; My 2D is so hot; I will marry my 2D next week; His 2D was a never-ending parade of promiscuity.)

Most Scientologists conceive of the 6th dynamic as “the physical universe”. It is not the physical universe. There is a physical universe, but the 6th dynamic is solely and only one’s URGE TO SURVIVE AS OR THROUGH IT. If you ask most Scientologists, “what is the fifth dynamic”, they will answer, “life forms”. It is not life forms, but the urge to survive as or through life forms. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, and I am not being unfairly picky, but the definition of the sixth dynamic in the latest version of the Ethics book exhibits the same sort of confusion and incorrect association of ideas.

Just the notion that any dynamic is the “urge of the individual to survive as” something, alone, makes the “new” definition of the second dynamic incompatible and incorrect. Any one dynamic is not a thing, but an “urge to survive as” something, and therefore it is incorrect to state, “the second dynamic is creativity”.


The concept of the “dynamic” originated in early Dianetics research. It is clearly defined over and over as an “urge to survive as” something. It is not something. By this fact alone the second dynamic cannot be “creativity”. At best it could be called the urge to survive as creativity, but that would also be incorrect.

Per LRH in Dianetics: The Original Thesis:

Basically simple, complexity is introduced amongst the dynamics by individual and group irrationalities.

Complexity has surely been introduced into the definitions of the dynamics in the new edition of the Ethics book, by an individual or individuals and hopefully the group will not enact further complexities or irrationalities and thereby prevent these incorrect definitions from being summarily canceled and swiftly replaced. The types of possible irrationalities that could allow and further the original complexity of the fact of the false definitions are covered extensively in this write-up.

LRH says at the end of chapter Two in the Fundamentals of Thought:

FOR EXAMPLE, a man has a job. He works at it. That is to say he creates-creates-creates a job throughout the days, weeks and years. As long as he makes a job, the job exists.

FOR EXAMPLE, a man is sane. He gets the idea (creates the idea) that it would be better to be insane. He starts to go insane (having created it) . . . .

CREATION IN THIS WORK may be thought to exclude God. We are here considering only those things which man or man as a spirit can make or manufacture or think.

Any person can work, make or produce anything on any Dynamic, whether it be one’s personal health, a relationship, a family, a job, a business, a city or a nation. He does it by creating. Each of us does this by bringing about SURVIVAL of something by continual creation, or in other words, by “create-create-create”. Everything you see and everything you do is nothing other than the product of creating. It is also true that much of this creating has crossed over into automatic functioning, and the bank is also nearly completely automatic. But the entire MEST universe is also on “automatic”, and you put it there for yourself every second of every day.

A person does it (creates) utilizing his or her inherent “creativity”. “Creativity” is part and parcel of that which brings about SURVIVAL. “Creativity” manifests along each Dynamic because one must create to bring about the survival of anything on any Dynamic. If people did not intentional and causitively create on each Dynamic, then they would not have anything on each of those Dynamics. One must create for anything to exist, including the entire physical universe. If one didn’t (unconsciously and automatically) create the MEST universe moment by moment, it wouldn’t exist for you.

In actuality, the thetan is knowingness, total in a cleared state, who yet can create space and time and objects to locate in them. He reduces his knowingness only to have action.

It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. For one makes, by a process of continuous automatic duplication, all that one perceives. (Creation of Human Ability, section SOP-8C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit)

The ability “to create” existed LONG before the physical universe, before any concept of survival, before the Dynamic principle, and before any idea of the Second Dynamic. So, how could the Second Dynamic be “creativity”? It can’t. It isn’t.

The Problems of Work, chapter 3, Is Work Necessary?

Life is basically a created thing.

It is logically impossible for “creativity” to exist as the fundamental ability of Theta, which it truly is, and for it to also exist simultaneously as a thing unique only to or belonging primarily to the Second Dynamic.

Creativity” cannot be limited to any single Dynamic because the act of creating is essential to the existence of anything on any Dynamic. But, in addition to it being logically impossible and conceptually inconsistent, it is simply NOT TRUE that the Second Dynamic is “creativity”. It is a simply a fact of what is, that “creativity” is not the Second Dynamic.

Making things and making things for the future occurs equally on every Dynamic. In fact, nothing would be here at all, much less flourishing with viability, without active creating.

The creation of a future race is simply one of many types of creations necessary to keep life going. There is nothing more significant about the creative activities on the second dynamic that necessitates placing the concept of “creativity” within the Second Dynamic as some type of quality belonging to that Dynamic. That is ludicrous.

P. A. B. No. 85 The Parts Of Man (Also in FOT)

Sex has been overweighted in importance in old psychotherapy, a practice more or less disgraced at this time. Sex is only one of numerous creative impulses. An anxiety about sex, however, occurs when an individual begins to believe that there will not be a body for him to have during the next lifetime. The common denominator of all aberration (mental derangement) is cessation of creation; as sex is only one kind of creation and a rather low order of it, it will be seen that unhappiness could stem from various cessations of creation.

LRH reiterates that sex is only one type of creation. The activity on the second dynamic is only one type of creativity. Creativity, or the making of things for the future, exists on every dynamic equally. It seems someone confused the concept of “making bodies for the future”, accomplished by the mechanism of sex, with making anything for the future. I suspect this is how these differing ideas became incorrectly related and connected in this new definition. That is a case of incorrect identification of quite unrelated concepts (A=A=A).

LRH says about a post in HCO PL 22 May 1959 CENTRAL ORGANIZATION EFFICIENCY:

Once the basic purpose of a post or department is known, only two things should then be necessary:

  1. Self-determined and responsible continuous creation of department and post, and

  2. Holding the communication lines rigidly in place. (bold print by me for emphasis)

Defining self-determinism as it applies to departments and posts is very easy - - it is the willingness to decide and act in a causative manner toward the traffic and functions of that post.

Obviously to survive on a post, to bring it into a viable condition, and to make it expand, one must continuously create. In other words, one must apply “creativity”. Continuous creation equals survival, by definition. LRH is usually very consistent.

This is equally true for any Dynamic. If you want to have personal health on the First Dynamic one must decide and act in a causative manner so as to control one’s physical exercise, nutrition, and rest. You must create health. If one wants to have a clean and upstat personal space (First Dynamic) one must continuously create it or PUT IT THERE. This is equally true for all aspects of every Dynamic in any of its manifestations. To have anything you must create it and thereby put it there.

In The Second Dynamic Book, LRH says in the chapter entitled Marriage and Sex:

A sound marriage, then, consists of putting together a thetan association without overts and withholds, created into existence, continued for the mutual perpetuation and protection of the members of the family.

A group cannot exist unless it continues to be created into existence by the members of the group.

There must be a continued wish to continue to postulate the group into existence. If those factors are present, then the group can survive, whether it be a family, a company, a government, or something larger.

That’s how you make a group.

The above is about creating and postulating a marriage into existence, but as LRH clearly and correctly states, that’s how any group is made. One creates to make a third dynamic. But also, that is how anything is brought into existence and maintained on any Dynamic.

CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness = CREATE.

Create-create-create = SURVIVAL (continuous creation)

It’s just more of the same stuff. The activity of creation is necessary on any Dynamic, and in any area of Life. To bring about survival in any area and along any Dynamic one must continually create. “Creativity” is the ability used to bring about the act of creating and therefore the survival of anything.

The Second Dynamic is what it always has been up until this weird change of meaning defining it as “creativity” altered that. The Second Dynamic is a special case of a group, a smaller group than any other Third Dynamic, a group nonetheless, but because it involves so many important and unique activities, sex and family is given it’s own Dynamic. The things and activities described, as sex, family and procreation, stay the same no matter how anyone tries to alter definitions and significances in the area. The problem is that changing definitions in any area changes how the thetan understands and views these things.

Also from the chapter entitled Sex and Marriage, LRH states:

Therefore the family is an actual group.

It is very tightly knit as a group.

LRH writes in the Fundamentals of Thought, at the end of the chapter entitled The Reason Why:

These four elements, freedom, barriers, purposes and power of choice, are the guiding elements of life. There are only two factors above these, and both of them are related to these. The first is the ability to create (creativity), with, of course, its negative, the ability to uncreate; and the second is the ability to make a postulate (to consider, to say a thing and have it be true).

CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness = CREATE.

Create-create-create = SURVIVAL

In fact, again, LRH very clearly states that the highest ability you can conceive is creativity, because this includes the ability to create and to postulate. The abilities to create and postulate are pure basement level fundamentals. These abilities underlie everything else. These things bring entire universes into existence. They are of a different quality and magnitude of importance when compared to any single Dynamic or all of the Dynamics taken together. It’s a matter of “apples versus oranges”, and involves very different characteristics and qualities of thing. There is a very real difference in magnitude of importance involved in all this. “Creativity” and the “second dynamic” are not even in the same ballpark! To equate them is truly crazy.

Interestingly, the beginning of The Second Dynamic book states:

The Second Dynamic is the urge toward survival
through sex, or children. This dynamic actually has two
divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act
itself and Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit,

including the rearing of children.”



This quote is clearly stated as taken from the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, obviously before the definition was altered and degraded in the newest version. Other references in other books mention the idea of “putting a future race on the time track” or “creating a future line of genetically similar organisms”. The fact that sex and family is the mechanism for “creating” a future race does not somehow magically alter the “creativity” of the Second Dynamic, as a specific case of “creativity”, into some generalized total “creativity” of all Life and existence.

The Second Dynamic does NOT include “any creativity”, and any such idea should be quickly removed wherever such ideas are written and published.


The greatest joy there is in life is creating”.

(Notice: There is no mention of this having to do only with the second dynamic. Unless we are to think that the greatest joy comes from sex and the rearing of children.)

There is absolutely no way that it makes sense to say:

The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family activity. It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.

The above paragraph is FALSE. The following paragraph is true.

The SECOND DYNAMIC is NOT CREATIVITY. Creativity IS making things (some for the future), and the second dynamic includes various examples of creativity associated with the family, sex and the creation of the future race. The second dynamic involves the creation (and survival) of the family unit, the rearing of children AND sex.

The second dynamic does not “incidentally” include sex. The second dynamic is at least one half made up of SEX. LRH actually calls the second dynamic the “SEX DYNAMIC”. Here are two LRH quotes.

This can be called the SEX DYNAMIC. (FOT)

The second dynamic has two main sub-divisions, the sexual act and the creation of children and their rearing. (SOS)

incidentally adj. 1. Apart or aside from the main subject; parenthetically. 2. By chance.

LRH makes it very clear in very many places that the second dynamic very much involves sex and goes so far as to call it the SEX DYNAMIC. It is minimally at least half made up of sex. It is simply incorrect to describe the second dynamic as “incidentally” including sex. Sex cannot be “apart or aside from the main subject” and also be the main subject at the same time. Earlier and correct LRH definitions place sex in a primary, and not incidental, role in the second dynamic. The new definition is very much out of sync with the rest of what LRH has said on the subject. In fact, there is not a reference in existence anywhere that comes even close to saying that the second dynamic is creativity. Even if the powers that be want to keep this in print, for some absurd reason, why would anyone bother to use this one single isolated definition, when there are hundreds of other examples that consistently define it as sex and family?

And people are using it. Staff at the FSO are directing people to this definition and encouraging them to think with and apply this definition.

It actually scared me that this could be written and get published, distributed, and accepted without question or concern. To me it seems that far too many people are asleep at the wheel. I don’t mean to be overly critical, cute or snide. I think this is deadly serious and up until now, for whatever reason, nobody has perceived this for what it is. Hopefully someone will now.

It should concern you, the reader, also. What LRH defines himself in many references, in basic books written by him when HE WAS STILL ALIVE, directly as the “sex dynamic”, or as “sexual urge”, or “sexual impulse”, now has been reduced to something of “incidental” relevance. The manner in which it is explained here alters LRH’s actual original definitions and meanings, and shifts the importance, relative weight and significance of the various concepts involved. I will repeat that:

It alters LRH’s actual original definitions and meanings, and shifts the importance, relative weight and significance of the various concepts involved.

LRH states in the chapter entitled The Parts of Man, in Fundamentals of Thought:

Sex is only one of numerous creative impulses.

That IS TRUE, but this doesn’t mean in any way that all creative impulses reside within the Second Dynamic with sex being only one of them. It means that various creative impulses flow through every Dynamic, with the impulse of sex being only one of many of them. The fact that there is a creative impulse known as sex in the second Dynamic is irrelevant.

In the same book, in the chapter entitled Causation of Knowledge:

AXIOM 10: The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.

And in Scientology 0-8, from The Factors:

  1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.

I would hope that nobody interprets this to mean that the entire purpose of all existence, the CREATION of an effect, derives from the CREATIVITY of the Second Dynamic. But if “any creativity” is included in the Second Dynamic, then this must somehow be true. BUT THAT IS NUTS! I guess someone could conceive that the “creativity” of the Second Dynamic channels itself to and through the Seventh Dynamic, and then as the “creative ability” of Theta then diverts and channels itself through each of the Eight Dynamics so as to mock-up the various universes, planets, life forms and so on. That is obviously nuts and almost “New Age” with the “channeling” concept, but one WILL, out of necessity, develop weird ideas when trying to make sense of this wacky definition and when trying to align it with extant legitimate LRH data.

Per LRH (Ability Issue 74 Tech Volume IV page 354):

The spirit is the source of all creation. You are a spirit.”

This simply reaffirms the idea that creativity is far above everything else. There is no possible way the new definition of the second dynamic makes actual sense, though it seems that MANY people seem to have somehow applied incorrect “thinking”, and enabled it to “make sense”. Too many imbue it with a legitimacy it simply does not possess. This has been going on, unnoticed, quietly agreed with, and quietly disagreed with by many since the early nineties when this definition first appeared in the LOC pack.

Scientology 8-8008, chapter entitled The Beingness of Man

Creativeness could be found to exceed existence itself; by observation and definition it is discoverable that thought does not necessarily have to be preceded by data, but can create data. Imagination can then create without reference to pre-existing states, and is not necessarily dependent upon experience or data and does not necessarily combine these for its products. Imagination could be classified as the ability to create or forecast a future or to create, change or destroy a present or past.

Creativeness is the same thing as creativity. LRH clearly states here that it is above existence itself, and since the Dynamics are each PART of existence, there is no way that “creativity” could be the Second Dynamic as stated in the new definition and also be “above existence”.

LYING is the lowest form of creativity. (Fundamentals of Thought, chapter two)

It seems somebody was applying that sentence when they wrote the new definition of the second dynamic because it is a lie. Or, shall we believe that lying is some low form of the second dynamic? Oh, I know! When a husband cheats on their spouse, they often lie to cover their tracks, so since lying is a form of creativity, and since men lie to their spouses to have sex with other women, then the second dynamic must also be creativity! That’s an example of completely absurd logic, but it seems that similar absurd logic must have led to so many people accepting this screwy new definition as sensible.

LRH clearly states in many places that the Second Dynamic is made up equally of SEX and FAMILY.

Sex is not some “incidental” thing used as a mechanism to compel future survival. Future survival of the race or GE line is the entire purpose of the 2D and the activities of SEX, FAMILY and the REARING OF CHILDREN bring it about. The Second Dynamic is 50% sex and 50% family and the rearing of children. THAT’S IT!

The Second Dynamic does not contain “any creativity” besides that involving sex and family. The above statement that it does is patently FALSE. And no arguing executives, convinced Word Clearers, threatening Ethics Officers, steering Qual Cramming Officers, senior management edicts, or HCO declarations can make it otherwise. Sure, the idea can be forced on others, and sadly, it seems almost everyone will happily accept it, but even so, it will not be true. It will never be true, although many people may accept it as true. Those are two very different things.

Somebody, possibly, seems to want to take the “sex” out of the second dynamic, or at least intends to greatly minimize its importance and relevance. But, intentions are irrelevant and I won’t even bother to pretend to be able to guess why anyone did what they did here. Really, it’s not important – THAT it occurred is what is vitally important.

I suggest that this get corrected quickly, because it is leaving in its wake a tremendous amount of confusion, disagreement and entheta. Every person who has read this has either been confused, has disagreed, or has accepted some self-created weird concatenation of logic to have it “make sense”.

If you did a survey, and were able to actually get the majority of the staff and public to answer honestly, you would discover something very interesting. But it would be vital to first encourage them so they weren’t feeling obliged to answer a certain way by being “politically correct” (saying things and acting certain ways because they’re “supposed” to and not because it is what they see, believe and know to be true). What would such a survey discover? Many people have had a problem with this definition of the second dynamic, whether it is of confusions or disagreements or both. How this could occur, and remain unnoticed for so long is a question I urge you to ask and get fully answered.

The Second Dynamic “Includes Any Creativity”?

The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVTY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity.

The above sentence is taken directly out of the most recent version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book.

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary

include v.t. 1. to contain or encompass as part of a whole. The meal includes dessert and coffee. 2. to place as part of a category. 3. to enclose.

Definition 1 is correct.

any adj. 1. One, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification. If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick Out any six you like. 2. whatever or whichever it may be: at any price. 3. In whatever quantity or number, great or small; some: Do you have any butter? 4. every; all: Any schoolchild would know that. Read any books you find on the subject. 5. (following a negative) at all: She can’t endure any criticism. -- pron. 6. an unspecified person or persons; anybody; anyone: He did better than any before him. 7. a single one or ones; an unspecified thing or things; a quantity or number: We don’t have any left. - adv. 8. in whatever degree; to some extent; at all: Do you feel any better? - Idiom. 9. any which way, in any manner whatever; indifferently or carelessly.

Definition 4 is correct.

Concise Oxford Dictionary

creative adj. 1) inventive and imaginative. 2) creating or able to create. + + creatively adv. creativeness n. creativity n.

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary

creative adj. 1) having the power or quality of creating 2) resulting from originality of thought; imaginative. 3) Facetious. producing deceptive or fraudulent information, etc. creative bookkeeping. [1670-90] -- creatively adv. creativeness n.

creativity n. 1. the state or quality of being creative. 2. the ability to create meaningful new forms, interpretations, etc.; originality. 3. the process by which one utilizes creative ability. [1870-75]

Oxford American Dictionary

creative adj. 1) having the power or ability to create things 2) showing imagination and originality as well as routine skill, creative work. creatively adv. creativity n.

Simply, “creativity” is the ability to create.

The phrase “includes any creativity,” means “encompasses any and all creativity”. The second dynamic definitely does not encompass any and all creativity. This is true by simple observation. Looking at the plainly visible facts of reality contradicts this statement. It is a sorry state of affairs when purported LRH “data” contradicts directly with simple facts that are directly available to any sane and fairly observant person.

Creativity is making things for the future. I can accept that phrase, although I will never accept it as a legitimate part of the definition of the second dynamic. Let’s look at examples of “making things for the future”. The reader should also do this drill, and make out your own list to get adequate reality on this for yourself. Do the drill and please don’t just react or argue.

A few examples of “making things for the future” might include:

Writing a song

Painting a picture

Building a house

Building a bridge

Building a electronic eavesdropping device

Coloring Easter eggs the night before Easter

Painting the walls of a room

Preparing a room for a new baby

Designing a new software program

Running for office as a county official and mounting a campaign

Planning a promotional campaign

Implementing a promotional campaign

Changing the electronics on a guitar to change the sound

Adding new hardware to a computer

Sexual intercourse (that succeeds in fertilization)

Planning a vacation for a husband and wife

Studying a course

Going to college

Doing one’s job well

Doing one’s job poorly

Writing a poem

Getting a poem published

Going on a bookstore tour to promote the book of poems

Cutting a lawn

Manicuring one’s nails

Getting one’s “hair done”

Exercising 1 hour at the gym

Designing a planet buster bomb

Using a planet buster bomb

Designing and building a time machine

Delivering a sermon at a church service

Performing a marriage

Getting married

Working out an investment plan with a financial counselor for a friend

Receiving auditing

Building a fence

Tearing down a fence

Planning and attending a picnic with one’s children

Planning and attending a company picnic

Setting up a new administrative system

Conducting a training seminar for a group of employees

Implementing a bonus program as part of a staff pay plan

Recording a song

Recording a video of a group playing a song

Buying a puppy dog for a child

Planting seeds in a burnt out forest area

Building a plant to remove heavy metals from seawater

Installing a Jacuzzi

Each example above can belong to one or more Dynamics depending on the exact circumstances. For example, writing a song, could be solely a first dynamic activity if one does it and never performs it to anyone. It would be also a third dynamic activity if it were done while one was working as a staff writer at a song publishing company. It would include a second dynamic aspect if a man was inspired by, wrote it for and sang it to his wife. If the song is admired and appreciated by some or many people, and elicits some emotion in them, then it also includes a seventh dynamic aspect of beauty and Art.

Is the writing of a song a second dynamic activity? Absolutely not! The same response of “absolutely not” is equally appropriate for most of the other examples above, though some are involved with sex, family and children, and therefore do qualify correctly as a second dynamic action of creativity. Please realize that creativity can and does occur on every dynamic, as a creative act on and within only that individual dynamic, and this occurs every second of every day since this universe began 76 trillion years ago (give or take a few months).

Since Scientology creates or makes “better people” (making things for the future), are the activities of Scientology primarily a second dynamic activity? The “making of better people” or “making the able more able” is surely included within the realm of “any creativity”. Please don’t try to figure that out. I am just being a smart-ass. But hopefully you are beginning to see the weirdness of what is going on here.

Only a few of the examples above are actually restricted to the second dynamic as sex and family. Yet all the examples above do fall under the new expansive definition of the second dynamic as “any creativity”.

Every action or product described above each puts something onto the future track for a person or people to use, appreciate or have. This list could be 1000 pages long, and still it would only begin to scratch the surface.

The above list is also the same list for “includes any creativity”. Each of the examples on the list exhibit creativity. The new second dynamic definition claims to “include any creativity”. So, all the examples that are actually first, third or forth or whatever dynamic, now fall under the “new and improved version” (sarcasm) of the second dynamic.

The point is that the idea “includes any creativity”, is useless as a concept because it INLCLUDES EVERYTHING. A concept that makes no differentiation and fails to come down from the high clouds of abstraction can serve no purpose – except to confuse people.

In fact, creativity exists at the very highest level of abstract concepts, including everything else, because all else flows forth from the creative actions of Theta.

Sanity is the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities.

Two or more facts or things that are totally unlike are DIFFERENT. They are not the same fact or same object.

Two or more facts or things that have something in common with one another are SIMILAR.

Two or more facts or things that have all of their characteristics in common with another are IDENTICAL.

The above LRH quote is from Data Series 1R, The Anatomy of Thought.

Please look at these ideas or datums:

1) Sex and family (future generations). (TCOHA)

2) This can be called the SEX DYNAMIC. (FOT)

3) The second dynamic has two main sub-divions, the sexual act and the creation of children and their rearing. (SOS)

4) Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. (latest Introduction to Scientology Ethics book)

The first three sentences are very similar, and involve the same things and ideas. LRH says or writes pretty much along the same lines in numerous books, issues and tapes. They involve the same basic idea. They involve the same basic realities of organisms procreating, grouping in family units, and bringing about a future race.

The forth line is very different. It involves concepts and areas of reality very much outside of the realm of sex, family and children. As shown above, “any creativity” can easily involve anything on any dynamic. In fact, it doesn’t simply involve other areas, but it also involves an entirely different magnitude of thing. “Creativity” underlies all creation, at any time, past, present or future, on any Dynamic, in this universe, or any other universe. The ideas in the first three lines are not even of comparable magnitude to the idea of line four. The concept of comparable magnitude is also covered in the Data Series and in other places by LRH. This concept is important to what I discuss here.

The problem here is that the definition makes things conceptually similar and equal that are not similar or equal in the real world and life of thetans and universes. In other words, the concept or idea does not relate to what is observably true to any aware being, including LRH. This is enforced idiocy. The new definition forces concepts and ideas to be identified that have no right to be made equal. Why? Because they are not that way in reality, or in actuality, and any aware thetan can or should be able to easily see that. Please don’t take that too harshly. Examples of such enforced lunacy in the wog world are nearly infinite. Almost every subject in existence on planet Earth is loaded with concepts that don’t refer to any actual reality that anyone can observe for himself or herself as true. The problem here is that most people never observe anything and instead endlessly “think”. This is true for concepts such as God, angels, Holy, Heaven, Satan, ADHD, learning disorders, depression as an illness, mental illness, ECT as a cure for mental problems, Darwinian evolution, the Big Bang theory, and so on. There are many more. Sure, anyone can accept and believe any sort of nonsense, but Scientology is supposed to be taking people in the other direction.

Realize that just because many people seem to “understand” and “like” this new definition means absolutely nothing. Look around and you will see that people also think they “understand” and “like” the ideas of socialism, communism, psychiatry, Keynesian Economics, the AMA approved cause and treatments for cancer, and much more. They understand nothing. But they think they do. Modern societies and most of modern Earth civilizations, if nothing else, are riddled with people who “understand” total and complete nonsense. The materialist preaching doctoral graduates of Harvard, Princeton and Yale universities lead the herd. The uneducated and absurdly indoctrinated peasants of Middle Eastern countries are not much far behind. As far as people “liking” the new definition of the second dynamic, well, please recall exactly what LRH says about “popularity” being an index of anything of value. He says in KSW #1:

Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels . . .

The truth is that people will tend to choose absurdities over factual data. The prime case in point is the fact that any group of beings will choose useless technology over workable technology. Per LRH, again from KSW #1:

We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact – the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatizations of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out.

The point is that “popularity” means nothing. A more important point is that what I describe in this report may very well be an example of what the group can do when left to it’s “own devices”. LRH isn’t here anymore to monitor, step-in and handle everything if it gets screwed up, and re-issue KSW every 5 or 10 years. I know this may be unjustly harsh to say, extremely critical, and may be viewed as “rude”, “heretical” or “sacrilegious” to utter such words, but I see no other explanation for such an absurdity to appear in what is promoted and sold as an “LRH book”. I also know that since I am not there in the Sea Org slugging it out 24 hours a day, that I may be viewed as “having no right to say this”. But I will say it anyway because it is true. Also, it needs to be said for everybody’s sake. I am writing this because somebody has to, and nobody else is doing it.

Minimally, the situation I describe here is a tremendous outpoint. The inclusion of this nonsense in the definition of the second dynamic is a glaring example of something that is there that shouldn’t be there.

An outpoint is something that contributes to a situation and should not be in the situation. (Date Series 28R-1)

What you want is the outpoint and an outpoint is a departure from the ideal scene. That tells you that there is an area to investigate . . . . (Data Series 41RA)

I suggest somebody start investigating how and why this ever got into print.


All thetans, doing what they do, at all times and places, would “include any creativity”. Please do not jump up, start clapping and now throw this phrase into the seventh or eighth dynamic. The phrase is worthless as a concept and inquiring minds should not have to encounter and tolerate such rubbish. About the only phrases that would be correct and make any sense in alignment with extant LRH data would be these two:

A Thetan includes all creativity.

Theta includes all creativity.

LRH very clearly explains that he chose to break up and dissect life into the eight dynamics so it could be examined and understood. In the same book where the alteration of the definition of the second dynamic can be found, Introduction to Scientology Ethics, at the top of page 13 in the chapter, The Dynamics of Existence, we find a few paragraphs earlier:

The purpose of setting forth this division is to increase an understanding of life by placing it in compartments. Having subdivided existence in this fashion, each compartment can be inspected as itself and by itself in relationship to the other compartments of life.

This quote remains correct because it is verbatim from The Fundamentals of Thought. One might wonder why someone chose to alter the definitions of the Dynamics that followed right after this section in the original version of The Fundamentals of Thought.

But a “compartment” is useless when it includes everything. There is nothing about the concept “includes any creativity” that separates it or differentiates it from anything else anywhere.

The definition sinks into uselessness, as it becomes so over-generalized and abstract to cover everything, and thereby mean nothing at all.

I am not playing with words. What I describe is totally true. I beg anyone to sit down some afternoon and Clay Demo the sentence:

Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity.

There is nothing this couldn’t include! The clay demo would include “any creativity”. Good luck! You will need it. You will have a heck of a time with “includes any creativity”. This phrase encompasses everything described in the Factors. It describes any making of anything on any Dynamic. It includes the smallest electron up to and beyond the largest galaxy. We are to believe and accept that all of that IS THE SECOND DYNAMIC? I am sorry, but the second dynamic is not creativity. The second dynamic does not “include any creativity”. That is utterly false and completely a lie. It is not partially a lie. It is not a little mistake. It is a huge and gross falsehood.

Additionally, it will drive any thetan nearly mad trying to make sense of how the usual concepts of the second dynamic, as sex and family, relate to the tremendously expansive notion of “includes any creativity”. There is a connection between the underlying creativity of Theta and thetans with the second dynamic, but that same type connection exists on any dynamic. Creativity is the ability or mechanism that makes anything on any dynamic. Since creativity exists equally, necessarily and just as well on the first, third, forth, fifth, sixth or seventh dynamics, then we might as well call any of them, or some group of them or all of them creativity.

It’s just a wrong idea. It is so obviously not by LRH.

LRH makes sense. This doesn’t make any sense. Therefore this is NOT legitimate LRH data.

THAT is a fact. What that means or implies is whatever it is. How the Church handles this fact is up to the recipients of this report. The only thing I can do is cross my fingers and hope for the best. But the top-level fact about all this is that the data is false. THAT is the stable datum about all this and while that fact may upset and confuse some people, it is true and must be dealt with. Resisting, arguing and defending or attacking me as some trouble-maker is not a correct solution, though I don’t doubt that may occur.

Please don’t ask me or require me to “work out how it can be that way”. I don’t have any misunderstood words or fixed ideas about this, and I understand the related concepts very well. Thetans can conceptually work out anything to be any which way they desire or will allow themselves to be misled. The whole point of the subject of Scientology is that it contains a body of data that is correct, and the only reason someone would need to “work it out” is when they have misunderstood words or need to bring up their reality on something they are reading or studying. Doing the opposite, and “working out how something can be that way”, when the data is nuts, can only have harmful effects on the person, the group and the entire purpose of Scientology.

Creativity” is an ability of a thetan, which manifests on any dynamic. Creativity is not the second dynamic, and saying so, and getting people to try to make sense of this nonsense and figure out how this can be so (when it’s not) is destructive in many ways – but mostly, it’s simply false data.

You, or anyone, may create the group (3rd dynamic) into the future. You create your health (1st dynamic) into the future, and you create your garden (5th) into the future. You create your personal MEST environment into the future (6th), etc., and you create your sexual relationship and family into the future (2nd). But the creative urge or tendency of thetans is not, has never been, and never will be assigned to the 2nd dynamic, and is incorrectly defined as such. The second dynamic is not creativity.

(Note: The entire section on The Dynamics has been altered, some of the definitions worse than others. The same errors appear in the LOC pack and a Division Six Basic Course, the name of which I forget. They all need to be removed, with the correct definitions from the previous editions or other books reinstated).

Expansion of the Dynamics as a Natural Transition

It is a common idea that the Dynamics involve expanding out into areas of things. In other words the concept of the Dynamics involves the idea of “more” as one moves out through the Dynamics. It’s not that the Dynamics themselves get larger, but that as a being expands in power, awareness and responsibility, he or she widens the area or sphere of their involvement. The number of units or area increases as a natural transition as one moves up through the Dynamics. There are also the concepts of greater space, increased responsibility and larger environment as one passes up to and through the Dynamics.

(Taken from Second Dynamic Book)

LRH says in The Creation of Human Ability, section R2-39 Conceiving Something Interesting:

The spheres of interest are the eight Dynamics. A series of concentric spheres each one larger than the last with the First Dynamic at the center and the Eighth Dynamic at the extreme of any universe gives a spatial picture of interest.

Defining the second dynamic as “creativity” throws this simple idea entirely out of whack. The second dynamic is now actually the largest dynamic (as it includes any creativity). The third dynamic is now no longer larger than the last (the second). In fact, either is the 4th, 5th or 6th! Folks, both ideas cannot be true. Please look and think for yourself at the obvious. That is the actual true goal of Scientology training and processing – to get you to LOOK and KNOW accurately based on your own ability.

At the First Dynamic there is just the individual viewpoint with their individual body and concerns. It is concerned with “self”. It involves “one thing”. It is a small realm.

The Second Dynamic expands upon this somewhat and involves a special case of a group.

The Second Dynamic, chapter Marriage and Sex

The family fits at the upper end of the Second Dynamic. It is the basic group of Man. It doesn’t matter whether there are eight wives and one husband or eight husbands and one wife or one husband and one wife, these plus the children constitute the family. Monogamy does not mean family.

The family is simply a group for the purpose of sexual pleasure and the rearing of children and mutual and economic advantages amongst themselves.

Therefore the family is an actual group.

The smallest group includes two people involved in a relationship including sexual relations. This can be man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, dog-dog, dog-squirrel, man-dog, or whatever. It can be man-woman-woman-woman (as in Middle Eastern harems, or certain Christian sects that promote polygamy). This also involves ANY act that results in a future genetic line such as reproductive activities of cells, insects, plants and every living thing (i.e. any specific life form of the 5th Dynamic). Obviously to reproduce and create a future race, the sexual act would have to occur within the same species and be a heterosexual activity. Once reproduction occurs, the special case of a group expands into a somewhat larger group because it now involves offspring. If there were no sex, there would be no propagation of the race along the time track and no possibility of a family. So sex is necessary to the creation of a future race (more meat bodies down the time track). Of course, there could be a rare example of a married couple who never had sex and adopted a child, and there would be “family”. This couple could be male-female, male-male or female-female. But that would not be the norm. The correct definition of the Second Dynamic would include all of these possibilities, although some might be considered aberrated or unethical.

The Second Dynamic, so understood, and correctly understood, places it nicely as a unique “group” between the First and Third Dynamics (exactly where it belongs).

In other words, Sex and Family, as the true definition of the Second Dynamic, falls neatly right where it should, because that’s the way life actually is.

At the Third Dynamic there are groups. This includes any group of any size, from two guys playing poker up to 480,000 members of a Federal government (or more). There is no limit to the size, purpose or activity as long there are two or more people working together for some common purpose or united in some common agreement.

The Forth Dynamic is all Mankind considered inclusively. This is obviously the “largest” group involving human beings. But this is not a “group” per se because there is not necessarily any common purpose or agreement amongst all people other than the basic biological urge to survive as the same or similar species (which all living things possess as a prime motivation). This is the largest collection of any specific life form.

Rabbits, birds, snakes and even cells have their own first, second, third and forth dynamics. Birds or any living animal have some sort of sex and families. This is easily observable. Some animals form herds and congregate into groups such as buffalo, bison, monkeys and apes. There are many examples. While they might not have any actual conscious “agreement” amongst them, they obviously can and do exist in the form of a group (3rd Dynamic). The entire species of any animal, plant or even cell is it’s forth dynamic. All liver cells come together in any body as a Third Dynamic and exist actually and functionally as a liver. The same is true for any organ in any animal.

The point is that the traditional definition of the Second Dynamic places it exactly where it should be, as a special case of a “group”, and explains procreation and the placing onto the future track of more genetically similar life forms.

The definition of the second dynamic as “creativity” screws up many aspects of this natural progression. First, as anyone can easily see, as one moves from the First to the Forth Dynamic, there is an increase in “number of members”. From one (self), to two (sex), to three or more (family and or group) up to millions (group) and up to billions (race, species).

Creativity” is not even the same “type” or “quality” of thing.

Creativity is an ability or function. It is not of comparable magnitude to the other things and characteristics delineated in the usual (and correct) definition of the Dynamics.

Second, the concept of the second dynamic as sex and family fits in nicely with the examination of any other life form (as it should). Try to examine a squirrel’s “creativity”, or a deer’s utilization of it’s “creativity” to assist in the survival of the herd, or a cell’s inherent “creativity” to forward the destruction of other cells of dissimilar races. Oh, I am sure you could do it, but it would be nuts.

Scientology 8-8008, chapter entitled The Beingness of Man

Creativeness could be found to exceed existence itself; by observation and definition it is discoverable that thought does not necessarily have to be preceded by data, but can create data. Imagination can then create without reference to pre-existing states, and is not necessarily dependent upon experience or data and does not necessarily combine these for its products. Imagination could be classified as the ability to create or forecast a future or to create, change or destroy a present or past.

Creativity is a quality normally attributed to aware entities capable of thought. Creativity encompasses imagination, and imagination is usually conceived as a human quality restricted to thinking beings. One doesn’t usually conceive that rabbits, moles, insects or almost any other living creature possesses imagination and creativity. Unless, we all want to become card carrying Materialists, promoting neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang theory, where everything evolved accidentally from mud, and Nature (i.e. MEST) itself somehow possesses it’s own “creativity” to bring about the creation and survival of the universe and all living things! Of course, that is the same sort of nonsense that supports the ideas of modern psychiatry. As LRH says clearly in Dianetics, chapter one, The Tone Scale:

A gross error has been made by scientists in the past who sought, materialistically, to explain life on the basis of mud, chemicals and electricity. It was the contention of these individuals that matter, electrical energy, operating in space and time, combined in some incredibly lucky moment to form a self-perpetuating unit and that this item fortuitously grew and grew and one day man appeared on the scene.

The concept of “creativity” does not at all fit comfortably or correctly between the first and third dynamics. In fact, “creativity” is a quality, function or ability of Theta, existing even before any universe or dynamics. Attempting to place it within any single dynamic directly contradicts with a correct observation of WHAT IS TRUE regarding Thetans and their relationship to the physical universe.

Third, each of the dynamics mentioned above include things, relationships and activities that can be seen. Any event on any dynamic can be observed and pointed to as something occurring in or as part of the physical universe. While obviously the dynamics involve and relate to ideas each Thetan can have about them, each of dynamics 1-4 (and 5 and 6) involves things that are mundane. These things are visible and able to be viewed by anyone. Each involves exact times, places, forms and events for any occurrence on any of these dynamics.

“Creativity” is an invisible quality of beings. It’s not that it doesn’t exist, it does, but it can’t be viewed as physical things like any of the events on dynamics one through six. While you can point to manifestations of “creativity” along any dynamic, and creativity very much manifests along every dynamic, it is not a “thing” like the objects of the first, third, forth or correct definition of the second dynamic.

As we all know it is possible to write up O/Ws when these involve actions one has done in the physical universe by specifying the time, place, form and event. This does not involve thoughts, ideas or intentions. Harm is done to actual real things in the real physical universe, and these harmful actions are the subject of overts and withholds. Much of creativity is “mental” or occurs in one’s imagination or spiritual space. What shall we do? Shall we begin writing up O/Ws on our postulating and thought processes when we now sit down to consider our second dynamic out-ethics?

But more, “creativity” includes anything, anywhere on any dynamic. It is widely expansive and inclusive. “Creativity” is involved in the writing of a song, painting of a picture, performance of a job, development of a new software program, day to day activity of maintaining any successful relationship, making one’s breakfast, and making and maintaining any entire universe! The concept is so general and can involve so many different things that it is useless as a category of an “urge to existence as” or “dynamic urge to survive as” (the correct definition of any of the dynamics).

The purpose of the creation of the concepts of the dynamics by LRH was to conveniently break up life so that it could be better examined and understood. Life is what you see around you. Life is what any of us involve ourselves in. Life is visible and part of the observable physical universe. “Creativity” is not “part” of any observable thing even though one can deduce and infer “creativity” from observable things. As an example, when you view a painting you can deduce that there was a painter and that he had at least some fair degree of “creativity”. Again, “creativity” is not so much a component of any single dynamic as it underlies and is the means by which any dynamic is brought into existence and maintained. “Creativity” is the basic stuff of existence everywhere.

There is no “urge to exist as creativity”. That is absurd. That is like saying a thetan has an urge to survive as a thetan. That’s nuts.

One uses their own inherent “creativity” to realize success as an individual, as a family, as a group, as mankind, as life forms, and so on down the line. It is “pan-dynamic”, in the sense that it truly occurs “across” the dynamics. It is not limited or defined to any one dynamic. This idea, besides being incorrect, can only result in confusion to the person trying to make sense of the idea and aligning it with other accurate LRH data.

Scientology 8-8008, chapter entitled The Beingness of Man

Creativeness could be found to exceed existence itself . . .

The fifth dynamic involves all life forms. Any animal, plant or organism is a special case of the fifth dynamic. This is a much larger group, with Man as a race (your 4th Dynamic), or any race, simply a smaller subset.

The sixth dynamic involves the entire physical universe, and obviously is the largest “group” of all. It encompasses all visible (and many invisible) things. Animals, plants and all organisms are special cases of MEST that has been organized and animated by THETA.

Jumping to the seventh dynamic switches over into a very different quality of “thing”. This, in its most actual and true form, involves the idea of the invisible thetan and universe of theta. It is not part of the MEST universe, can not be viewed with MEST universe senses or gadgets, and does not follow the laws of MEST. In fact, it is the source of the MEST universe, and any and all other universes. In it’s myriad distorted forms, it also involves any concept relating to beings, disembodied entities, ghosts, astral travel, life after death, Heaven, Hell and so on ad infinitum. Thinking beings have no shortage of nutty ideas involving religion and spirits.

In fact, as a quality of a thetan or theta, “creativity” would reside here simply as one aspect of the seventh dynamic. “Creativity” though, does not deserve it’s own dynamic due to the true nature of thetans and their involvement with the physical universe and each of the areas defined by each dynamic.

Since LRH, and therefore Scientology, doesn’t much bother with the eighth dynamic, I won’t either.

One starts with “one thing” (self) at the first dynamic. This gradually moves up in quantity of things or members until one hits the 6th dynamic where there is the almost unconfrontable tremendous amount of particles, things, energies, and relationships making up the MEST universe. The “group” of things or parts the thetan is involved with gets larger and larger as one moves up through the dynamics. That is as it should be defined, because that’s the way it is in reality.

Placing “creativity” between the first and third dynamics is sheer lunacy. Creativity truly underlies and encompasses ALL things on ALL dynamics. The quantity involved is nearly infinite. What happens to the gradual increase of group members from the 1st to 3rd dynamics when the 2nd dynamic is now defined as “creativity”? “Creativity” doesn’t even involve any concept of “amount of things” or “members”. In fact the traditional, usual and correct natural expansion from one to more as one moves from the first to the second dynamic and beyond disappears with this new definition. It is unusually out of place in the natural sequence from first to the third dynamic. It is truly non sequitur. It is like a trying to place a square block into a round hole – it simply does not fit.

Yet, right now the round block sits comfortably in a square hole!


“Creativity” is not the second dynamic. The second dynamic is not creativity. It never was and never will be. Just saying so and telling others so by printing such “data” in an “LRH Book”, and even while far too many have blindly accepted this definition and somehow made sense of it, still does not make it so. The TRUTH is the TRUTH no matter what anyone chooses to say, promote, print or believe that is in direct contradiction with the facts of WHAT IS OBSERVABLY TRUE AND ACCURATE and in exact alignment with EXTANT LRH DATA.

The last point is that LRH data always aligns with the facts of what can be observed by an uptone and aware being. This “data” does not align at all, so it is not legitimate LRH “data”. It also does not at all align with the rest of what LRH says and has written in many places about the subject.

I implore you not to incorrectly interpret this as an attack or an intention to harm the Church. It is neither. I do get irritated at times with people for failing to observe things that are simple to me, but please don’t confuse that with anything else. My purpose is to get somebody somewhere in a position of power to duplicate what is so painfully obvious to me so this situation can be rectified at every level. There is something wrong. I would say there is something terribly wrong. If there was nothing wrong at all and I was criticizing just to cause trouble or to enturbulate people, then that would be something else. But that is not the case here. And while this may enturbulate some readers, please realize that some facts can enturbulate people. Most people were enturbulated by the fact of the World Trade Center plane attacks. But any person telling someone about it or relaying the facts in writing would not be the true source of the enturbulation. The fellows who crashed the planes into the World Trade Center were the true source of the entheta.

In this case, the false data itself and the question of how and why it came to be in print and widely distributed might upset some as a fact, but that situation exists regardless of me. The fact of the situation is the problem, and the situation of me communicating about this fact is not the problem. Of course, some may choose to try to make and present me as the problem. As you will read later, it surely wouldn’t be the first time.

Please don’t feel or act out that you must shoot the messenger because there may be something uncomfortable about confronting the facts of the message.

People need help on this planet. Issuing nutty data into print as Church orthodoxy surely doesn’t help anybody.

Do NOT take that as a general attack. The situation I describe is ONE ISOLATED example of a case where false data HAS been issued and widely disseminated to Scientology staff and public. There is a huge overabundance of cases where what is in print is legitimate LRH data. This case just doesn’t happen to be one of them.

Survival and Creativity

The concept of the dynamics follows naturally from the concept of SURVIVAL. The goal is to survive forever or infinitely “as something” or “through something”.

It is vital to notice immediately that it is you surviving as or through something. It is not the MEST universe surviving as itself that is the 6th dynamic, but you surviving as or though the MEST universe that is your 6th dynamic. In fact, the universe wouldn’t be here without your and everybody else’s viewpoints. In the same way it is not the family surviving as itself that is the second dynamic, but you surviving as or through the family that is your second dynamic. People make this error frequently. In fact, nothing can exist without it being created by a thetan or group of thetans. To try to conceive of things as existing “by themselves” is absurd, but that is exactly what modern materialism asserts when it promotes the ideas of an “objective” physical universe that has nothing to do with anything we think or decide. If this is confusing or unclear, read Scientology 8-8008 where LRH talks about what the “8” and “0” represent.

From Fundamentals of Thought:

These we call DYNAMICS. These are motives or motivations.

It will be found amongst individuals that each person stresses one of the dynamics more than the others, or may stress a combination of dynamics as more important than other combinations.

While the dynamics are not of equal importance, one to the next, the ability of an individual to assume beingness, doingness and havingness of each dynamic is an index of his ability to live.

The abilities and shortcomings of individuals can be understood by viewing their participation in the various dynamics.

The key is how and in what way an individual thetan views and participates in any dynamic. When he participates he must CREATE to enable survival on any dynamic. The dynamics are discussed as if they are “things” out there, separate from each of us, but the truth is that without you and me none of them would or could exist. This is simply a problem with words.

Per LRH, again from Fundamentals of Thought:

The difficulty of stating the exact definitions of the dynamics is entirely verbal. Originally the dynamics read “the urge to survival as - ”. As the science developed it became apparent that survival was only an apparency and only one facet of existence. Both the cycle of action and three conditions of existence belong in each dynamic.

Generally, for something to be part of a dynamic it must be something that can be seen (i.e. something part of the MEST universe). It is true that “ideas” (which are basically invisible) can also exist and survive such as “Marxism” or “Darwinism”. Strangely, in these two cases, even though both are quite incorrect theories based on nothing more than the imagination of their creators, they still can and do “exist” through space and time as concepts. In this sense “ideas” can and do also survive. But what actually occurs is that thetans co-create the “ideas” by their agreement with the ideas, and the “ideas” truly have no existence separate from the thetans that hold these “ideas” to be true or valid. “Ideas” are examples of things of the seventh dynamic and they start, change and stop like the “things” of any other dynamic. “Heresy” used to be a well-known “idea” back in the 14th century, especially in Europe and areas oppressed by the Spanish Inquisition. The “idea” survived for awhile, faded away, until today it means mostly nothing to most people. One can actually examine the history of any “idea”, and graph it’s growth, survival, decay and death. Doing such a thing is an interesting way to view the history of the world, a country or group. Examining the evolution of the ideas underlying any activity is the best way to understand anything.

Examples of the Dynamics

First Dynamic – this involves a thetan’s involvement with a body, personal possessions, personal hobbies, personal health, etc. To survive well as a First Dynamic, one would do things to bring about health and longevity for the body. One could study and learn about health, exercise, nutrition, and all sorts of things to apply so as to live better and longer as a body. One could and would use their own personal CREATIVITY to put these things into action and bring them about as existing conditions.

Second Dynamic – this involves existing as the family unit and sex. To survive well as a Second Dynamic one would do things to bring about health and longevity of a family including successfully completed sexual acts. This involves doing things together as a family, bringing about harmony among family members, sharing mutual goals and activities, and ensuring the optimum survival and happiness for each member. One could and would use their own personal CREATIVITY to put these things into action and bring them about as existing conditions. In fact, as LRH correctly states:

A marriage is something you have to postulate into existence and keep created, and when you stop working at it it will cease. (Second Dynamic book, chapter Marriage)

Third Dynamic – this involves surviving through groups. To survive well as a Third Dynamic, and there can be many, one would do things to bring about the health and longevity of the various groups one is involved with. This involves doing things to make the group well known, well thought of, successful, expanding and continuing. One would contribute their own ideas and actions to support the group goals and purposes. One could and would use their own personal CREATIVITY to put these things into action and bring them about as existing conditions. It is important to notice that what is involved here is your experience and creation of the group from your viewpoint. What is vital is your contribution to the survival of the group. That’s what defines your group or third dynamic. It isn’t “the company”, it’s “your actions and life as involved with the company”. It isn’t “the Sea Org”, it’s “your actions and life as involved with the Sea Org”. Without all the individual group members taken as a whole, and their agreements and mutual considerations about the group, there would not be any group. A group does not and cannot exist separate from the participants who agree, contribute to it and put it there. There is no third dynamic called the Sea Org. There are only individual urges to survive as the Sea Org. If you disagree with that statement then you have confusions on simple LRH data. Any dynamic is not the thing. A dynamic is the urge to survive or exist as the thing.

LRH says about a post in HCO PL 22 May 1959 CENTRAL ORGANIZATION EFFICIENCY:

Once the basic purpose of a post or department is known, only two things should then be necessary:

  1. Self-determined and responsible continuous creation of department and post, and

  2. Holding the communication lines rigidly in place. (bold print by me for emphasis)

Defining self-determinism as it applies to departments and posts is very easy - - it is the willingness to decide and act in a causative manner toward the traffic and functions of that post.

And so on through the dynamics. Nothing can exist separate from the participants who contribute to it and put it there (including the entire MEST universe). In other words, for anything to be there and survive, a being or group of beings must CREATE IT.

The urge to SURVIVE manifests through eight basic areas, as defined by LRH. For anything to “survive”, it must BE THERE in some form, to be seen and viewed, or nothing could be said to be surviving. You survive, your pet survives, your house survives, and so also do an infinity of THINGS including cars, boats, gardens, marriages, relationships, companies, organizations, clubs, nations, continents, planets and so on. These are all visible and “there”. They can either survive or not survive. Once they fail to survive long enough they disappear and can no longer be seen – except in history books.

The point is that a person uses their intelligence and self-determinism to bring about survival on each and all dynamics. They use their intelligence and self-determinism to ensure and maximize survival on and through any and ALL dynamics. But equally, or in a more fundamental manner, each thetan also uses their CREATIVITY to maximize survival on and through any and ALL dynamics. In a very real sense intelligence and self-determinism derive from the source of all creation – CREATIVITY.

Creativity is a basic operational ability of a thetan, a “tool” or sorts, that which underlies one’s imagination, and the most fundamental aspect of what a being does with the universe around him on and through any and all Dynamics.

Creativity never was, isn’t now, and never will be limited to or defined by any one dynamic, and doing so is completely incorrect.

Anything on any dynamic, any form or event that exists as a part of any dynamic goes through a cycle of action. This is basic Scientology data. Any “thing” anywhere starts, changes and eventually stops, be it a tree, idea, song, marriage, business, state, planet, solar system or universe (reference: PDC tapes, basic books).

CREATIVITY is not susceptible to the same sort of examination as a cycle of action. Creativity underlies any cycle of action. While it is true training and auditing may increase a person’s potential of creativity along the various Dynamics, CREATIVITY itself is not something that is born (starts), grows, changes (survives), decays and dies (stops). In fact, CREATIVITY is that which starts, changes and stops the many cycles of action that enable forms and events to exist on or along any and all Dynamics. This creativity can be conscious and sane, or unconscious and insane (as in aberration).

The common denominator of all aberration (mental derangement) is cessation of creation. (P. A. B. 85, The Parts of Man)

Creations exist on each of the dynamics. We each create many things every day along the dynamics. In fact, for any dynamic to exist well and viably, we much each actively CREATE it and contribute to it through the intentional application of our own CREATIVITY.

All creations do not come from the second dynamic. Certain and specific types of creations do occur on and through the second dynamic and these are related to sex, family and the propagation of the race. Any thetan must apply their own CREATIVITY and thus CREATE on the second dynamic if they are to have a successful family, sex life and future race.

But they must do the same on all other dynamics if any of these other dynamics are to exist and be successful.

Please notice that CREATIVITY is a “tool” or basic “ability” that any thetan has or uses to bring about anything on any Dynamic. It is similar to “imagination” in that it is an invisible ability that a being possesses and utilizes to put things into existence along or on any dynamic. It’s a Theta thing. It is part of what a Static is and does. It’s very similar to and related to postulating.

CREATIVITY is not and cannot be limited to any one dynamic, and statements promoting such an idea are absurd and wrong.

A person will eventually only become confused by having to try to make sense of such nonsense, no matter how well they hide their confusions (and many hide it well).

From the Factors, the most basic impulse of a being is the creation of an effect. Realize that the word “creation” has the same root as “creativity”. CREATIVITY is that native ability or function of a thetan that is used to CREATE anything. Trying to take something that underlies and is basic to ALL LIFE, ALL REALITY and even ALL UNIVERSES, and consign it to a single dynamic is incorrect.

Any one dynamic is part of the overall Dynamic of Existence, which is “TO SURVIVE”. All things anywhere, at anytime past, present or future, exist only because they were CREATED or CO-CREATED by thetans. Thetans in mutual CREATIVITY bring about everything you see anywhere, whether it is one’s personal health, family, club, political party, or nation. CREATIVITY “flows through” each and every dynamic just as the “urge to survive as” flows through each and every dynamic.

Creativity is a tool or function of survival. It manifests on and through every dynamic. Taking something that underlies all life and creation and placing it in one isolated Dynamic that is only “part” of all life and creation is an example of incredible misunderstanding of related LRH data. Such an idea betrays everything LRH has ever said in all the related areas mentioned above, and also betrays simple observation of what life is and how it functions in relation to the physical universe and Theta.

The second dynamic is not creativity. The second dynamic does not include any and all creativity. The definitions in the latest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book are false.

Definition of the Eight Dynamics

As one looks out across the confusion which is life or existence to most people, one can discover eight main divisions, to each of which apply the conditions of existence. Each division contains a cycle of action.

There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call DYNAMICS. These are motives or motivations. We call them THE EIGHT DYNAMICS.

There is no thought or statement here that any one of these eight dynamics is more important than the others. While they are categories (divisions) of the broad game of life they are not necessarily equal to each other. It will be found amongst individuals that each person stresses one of the dynamics more than the others, or may stress a combination of dynamics as more important than other combinations.

The purpose in setting forth this division is to increase an understanding of life by placing it in compartments. Having subdivided existence in this fashion, each compartment can be inspected as itself and by itself in its relationship to the other compartments of life. In working a puzzle it is necessary to first take pieces of similar color or character and place them in groups.

The above quote by LRH is taken verbatim from The Fundamentals of Thought, chapter four, The Eight Dynamics.

LRH is extremely consistent and exact in what a dynamic is. Specifically, a dynamic is an urge, drive, impulse or motivation to survive or exist as something.

A dynamic is an urge, drive, impulse or motivation to survive or exist as something.

The dynamic is not the area of life, but life’s urge to survive in that area of life. So, the second dynamic is not a family, but the urge or drive or impulse or motivation for you to survive as a family. The same is true for every other dynamic. A dynamic each has a “subject”. The area of life is the “object”. The “subject” is life, you, theta, a thetan, or whatever you choose to call it. LIFE possesses the urge or drive to survive as something. YOU have the motivation toward existence as something in some area.

In typical grammatical terms,

Subject action word (verb) object

Bill walks to the park. Sally wrote the paper. I sang the song.

In these three sentences, “Bill”, “Sally” and “I” are the subjects. The words “walks”, “wrote” and “sang” are the verbs. The words “park”, “paper”, and “song” are the objects.

In terms of the dynamics there is very much the same relationship.

Life survives through or as a family. I exist as or through my bowling club. Theta survives as a galaxy.

In these sentences, “Life”, “I” and “Theta” are the subjects. The action words are “survives through or as”, “exist as or through”, and “survives as”. The objects or referents are “family”, “blowing club”, and “galaxy”. Obviously, the family involves the second dynamic, the bowling club involves a third dynamic, and the galaxy involves the sixth dynamic.

As is so common, people tend to forget about the invisible agent behind it all – the thetan. The thetan or theta is the SUBJECT, that which HAS THE URGE OR DRIVE TO EXIST AND SURVIVE as something or in some form. The areas relating to the dynamics, such as family, groups, species, and so forth are the OBJECTS of the drives of life. The senior entity is THETA, then comes the URGE (dynamic thrust to exist as something), and finally the objects or things that life relates to in some area. In fact life CREATES these things, but that is also covered elsewhere in this report. This correlates quite closely to BEING, DOING and HAVING.

The sentence below cannot make sense for many reasons, but one reason is that creativity does not align with any idea of urge, drive, impulse or motivation. In fact, there is no urge to create, except possibly as an aberration and creativity is senior to and includes any urge, drive, impulse or motivation. This is covered extensively in other areas of this report.

The second dynamic is creativity. (taken from Introduction to Scientology Ethics book)

That previous sentence is false.

LRH also makes it very clear that a dynamic, any dynamic, is an urge to exist as something.

THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge to toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself ands the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. This can be called the SEX DYNAMIC.

THE SIXTH DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as the physical universe.

The difficulty of stating the exact definitions of the dynamics is entirely verbal. Originally the dynamics read “the urge toward survival as –“. As the science developed it became apparent that survival was only an apparency and only one facet of existence. Both the cycle of action and the three conditions of existence belong in each dynamic. (The Fundamentals of Thought, chapter four)

The urge, drive, impulse or motivation refers or relates to a certain realm of things and relationships for any dynamic. The third refers to groups. The forth to a race. The fifth relates to living things. A dynamic is not the thing it relates to through the urge or drive. Every dynamic, to be a legitimate dynamic, must be able to be worded as “the urge toward survival as - ” or “the urge toward existence as - ”. This is utterly impossible when a dynamic is called “creativity”. It would also be incorrect to say “the urge to existence as creativity”. That would be totally stupid. Realize that all dynamics are stated in that form, if they are legitimate.

LRH makes it very clear above that any dynamic, any specific urge or drive to survive or exist as something also involves 1) the cycle of action, and 2) the three conditions of being. Please consider that any cycle of action, from the smallest atom, to the largest galaxy, involves the steps create – survive – destroy. As covered elsewhere, survive and destroy are really special types of creating. So, a cycle of action contains nothing but create, creating and creativity.

So now we have creativity as a part of any cycle of action, which is a part of any dynamic, yet the second dynamic is defined to be “creativity”. That is absurd, because that would mean that a part of the second dynamic is also the entire second dynamic, which is also part of every other dynamic.

In alignment with the grammatical analogy given above, to be a legitimate dynamic, it would have to be able to be written sensibly as:

Subject (theta) Action phrase (urge to survive as) Object (area of life)

Creativity” does not delineate any area of life as do the correct definitions of the dynamics relating to sex, family, groups, mankind, life forms and so on. If anything, the correct sequence would be diagrammed as:

Theta using it’s inherent creativity CREATES the urge to survive as something

AXIOM 10: The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect. (The Axioms of Scientology)

  1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of an effect. (The Factors)

Cause has the purpose to create an effect

It all says the same thing in different ways. Theta, through its fundamental ability to create (creativity) makes everything that ever was, is now or ever will be.

Defining the second dynamic as creativity is squirreling. This example cannot be termed real Scientology, because it is not. Why? For anything to be classified as legitimate Scientology, it must be 100% legitimate LRH data. This is definitely NOT legitimate LRH data. Therefore, it is NOT real Scientology.

Concepts and Abstractions versus Real Things

When LRH chose to break up “life” abstractly and describe conceptually the eight dynamics he did so arbitrarily, but the things he was referring to which a thetan deals with are real, exist and can be observed by anyone.

The purpose of setting forth this division is to increase an understanding of life by placing it in compartments.

To promote this orderliness it is necessary to assume for our purposes these eight arbitrary compartments of life. (Fundamentals of Thought, chapter four)

The second dynamic is a name or label for a specific category involving a thetan’s relationship with real things and activities. You can play games with terms, definitions and labels all you want, but the things and events LRH referred to are actual things and events regardless of what names or labels you give them. While it is true that each person has a different experience in relation to their own and others’ second dynamics, and while the importance and value of the second dynamic differs for each person, the fact of what the second dynamic refers to is the same for everyone. LRH chose the Dynamics as he did because these were areas of common real life experience that we each share, both now, and down along the past track for a long time. The point is that while we each experience these areas of life differently there is no variation in the fact that each dynamic refers to a unique, real, actual area of life each of us relates to in some way. In other words, while there can be tremendous variety in the “form” the second dynamic can take for any person, there is only one specific definition and category that correctly refers to the things and situations LRH observed and attempted to communicate to the rest of us under the heading of the “second dynamic”.

It is important to realize that the words and symbols used to name and describe things are not the things the words or symbols name or describe. In fact, the concepts and ideas you have in your head about things are also not the things themselves. Far too many people confuse their own (faulty) ideas and (incomplete) concepts with the things that these ideas and concepts are supposed to refer to. There is only one solution for faulty ideas – to observe the truth of anything based upon your own perception. Reading, thinking with ideas and concepts, and playing “mental games” only can go so far. If you forever fail to correctly connect the ideas and concepts with the actual things they refer to, then you can and will never know the truth about anything. The point is that LRH’s words and statements refer to real things and situations.

When you read his words, the idea is to LOOK at the things he is talking about – don’t just “think”. There is a huge difference. But when the definitions become altered, so that the words and ideas no longer refer to what they were originally designed to, then the subject will have begun it’s gradual deterioration. The eventual collapse of Scientology, as the only human subject able to raise the awareness and ability of thetans, will also be imminent and unavoidable once the alteration of definitions and concepts is tolerated, ignored or encouraged.

LRH was a genius primarily for two reasons. First, and this is the higher of the two factors, he probably had the best ability to observe compared to anyone else who has walked this planet. The views, data and things he relayed were based on actual and accurate OBSERVATIONS. If Scientology was just another subject based on false data, opinions, personal “ideas”, interesting “concepts”, and these were not grounded in the validity of how things “really are”, then it would be nonsense like the majority of other Earth subjects, religions and ideologies. Second, he had the intelligence and good grasp of the English language that enabled him to communicate his observations clearly.

Most people on Earth:

  1. can’t observe at any decent level,

  2. think” instead of “look” and thereby base their “knowledge” on “thinkingness” instead of “lookingness” (refer to the Know To Mystery Scale – this simply means most thetans are just way too far down the Tone Scale),

  3. don’t trust their own observations and listen to authorities instead,

  4. chronically invalidate what they know to be true when they do manage to observe accurately, and

  5. too often fail to then be responsible for what they correctly observe and know to be true

The reader need understand the above mentioned weaknesses in the observational ability and integrity of beings to understand how the situation discussed in this report could go undetected and unhandled for such a long period of time.

It is vital to understand that what LRH is actually trying to get any person to do is get up to a point where they can observe for his or herself, know what they know, and be accurate in their perceptions. Part of this is becoming stable enough in one’s viewpoint so that one can calmly observe anything just as it is, with no dub-in, false ideas, bias, fear, back-off, prejudice, bank factors or anything else other than simply sitting there and observing what is. That is much easier said than done. The Obnosis Drill deals with this idea. His intention never was for people to “blindly follow” his ideas or statements, but instead to increase the awareness of people through auditing and training, so that each person can SEE AND KNOW TRUTH FOR THEMSELVES BASED UPON THEIR OWN IMPROVED PERCEPTION AND INCREASED ABILITY TO OBSERVE.

The point here is that the “second dynamic” refers to actual things and situations as correctly delineated by LRH in his early writings. It refers to sex and the outcome of sex – children, family and the future race. It’s very simple really, unless someone makes it confusing by altering such a simple definition. Well, it used to be very simple.

But that is part of the problem – the majority of beings on this planet are far from simple and in their extreme complexity they each in their own unique way confuse and alter everything and anything they come into contact with. The sexual act, the genetic entity and it’s “urges”, sexual implants, children, family structure, family activities, child education and so on, are all REAL THINGS. When LRH asks you to consider the “second dynamic”, do a process involving the “second dynamic”, or “handle your second dynamic”, he refers to very exact things, situations and activities. He wants you to consider those things, not only ideas and concepts. These things involve sex, the family and the future of the race. That’s all it involves.

Somebody came along and re-wrote the definition of the second dynamic to refer to other completely different things and situations. I will repeat that again, and the reader MUST observe for himself or herself the reality this statement refers to:

Somebody came along and re-wrote the definition of the second dynamic to refer to other completely different things and situations.

LRH processing techniques “work” because these processes get the participant to LOOK AT and do things (mentally) with various specific areas of life. These “areas of life” are (or were up until recently) categorized and clearly defined in the LRH data on the “Dynamics”. When the basic terms (nomenclature) LRH used to label things becomes changed so as to refer to and mean other things entirely, through altered definitions of terms and concepts, we will be looking at nothing less than the beginning of the end of Scientology. The reader needs to duplicate this in no uncertain terms. To view this any other way would be a gross example of reasonableness.

Do not confuse concepts, PR or ideas with reality. LOOK DON’T LISTEN. Just look at the is-ness here. Look at the facts covered in this report. The truth is what is – not what someone tells you it is or what you may choose to believe contrary to the actual situation based upon your own ability to observe.



It is a SCENE. It is in three dimensions. It’s composed of spaces and objects and people.

None of these things are verbal.

To adjust a scene you have to LOOK AT IT. (HCO PL 16 March 1972, Issue I, LOOK DON’T LISEN)

And further:


VERIFY IT PERSONALLY (HCO PL 8 January 1975, Compliance, How To Get One)

Reports are simply statements that something exists a certain way. They may be true or they may not be true. Reports are assertions. Statements may be someone’s opinions or they may be facts. Almost everything that anyone communicates to you, whether in person, from a book, via television, or in a magazine are actually statements that are possibly true. These can be opinions that may be true, but until you verify it yourself with your own observation, you had best view them as reports. Realize that far too often people say and believe all sorts of things because they imagine these beliefs to somehow benefit them. Whether you understand and agree with this or not, LRH is very clear about how to determine the truth of anything in the two policy references above. While he wrote these policies for administrators, the data applies equally to all other areas of life.

Look and do not think. Thinking leads nowhere. Looking leads up to the stars. Base what you know and do on what you observe to be true, and not on what you think or believe to be true. Certainty as “belief” (in nonsense) or attitudes of thinkingness that “I am right” are VERY FAR from the extremely elevated, calm, stable, serene certainty of Knowingness based upon untainted LOOKING. Lots of people are “certain” about all sorts of things. A great deal of it is rubbish. The ONLY legitimate certainty is in one’s own ability to observe and know, and to be, do and have across the dynamics. LRH concurs completely.

Dynamic – A Surge of Energy?

There is more false data. On page 12 of the new version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, the first sentence:

A dynamic is a surge of energy within us which is seeking to promote the survival of something”.

A dynamic is NOT a “surge of energy”. A dynamic is not this at all. A dynamic, any single dynamic, or all the dynamics taken together as a whole, are impulses or drives or urges or motivations or thrusts to exist in some way or form. These urges or impulses (drives, motivations, and thrusts - LRH’s words in many places) manifest through and in conjunction with energy, and matter, through time and space.

There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call DYNAMICS. These are motives or motivations. We call them THE EIGHT DYNAMICS. (Fundamentals of Thought, chapter four, The Eight Dynamics)

Energy is part of the 6th dynamic. Energy follows from postulated particles in space. Matter is condensed energy. MEST equals matter, energy, space and time. LRH defines and discusses energy in many places. The dynamics are not surges of energy.

I would never tell someone about “energy”, what I just said above, even though it’s true, and I would instead show them the original LRH data, and let them come to their own meanings and cognitions. But I would not ever show anyone these pages in the new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. I would consider it an overt to do that. Yes, someone could envision and come to understand a dynamic as a “surge of energy”, sort of, but it is much more closely aligned with an intention, desire, or will to survive through energy and matter, and is definitely not energy itself. This is false data.

Why Choose an Arcane Example or Reference?

If the new definitions in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book are actually by LRH, which is extremely unlikely, a question should be asked. Why would anyone choose to use and disseminate such an unusual definition, which, at best, could only be based upon a very small fraction of all total available references by LRH? Please try to answer that question honestly. It is a very uncommon meaning, quite different from the usual meanings and descriptions used by LRH for this dynamic in all other areas.

The result is that the entirety of the Scientology world has been and is involved in severe mental gymnastics attempting to somehow have this “data” make sense and align with everything else LRH says in the area.

Whether the inclusion of the definition of the second dynamic in the new version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book is a total mistake, or a partial mistake, as described above, it is still in error for it to be there. It is an unusual, rare, and markedly different definition, by anyone’s standards, whether LRH ever wrote it or not.

As shown in other areas of this report, the concepts and realities involved in the new definition of the second dynamic are markedly different than the concepts and realities involved in the hundreds of extant references by LRH in books, policies and technical bulletins. In other words, LRH has talked about, discussed and referred to the second dynamic as SEX and FAMILY, consistently since 1950, up until he died. Please take the time and make a comprehensive list of references where the second dynamic directly relates to sex and/or family, and then also makes a list where it even partially relates to the notion of “creativity” in any form. These lists would be extremely overweighed on the side of sex and family. It would be incredibly so weighted.

So much so weighted that any moderately observant and intelligent person should wonder what could possibly be going on here. What is going on here?

Do it for yourself. Don’t just “think” about all this and do the usual humanoid action of connecting various assumptions, fixed ideas, beliefs and concepts with others. Take some time and look into this honestly.

Make two columns. Make one “sex & family”. Make the other column “any mention of creativity”. Search through LRH books, technical bulletins and policies like I did. Do some work to verify whether what I am saying is true or not. I spent over 200 hours on this. There will be less than a handful for the “any mention of creativity” side, and pages and pages and pages of “sex and family” entries. And none of the examples with mentions of “creativity” will refer to the 2nd Dynamic in any way even closely resembling anything like the alteration used in the new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book and LOC pack. It is an abomination. It is nothing less. I wish I could be more generous in my description, but it is a horrendous alteration of LRH material. It is not minor.

Applying Judgment

Someone might say to me, “Gene, what’s the big deal? LRH defines it just as you say in so many places. Let the student figure it that for themselves”.

First, a student shouldn’t have to figure out that in-print LRH data doesn’t fit in with, is unusual or inconsistent, and thereby find it necessary to choose to ignore the reference cited here. Any aware student MUST do that at some point.

Second, new people are not in a position to have large enough of an overview of the subject to be able to make that judgment. They lack the necessary familiarity gained by experience. In fact, many experienced staff members and public have also apparently shown themselves not to be in a position to make this judgment. While it is true many have probably chosen to ignore the newest definition, and correctly so, far too many have continued along quietly. Many have allowed this to exist when they personally knew it was absurd, while they themselves chose to ignore it and operated instead with other existing correct LRH definitions. It is a strange situation where an uptone and aware being can know something to be idiotic, and at the same time somehow justify that it is okay for the incorrect data to remain in print for others. This situation makes no sense to me. It shouldn’t to you either.

Third, new people contact the screwy definitions in a Division Six basic course pack and on any courses using or referring to the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. A new person comes to accept that “the second dynamic is creativity”. Then they look at the Scientology Handbook or do the HQS course and are presented with the usual correct definitions, but also pictures demonstrating the second dynamic. The second dynamic, in every case, is shown only as family. Whenever the second dynamic is represented pictorially, it is as a family unit. They have to somehow “figure out” to ignore the idea that the second dynamic is some overall creativity, and instead think and work with the usual definition of it as dealing with sex and family. This is added and unnecessary complexity and confusion (i.e. outpoint). It is something that is there, that should not be there as part of an Ideal Scene.

Forth, staff members have been now consistently using and referring to this definition in dealings with the public and other staff. The definition is in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. Various MAAs have been reported to me to use this definition when dealing with their publics. They pull out their main resource, which is the Ethics book, and they refer people to that definition. They knowingly or unknowingly push people in the direction of accepting, thinking with, and applying that definition. A friend told me last week that his MAA directed him to that definition when grooving him in to do Conditions and Exchange by Dynamics. Lord only knows what sort of “cognitions” a person will have using these screwy ideas as a basic foundation of “understanding” for applying Exchange by Dynamics.

Fifth, most people have enough trouble trying to dig themselves out of their own personal messes as it is. Many people have their own problems with misunderstood words, false data, and thinkingness in general. They don’t need to have additional confusions issued in the form of false data, presented as legitimate LRH data, by the Church. This nonsense can only contribute to their difficulty, if they take it seriously and try to make sense of it.

Oh, I know I am not supposed to say things like that. But it’s true and it needs to get fixed.

Further Alterations

I am sure I could alter other Scientology definitions and most of the people most of the time would happily accept it. Let’s see now. How about this?

The Seventh Dynamic is beingness. The seventh dynamic involves identifying with various things in an attempt to be things and includes any beingness. It also incidentally includes the idea of Theta and the Thetan as one of the many things the Self can identify with.

It includes just enough truth to be able to make sense to people. If you were honest while reading that you would admit that it makes much sense. If it were presented in an “LRH book”, then you would probably work very hard to have it make sense, even if you initially disagreed with it, because you would take for granted, incorrectly, that it must make sense. People will easily confuse “beingness” with “theta”. In fact, beingness is only one part of the three conditions of existence, and per LRH, “both the cycle of action and the three conditions of existence belong in each dynamic”. So, in exactly the same way that the new second dynamic definition is absurd, so is this one here. The seventh dynamic cannot be beingness, and at the same time have beingness, as part of the three conditions of existence, be included in each dynamic as an integral part. In the same way, the second dynamic cannot be creativity and at the same time have creativity be included in each dynamic as an integral part. This might sound complicated, but it’s only because what I describe is nuts.

Of course, beingness as a concept does relate to the seventh dynamic. In a sense it has more to do with the seventh than any other dynamic, but it is still incorrect to equate the two. Beingness must be assumed to do anything (doingness) and get anything (havingness) on any dynamic. That’s the simple truth.

Or how about:

The third dynamic is agreement. The third dynamic involves building together by mutually accepted considerations and includes any agreement. Any group is a part of this and this dynamic incidentally includes anything social, political or economic.

Sure, it sort of makes sense. You can sort of align it with everything else. But it is nuts! It is tricky and sneaky because it confuses true concepts and relationships with untenable ones. That is exactly what the new definition of the second dynamic also does. Yes, a third dynamic is based on agreement. A third dynamic could not exist without agreement. In fact, agreement is the glue that holds any third dynamic together. But is the third dynamic agreement? No it is not. All of these definitions confuse and mix together all of the dynamics in an incorrect manner.

In a similar way, a second dynamic does require creativity. The second dynamic creates a future line of genetically similar organic forms into the future. It does create a future track for the bodies (life forms). One must postulate and create their second dynamic on a day to day basis for it to exist. But is the second dynamic creativity? No again, in exactly the same way. It is not creativity.

That’s why at times I think the alteration of the second dynamic definition could only have been intentional and done with planning and full knowledge. This sort of thing is tricky and sneaky. It requires a great deal of understanding to alter it just enough to be dangerously wrong, and so that it can also be connected with many sensible and correct ideas at the same time. Such alterations would be the way to destroy the subject of Scientology. I could do this because I understand the data very well. I clearly see how other thetans think, and I can also perceive easily how they could be misled. It is quite clear to me how people often think incorrectly, associate ideas poorly, and exist at a generally low level of awareness about their own words, concepts and accepted meanings. Most people don’t understand these things. I am trying to get the reader to understand these things so these things can be stopped and prevented now and in the future.

I could make up hundreds of examples of altered basic definitions that I am quite sure most people would accept. I hope that you get the point. It would be so easy to bring Scientology into total uselessness by altering the basic definitions slowly over time.

The alteration of basic definitions, such as the dynamics or any one dynamic, is a very serious situation, capable of greatly harming the subject of Scientology and organization of Scientology.

Exchange By Dynamics

To do this procedure correctly it is necessary that the person doing it have a very good understanding of the ideas of the Dynamics and the concept of exchange. Per LRH:

First one has to know all about EXCHANGE as covered in the Product Clearing policy letters.

The he has to specially clear this up with people who do not produce.

He should then get them to work on it as it relates to ALL THEIR DYNAMICS IN RELATIONSHIP TO EVERY OTHER DYNAMIC.

That means he has to clear up the definitions of dynamics with care and then have the person draw a big chart (of his own) and say what he gives the first dynamic and what it gives him. Then what he gives the second dynamic and what it gives him. And so on up the dynamics.” (LRH, HCOPL 4 April 1972, Issue I, ETHICS)

You could also draw a chart like this:

Dynamic 1 Dynamic 1

Dynamic 2 Dynamic 2

Dynamic 3 Dynamic 3

Dynamic 4 Dynamic 4

Dynamic 5 Dynamic 5

Dynamic 6 Dynamic 6

Dynamic 7 Dynamic 7

Dynamic 8 Dynamic 8

The problem arises when and if the person clears the second dynamic to mean “creativity”. In fact, the diagram shown on the previous page NOW has “creativity” written instead of “sex and children” in many applications by Scientology staff and public across the planet. That is an entirely different concept from sex, family and the future race. If you think I am stretching the limits of reason, you are sorely mistaking. A friend told me that just last week he was doing Conditions & Exchange by Dynamics at the Sandcastle and the Public MAA steered him to understand the second dynamic as “creativity” and to use that definition. Additionally, a friend recently returned from doing a course on the Ship and he had a chart drawn of the dynamics like above, but instead of “sex and family”, the second circle was labeled “creativity”. So what I am describing is exactly accurate. The tendency to do so is expanding.

When doing the exchanges involving the Second Dynamic one should utilize the concepts of sex, family, children and the continuance of the race. In other words, the question could be stated, “how and what do my sexual activities, family and children give to my First Dynamic.” And so on to and from the other Dynamics.

One would NOT use the concept of “creativity”. That would be absurd. Yet it is now commonly done!

One would NOT ask, “what does my creativity give to my First Dynamic” or reversely, what does my First Dynamic give to my creativity”? Just try it. Do it as a drill. What you would be doing would be so very far from what you would be doing if you used the concept of the second dynamic as sex and family. The process you would actually do applying the technique is a DIFFERENT PROCESS entirely depending on what definition you use.

In fact, creativity covers anything on any Dynamic. That has been covered in other essays here. Creativity includes how effectively I do my job, my painting hobby, the writing of a musical piece, the analysis and solving of any problem, or the day to day putting into existence of anything. So creativity could and would cover everything, including:


Personal health

A job

A business

A class




Any relationship

One’s pets

One’s MEST

That is a very short and incomplete list. The list is effectively infinite, because creativity is the ability to create, and that is necessary for anything to exist for any of us on any dynamic. So, once someone starts asking, “what does my Second Dynamic (as creativity) contribute to my First Dynamic” well, you have sent yourself off on an impossible mission because all dynamics have been collapsed into one. Every dynamic will then fall under or relate to the second dynamic because per the “new” definition, the second dynamic “includes any creativity”. You will be asking the person to make sense of nonsense. Yet, it seems many have and will somehow do it. Words mean something. There is no way that it makes any sense to state “the second dynamic is creativity”.

You could easily imagine that the “creativity” used in performing one’s job, since this is a part of “any creativity”, is “part” of one’s second dynamic. You could conceive that the “creativity” of a musician resides in the second dynamic (since it “includes any creativity”), and somehow transmutes in some magical Alchemy from the Second to the Seventh (where Art actually resides). This actually starts looking and sounding very weird. This idea of energies or forces changing and channeling from one form to another is almost Cabalistic. (The Cabala is the subject of Jewish mysticism and is very complex and confusing)

You could imagine that the overall “creativity” of the Second Dynamic emanates from the Second Dynamic out into and then through all the other Dynamics, and that this “creativity” is then used to create forms and activities in each Dynamic.

That is nuts of course. The urge to survive, or “create-create-create” as SURVIVAL, is a unified senior ability of Theta. It underlies all manifestation, and includes any and all Dynamics. It creates all the Dynamics and does not reside within any Dynamic.

The reason LRH broke up the dynamics into eight sections was to make it easier to analyze and understand life and it’s relationships. For this to occur sanely each definition or concept of a dynamic must refer to separate and distinct things, activities and phenomena. One must be able to clearly and easily differentiate the characteristics of each dynamic. Once they all start to meld together under the second dynamic, because it “includes any creativity”, the concepts begin to lose distinction and unite in some weird intangible oneness of all.

This concept of “includes all creativity” is anathema to individuality and the inherent separateness of Theta and a Thetan. Each dynamic becomes every other dynamic in the case of the second dynamic because it encompasses all creativity, and therefore everything! This is nothing less than a complete association and identification of all the dynamics. That is an insane case of A=A=A where everything deteriorates into reactive identification.

When one asks or conceives, “what does my creativity (second dynamic) give to my group (third dynamic)”, this is as nuts as asking, “what does my Thetan give to my Third Dynamic”? You are the Thetan! In fact, you are your creativity, in a very real sense. You don’t “have” creativity like you “have” a hobby (1D), family (2D), job (3D), pet (5D), or home (6D). In fact, you utilize and enact creativity to create and thereby have a hobby, family, job, pet or home.

Creating” is like “perception”. It’s one of the things we all do. We do it incessantly. We do it naturally. Nothing would exist for you if you weren’t actively creating things along every dynamic. “Creativity” is so far above and senior to any one dynamic or even all the dynamics taken collectively.

Yes, creativity has very much to do with each dynamic. No it is not any one dynamic. You might ask, “how can I create better on my first dynamic”, “how might I create my third dynamic better”, or “how might I create my second dynamic better”? You could use the concepts of “creativity” and “creating” in various Grade Level processes and Rising Scale processing. But, it is completely incorrect to conceive of any dynamic as “creativity”, and to then submit this concept to the idea of exchanging to and from all the other dynamics.

What does my creativity give to my first dynamic?” “What does my creativity give to my fifth dynamic?” “What does my third dynamic give to my creativity?” And so on for all possible exchanges between the Dynamics?

These are absurd questions.

The weirdest part of it all is that hundreds and even thousands of people have done this over the past 4 years. What the hell could they possibly have been actually thinking and doing? What results did they get from doing this?

The reader should be very concerned.

Creativity and the Dynamics

The following chart comes from the book, Scientology 8-8008.

Please realize that in accordance with the data already mentioned in Fundamentals of Thought that the top sections could be written as:


(Survive as Grow, Conserve, Decay) (Destroy)

The point is that creativity is involved with every dynamic equally, at every level of the Tone Scale, and at every point of any cycle of action. The chart, and much more, makes no sense at all if you label dynamic two as “creativity”. Creativity resides AT THE TOP and is the source of all creation in every dynamic, anywhere on the Tone Scale, at any place, and at any time, past, present or future. Creativity is involved in growing, conserving and decaying on any dynamic. Creativity is involved in destruction on any dynamic. Creativity exists at every part of any cycle of action.

Creativity” runs through each dynamic. No single dynamic is “creativity”. No single dynamic “includes all creativity”.

Will the rest of the world of Scientology please wake up! It is utterly amazing to me that such a huge and grotesque alteration of simply LRH materials could go unnoticed, unreported and unhandled for so many years.

While I do get angry with this, in the end I am reporting it to get this situation fixed so that it no longer exists to confuse serious Scientologists.

Following the Changing Versions of the Ethics Book

This report contains references to three different books. Attachments are copied from each of these books as evidence.

Introduction to Scientology Ethics; copyright 1951, 1968, 1973, reprinted May 1974, reprinted May 1975, reprinted December 1975; ISBN 0-88404-015-1

Introduction to Scientology Ethics; copyright 1989; ISBN 87-7336-585-8

Introduction to Scientology Ethics; copyright 1968, 1970, 1978, 1989, 1998; ISBN 1-57318-132-3

The third and latest version, the version with the most severe alter-is of the definitions about the dynamics was not published in 1968, 1970, 1978 or 1989. It was published within the last 3 or 4 years. I am guessing the copyrights state these dates because certain material in the book was first published at these earlier dates, but I may be wrong as to why these dates are given.

Sequence of Changes

The first book, the one any person who was around in the seventies first bought and became familiar with, didn’t have a section about the dynamics. See the attached Table of Contents copied from this book. The only mention of the dynamics was in the Glossary, and these were the usual definitions. This is also attached after this write-up.

The second version of the book put together much newly written LRH material pertaining to the subject of Ethics, specifically data on conditions, statistics, additional data on PTSness, and more. Nearly all additions were simply exact copies of LRH policies written since the publication of the first edition of the book. That is fine, as long as what were added were only exact copies of other verifiable LRH issues, chapters or sections. But this seems not to be the case for the section on the dynamics.

In the second book, a chapter was added entitled Ethics, Justice and the Dynamics (chapter two). The majority of this chapter is again copied exactly, from HCO PL 9 July 1980R, Revised 25 March 1989, Ethics, Justice and the Dynamics. But, apparently in an attempt to include some basic information of the dynamics, which isn’t included in the LRH issue, a section was added right at the beginning of the chapter. The first section, entitled The Dynamics, is not in the policy, and the policy itself actually starts at the next section in the book’s chapter entitled, Ethics and the Dynamics. Anyone need only compare the two and this is obvious and clear.

I have searched and searched and I cannot locate this section as being written by LRH anywhere. There is a very clear thing that generally happens with books. Sections from earlier or other materials are culled and compiled into sections of the books. LRH probably ordered staff to do these things, assuming it was being done properly.

Doing it properly means (to me) taking exact LRH quotes and copying them word for word into the books in the appropriate sections.

Doing it incorrectly would be writing sections in one’s own words, paraphrasing or altering LRH’s actual words, and adding or deleting entire sections or chapters. It appears this may have been done starting as early as the second edition of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book.

As an example, take The Fundamentals of Thought book. Many of the chapters are copied exactly, word for word, from early P.A.B. issues (Professional Auditor Bulletins) written by LRH. P.A.B. No. 82, with some minor changes, became chapters one and two. P.A.B. No. 83, section on the Conditions of Existence, with a great deal of additional material, became chapter three of the same name. The section on The Dynamics from P.A.B. No. 82 became chapter four of the same name. This was copied exactly. The section on The ARC Triangle became chapter five of the same name. P.A.B. No. 84, The Reason Why, with minor additions, became chapter six of the same name. P.A.B. No. 85 The Parts of Man, with minor changes and additions, became chapter seven of the same name. P.A.B. No. 86 Causation and Knowledge, became chapters eight and nine. The final chapters were amended, abbreviated or added to from P.A.B.s No. 87 and 88. Anyone can take 15 minutes and verify this. Just open up the references and take a look. It’s quite obvious and simple. The Fundamental of Thought book is simply a grouping together of earlier written issues, and the book wasn’t “written” as much as it was “compiled”.

The point is that some books, and most updates of books with additions of new sections, contain earlier exact versions of LRH writings or taped lectures.

This is fine and well as long as what is put into print is exact earlier LRH data. If people in management choose to add sections, that is fine as long as these are direct extracts from previous LRH material.

I have searched and searched and cannot find any places where LRH states things about the dynamics the way they appear in the second version of the Ethics book. It seems quite true that somebody wanted to add a section on the dynamics before the actual issue, and it is obvious that they tried to “tie it in” to the ideas outlined in the main section regarding ethics, justice and the dynamics. LRH does mention these ideas partially in earlier books, but not at all in the same words (at least not that I could find and I looked quite extensively).

I don’t doubt that LRH may have ordered someone to “add a section describing the dynamics”, but that does not give someone license to write it in their own words. I am very sure this is probably what occurred, because the ways things are described in this section are simply NOT the way LRH writes. For example, I have never seen LRH describe the dynamics as “eight routes”. Look yourself, and let me know when you find anywhere else where LRH refers to the dynamics in this manner.

Survival is accomplished on eight routes which are known as the dynamics. (version two)

I have also never seen him delineate groups as to “social, racial, political”. While that is true, LRH never stated it that way.

The third dynamic is the urge toward survival through groups – social, racial, political. (version two)

The problem is that every time, without fail, that someone else attempts to write about something LRH has written about, they either add to it, subtract from it, and alter it in some way. I don’t doubt that a few well-trained folks might be able to correctly do such a thing, but why do so, when there is no dearth of LRH material already out there regarding various topics? Additionally though, nobody should ever do this. If I need to explain why, I will feel even more like I have somehow slid into a weird alternate universe where alteration of LRH materials has become acceptable.

As an example, as early as 1956, in The Fundamentals of Thought, LRH made it clear that defining the dynamics as “the urge towards survival as -” was not quite expansive enough. He added:

Originally the dynamics read “the urge towards survival as -”. As the science developed it became apparent that survival was only an apparency and only one facet of existence. Both the cycle of action and the three conditions of existence belong on each dynamic. (The Fundamentals of Thought, chapter four, The Eight Dynamics)

He thereafter defines them in the wider sense as “the urge toward existence as -”. As an example see the definition of the second dynamic from The Fundamentals of Thought.

THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity.

As LRH researched the realms of the human spirit in Scientology he found it necessary to redefine some things as he left the simpler, more restricted realm of Dianetics. The point is that whoever added the section to the second version of the Ethics book used the earlier and incomplete version of the definition as used in Dianetics.

There is an actual evolution or history of the development of Scientology that one must perceive and understand if they are to fully and correctly understand the subject. What I just described is part of that evolution. Anyone can see this if you simply observe the forward motion of LRH’s ideas and concepts, and how they expanded and changed. When somebody starts deciding which data is more valid, and alters its wording, we are all in deep trouble. I am sorry, but I do not trust anyone with that task. LRH doesn’t either:

So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go accepting unworkable “technology”.

Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future.

We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact – the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatizations of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out.

As an example I urge anyone to pick up the original 1965 version of Scientology: New Slant on Life, and the most recent 1988 version (compiled after LRH was dead). Compare the chapters individually. Words have been changed, phrases have been changed, and entire chapters have been removed and new chapters added. That could be the subject of an entire new report. I can understand altering punctuation, but why change LRH wording, even in minor ways? Changing even ONE WORD shifts meaning.

If “minor changes” are made every 3-5 years, what will be left in 500 years? I am not making this up or exaggerating the severity of the situation. The alterations of wording and omissions of chapters are there for anyone to see. It is not simply a case of what I say is true or it isn’t. Just open your eyes and look. I consider the correct viewpoint to be a no tolerance approach to alterations of LRH materials. My attitude is a one hundred percent unreasonable attitude towards changing anything written or spoken by LRH.

Apparently people in past or current management have decided that it is desirable or necessary to alter LRH’s writings because it exists. Or there are just a tremendous number of changes that were made in error and nobody has yet caught them. That would seem unrealistic to me though because there are now so many of them and they are so obvious. But then, it also seemed obvious to me that anyone would notice the absurdity of the definition of the second dynamic in the new Ethics book, yet nobody has.

Anyway, the second version of the Ethics book is no longer in print, but it is vital as historical evidence showing earlier alterations of LRH data preceding the latest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book.

With the third version of the Introduction of Scientology Ethics book came the most severe alteration of LRH data I have ever seen in print. This is covered extensively, although not completely, in the other write-ups included as part of this report. I will cover here only what isn’t already covered extensively elsewhere.

Page 12 of the new version is largely a hodgepodge of altered quotes from Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, and Science of Survival. Anyone can take the time and read through the appropriate sections of these two books and see this to be true. Somebody took extreme liberties choosing various LRH quotes and stringing them all together with changes in phrasing, word usage and even concepts and ideas.

The first sentence is utter nonsense. See the write-up entitled, Dynamic – A Surge of Energy, as this very clearly describes how this is so great of an alteration.

The following section from the newest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book is altered from the original text that first appeared in The Fundamentals of Thought:

As one looks out across the confusion which is life or existence to most people, one discovers that there are eight main divisions.

These are the eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. We call them the DYNAMICS. These are motives or motivations. These are the EIGHT DYNAMICS.

The purpose of setting forth this division is to increase an understanding of life by placing it in compartments. Having subdivided existence in this fashion, each compartment can be inspected as itself and by itself in its relationship to the other compartments of life. In working a puzzle it is necessary to first take pieces of similar color or character and place them in groups. In studying a subject it is necessary to proceed in an orderly fashion. To promote this orderliness it is necessary to assume for our purposes these eight arbitrary compartments of life. (third version)

Below is copied exactly from The Fundamentals of Thought:

As one looks out across the confusion which is life or existence to most people, one can discover eight main divisions, to each of which apply the conditions of existence. Each division contains a cycle of action.

There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call DYNAMICS. These are motives or motivations. We call them THE EIGHT DYNAMICS.

There is no thought or statement here that any one of these eight dynamics is more important than the others. While they are categories (divisions) of the broad game of life they are not necessarily equal to each other. It will be found amongst individuals that each person stresses one of the dynamics more than the others, or may stress a combination of dynamics as more important than other combinations.

The purpose in setting forth this division is to increase an understanding of life by placing it in compartments. Having subdivided existence in this fashion, each compartment can be inspected as itself and by itself in its relationship to the other compartments of life. In working a puzzle it is necessary to first take pieces of similar color or character and place them in groups. In studying a subject it is necessary to proceed in an orderly fashion. To promote this orderliness it is necessary to assume for our purposes these eight arbitrary compartments of life.

There are obvious alterations in wording. There are omissions. This is not my “opinion”. They are right there for anyone to see. Since this occurred well after LRH died, it is highly unlikely that he “wrote” these changes. It is unlikely that he ordered them. One might say, “well stop being so picky” and “who cares, it communicates”.

But here’s the point. First, LRH didn’t write it that way. If you don’t believe, perceive or understand that then there’s nothing I can say to you. Take the time, do your own research, open your eyes, look and know the truth of what is going on. Please be willing to know what you know, and stand up to what you know to be true based upon your own observations.

Second, nobody has a right to alter LRH data. Why alter it, even subtly or in a minor way, when it makes total and complete sense in LRH’s original words? Plus, it used to be an important principle, way back when I first got involved in Scientology, that altering LRH material was just plain not okay; not verbally by students or supervisors, and surely not in print by Sea Org management and publication sections. I assume this is still considered important?

I am not interested in excuses and justifications that explain these instances of alteration of LRH materials. Nobody should encourage or permit it. I do not think I am being too harsh. I know it is hard to try to say this in a way that the reader will accept, but in the end all I can do is report it and hope that the readers look honestly and understand.

I wonder if some sleepy typist or compiler simply screwed up and made misduplications along the way, and so it has been ever since. Please realize that there are subtle alterations in other books, and this also seems to be occurring as new books are released. Again, one need only open their eyes and look. It is there for anyone to see. I don’t have the time to do all the research, but it is just not true that all books are being reissued as exact faithful copies of the earlier editions of the same books. They are not. That’s a fact.

There is a game that people play at parties. Ten or more people get in a line. The first person has a sentence or idea whispered to them. That person turns and whispers it to the next person. This continues down on along the line. The last person loudly recites what they were told. In almost all cases the idea or sentence spoken is markedly different from the original. What does this imply? The analogy is that people alter everything. The point is that each error in duplication compounds itself with all the others until what exists at the end of the line is nothing at all even similar to what started at the front of the line.

Even minor alterations will eventually find themselves as larger alterations. The only solution is to demand and enact a standard of absolutely no alterations.

How to Destroy a Subject

Here is the crux of all this. Human beings alter things compulsively and chronically. They destroy anything they contact through alteration. Scientology will only “work” as long as it continues in its 100% pure LRH form. The examples given here are real and true cases of alteration of basic LRH data, some minor and some tremendous. Even if the minor cases only occurred slowly, and bit by bit, as the above side-by-side comparison amply displays then imagine what it will be like in 50, 100 or 500 years if such alterations continue similarly. Alterations compound themselves as time passes, and the material finds itself further and further removed from the original, until such a time is reached where the material may no longer bear any similarity to the original. Imagine changing a word here, a phrase there, take out a paragraph somewhere else, and so forth. If this is continuing, as it has already occurred, I suspect large compounded resultant alteration may not be far down the road. This is not a good thing at all.

I have no doubt that if this continues uncorrected, Scientology will be gone within 500 years. At least, even if it is “still here”, it will no longer work or get adequate results because it will have changed so greatly due to endless, albeit small and slow, alterations of the materials. Instead, it will function as a sort of club where people get together and talk about their hopes and visions of some imaginary path to OT that, while fun to discuss, does not exist any longer as a workable method going anywhere. It would become like Buddhism of today, having lost all connection with its original data and efficacy. LRH took a great deal of care to ensure the subject did not degrade through alterations. He wrote many issues about that. Maybe he didn’t do it well enough. Or maybe too few people in responsible positions truly get it. I really don’t know why what is happening is happening, but it is happening. I personally feel it is a slap in Ron’s face to tolerate such things. I suspect that he would be shooting people if he knew what was going on in these cases described herein.

You can assert and believe whatever you want. Please just LOOK at it yourself and compare the materials shown here. It is right in front of your face and quite obvious. There is no excuse for it. If you think there is an excuse for it, then you are part of the problem. If you choose to bury your head in the sand, and fail to confront what is setting right in front of you, then you are part of the problem. The fact that you are an Sea Org member working 24 hours a day on the greatest mission in the universe, and doing many other things very right most of the time, does not justify or excuse anyone’s failure to confront and address this, if that is what you choose to do.

Somebody has done this and may still be doing it. It must be stopped, and all instances of such alterations found and corrected.

The alterations of the definitions of the dynamics themselves in this section of the new version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book are even more dramatic. This doesn’t simply involve minor changes in wording, but very severe changes in meaning. The rest of this report explains this extremely well and in great detail.

I recall that a friend’s wife was working on a translation project about 5 years ago in Los Angeles. She ended up leaving, basically she couldn’t stand it anymore, because there was such an incredible willingness on the part of those running the project to accept faulty translations of LRH material. She was constantly in arguments with those running the project, and getting sent to ethics for her resistance. She simply observed and commented on poor translations. The project leaders had a time frame they were determined to meet, and it seems their primary concern was to “get the translation done” above all else, including above even accurate translations. Of course, anyone familiar with LRH data knows what this is. It’s a STAT PUSH.

Considering the many errors of duplication or rewriting that are showing up in print, one might ask whether a similar phenomena is involved here. Possibly there has been so much pressure to get “things done”, that the quality has suffered drastically. It wouldn’t be the first time. Again, go read the KSW pack again. LRH talks about it extensively when he goes over how people will enter shortcuts to obtain completions. This applies equally as well for administrative products. Of course, what is completed is an overt product, but hey, who cares, right? We have gotten ourselves a bunch of “dones”. Sorry for the sarcasm, but it is just so absurd to me. All of these things should be so simple and clear to those people directly involved with them.

There is no excuse for alteration or misinterpretation of LRH data. Never!

There is no situation, reason or logic that makes this acceptable, yet the alterations exist.

I shouldn’t have to preach to you to be unreasonable. I shouldn’t have to stand on a soapbox and yell out these things to you. I feel very strange about finding myself in this position where I feel must do so. But somebody needs to point this out and say it with force and impingement.

Somebody needs to handle this once and for all. For the benefit of all the people on planet Earth.

I would like to see all people benefit by the actions of the Church and I would truly like to see as many go free as possible. I may not be there slugging it out there with you, but that does not prevent me from viewing and reporting on what is a very serious problem involving LRH materials, RTC and the Sea Org.

All the hard work by caring staff members and public will be meaningless and useless if the subject materials are allowed to change over time due to slow minor alterations.

Glossary Excerpt from the Original Ethics Book

DYNAMIC – The urge, thrust and purpose of life – SURVIVE! – in its eight manifestations.

The First Dynamic is the urge to survive of self.

The Second Dynamic is the urge toward survival through sex, or children. This dynamic actually has two divisions. The Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children.

The Third Dynamic is the urge toward survival through a group of individuals or as a group. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be a part of the Third Dynamic. The school, the club, the team, the town, the nation, are examples of groups.

The Fourth Dynamic is the urge toward survival through all mankind and as all mankind.

The Fifth Dynamic is the urge toward survival through life forms such as animals, birds, insects, fish and vegetation, and is the urge to survive as these.

The Sixth Dynamic is the urge toward survival as the physical universe and has as its components Matter, Energy, Space and Time, from which we derive the word MEST.

The Seventh Dynamic is the urge toward survival through spirits or as a spirit. Anything spiritual, with or without identity, would come under the Seventh Dy­namic. A subheading of this Dynamic is ideas and concepts such as beauty, and the desire to survive through these.

The Eighth Dynamic is the urge toward survival through a Supreme Being, or more exactly, Infinity. This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of Infinity ~ stood upright makes the numeral “8”.

Table of Contents from Original Ethics Book


The Purpose of Ethics 7
The Anti-Social Personality 9
The Social Personality 16
The Conditions 23
The Table of Conditions 24
The Conditions Formulas 25
Formulas for Conditions Below Non-Existence 34
The Ethics Codes 37
Petition 54
Rewards and Penalties 57
Safeguarding Technology 63
Glossary 67

Second Version of Ethics Book

Taken From

Introduction To Scientology Ethics

ISBN 0-88404-404-1

© 1989 L. Ron Hubbard Library

This is the UNALTERED version of the text.

Third (Recent) Version of Ethics Book

Taken From

Introduction To Scientology Ethics

ISBN 1-57318-132-3

© 1968, 1970, 1978, 1989, 1998 L. Ron Hubbard Library

(Note: This version was NOT ever printed in 1968, 1970, 1978 or even 1989)

This is the ALTERED version of the text.

Second Dynamic Use in Lists

If anyone takes the time to cull every list in existence from the Technical Volumes, such as the Second Dynamic FPRD list, and Second Dynamic Sec Checks, it becomes quite obvious that the only thing this dynamic has ever referred to has been sex, family and the future race.

LRH has utilized only the ideas of sex, family and the future race in any list or process he has ever written.

See the attached copy of HCO INFROMATION LETTER, 11 April 1962, DYNAMIC PROCESSING CHECKS.

LRH breaks up the questions into two sections, one for family and one for sex. Please read the questions and notice what they concern themselves with.

Not one question has anything to do with “creativity”.

Why Would a Case of Printed Alter-Is Be So Damaging?

The obvious answer is that the false data would be passed on to every person who read the material.

But, additionally, each reader would undergo some strange mental phenomena.

I surveyed over 10 Scientologists, both staff and public, over the past 6 months, and none thought the definition made sense. I didn’t have to steer them, convince them, or lead them in anyway, and almost all responded the instant I brought up the subject with feeling or thinking something was quite wrong with the definition of the second dynamic in the latest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book.

I didn’t survey other people to verify or confirm what I knew to be true - that it was an alteration of LRH data. I conducted the survey because I was curious exactly how various other Scientologists came to terms with and compromised their realities with this in-print nonsense. I knew quite well that it was false and an alteration of LRH data.

It is interesting to take a closer look at how each of them addressed and handled the situation.

First, none agreed with it.

Second, none did anything to correct the situation.

It is a commonly understood idea of Study Tech that one never passes by a word they don’t understand, or passes by any confusing areas or disagreements with any data. The proper solution is to handle one’s misunderstood words, lack of mass or skipped gradient. Then, theoretically, once those steps are completed and barriers to study handled, one would understand, agree with and like the data.

Of course, if one is studying false data, inherently confusing information or contradictory facts, then one cannot successfully apply Study Tech. The best anyone could do in these cases would be to understand how and why the data is incapable of being understood. It is impossible to make sense of nonsense, other than understanding how it is nonsensical.

Each and every person reading or studying this “data” would have had to do one of a few possible things.

  1. Simply remain oblivious and never see or detect any problem with the data, because they were already so dull or confused to start with.

  2. Fail to understand it, fail to confront this, and move on anyway. They would be either confused by it, or would ignore and deny the false data thereby continuing to think with one’s previous correct understanding in the area of the second dynamic.

  3. Disagree knowingly, knowing it was incorrect, but choosing to move on and study within the context of what one accepts as true that is different from what is written.

My daughter dubbed in some weird idea of how it made sense. When I brought up the subject to her she talked about it, glad that she finally could understand why she had so much trouble with it. She immediately originated, with VGIs that she never liked the data as presented.

My son never agreed with it and considered it strange data. He denied it as valid data and chose to think with the traditional view of the second dynamic as sex and family. He disregarded the idea that “the second dynamic is creativity” because he correctly perceived that it was nonsense. I didn’t have to convince him to do that. He did it all on his own long before I ever mentioned it to him.

A friend, Rick Birkensahw, OT VII, also disagreed with and disregarded the nonsense about creativity and instead accepted and used the correct definitions and concepts relating to sex, family and bringing about a future race.

Minimally, they all recalled the moment they contacted the “data” because they initially disagreed and resisted it. The key point is that every person who contacted the data would have had to violate some application of Study Tech, because they minimally would have passed by something they disagreed with or worse, passed by it while still confused about it in some way.

Students should not have to ask, “how can it be this way” and “how can it not be this way” in the attempt to dislodge screwy data from published LRH materials. It’s fine and well to have correct information in print, and require each student to study and understand it. It is not fine and well to require that each student, without any coaching or hint from others, detect and handle why in-print “LRH data” is nuts and should not be considered seriously. Yet this is what must be done, and what is going on, whether anyone believes this fact or not.

A special problem also exists for new people who do not have a pre-existing correct understanding of the second dynamic. They will hit the definition of the second dynamic as “creativity”, see the inclusion of the concept of sex and family, be presented with pictures only of family units, and contact data later at every turn that never mentions “creativity”. It is an understatement that they will become confused. The Supervisors and Word Clearers will try to apply “standard tech”, and direct them to clear their misunderstood words, and do demonstrations of the ideas. Any smart person will look at them like they are idiots because the data is nuts and inconsistent.

Of course, people generally hide their confusions because it displays wrongness, and they want to be and appear right. In Scientology, it is common for the course supervisor to order a person to “clear up your misunderstood words” when a student originates a confusion or disagreement. If the student tries to argue or discuss it, they get TR3’ed or sent to ethics for “failing to apply standard study tech”.

I suspect there may be a good deal of charge built up by a great many people about this. Additionally, a nice big juicy confusion like this can act as a center around which all sorts of other misunderstood words, disagreements, confusions and charge may accumulate.

Finally, any observant person will wonder what the hell is going on. People come into Scientology to increase their awareness and ability. They expect the staff to be intelligent, aware, display judgment, and demonstrate ability. If a fairly new student sees and knows some piece of data is nuts, yet also sees the rest of the Scientology world accepting it and acting as if nothing is wrong, well, I doubt they will stick around and tolerate the obvious hypocrisy for too long. It’s like the case of an “OT VII completion” I met in 1976 who couldn’t confront talking to people very well. The aware people will question, “what is going on here?

LRH states in Science of Survival:

Any time a person is made to agree by force or threat or deprivation, to another’s reality and yet does not feel that reality himself, an aberrative condition exists.

Any aware person will be unable to agree with the information given in the new definition of the second dynamic. In effect, they will be coerced or encouraged to accept it for reasons explained in other areas of this report. It cannot cause anything except confusion and upset in some form. It is impossible to understand nonsense, and most people will rebel and undergo all sorts of mental phenomena if forced to.

Some though will somehow have it “make sense”, even though it does not and cannot make sense. How and why they do that is the subject of another write-up.

The Fundamental Simplicity

I could go on and on, and approach this from many more angles. But I firmly believe that if the reader doesn’t get it by now, then no amount of additional information will enable you to do so. Here is the situation described simply:

False data, not written by LRH, contradictory to extant LRH data in the related areas, and confusing at best, has been printed and disseminated in the new version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. The same false data exists in the LOC pack and in at least one Division Six basic course (and possibly more now).

The entire section on the Dynamics has been infected. The same section in the previous version of the same book was mostly fine.

It should be canceled and corrected quickly with a broad issue explaining how and why.

I suggest anyone who has contacted this “data” receive study correction to handle their confusions, and ethics handling to address why they failed to see and do anything about it. Failure to perceive is fundamentally an ethics situation.

Appropriate senior Sea Org management terminals must locate WHO did this, WHO allowed it, and WHO approved it. It’s bad enough when individual staff or public verbally relay false data to others, but when it finds itself published in an “official Church document”, then the problem is compounded greatly because every person studying it will become adversely affected. (Reference: KSW Series #1)

Various Sea Org terminals are supposed to ensure the legitimacy and purity of the technology. The AVC Unit, if it still exists, is one such entity. There are surely others along the line whose job it is to verify material before anything gets into print. They didn’t in this case, and part of handling this involves completing a valid Danger Formula that will prevent any such situation from ever occurring again. This will need to be done by those who did it, and by the seniors or areas concerned with guaranteeing exact renditions of LRH material - the related RTC staff included.

I am sure there may be some reading this who view it as “politically incorrect” for me to know and say such things. Somebody should thank me. A widely issued commendation might be in order. But I understand that there may exist so many considerations that may act to prevent this from ever happening. A few, and not all, would include:

I simply want to see it fixed. The issuing of false data and the reason why it occurred must be addressed and repaired. The bad product and the machine that produced the flawed product need also to be fixed. (HCO PL 29 October 1970, Org Series 10, The Analysis of Organization By Product)

The only thing I can do is report it and hope that others handle this quickly and properly. Please fix it.

Section Two Completion

Below is an exact quote taken from the most recent printing of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. This quote also appears in the LOC pack, and in a basic course pack (the name of which I do not recall).

Please re-read the paragraph below. Now, after having read the previous section honestly ask yourself if it still makes sense, and if it aligns with the rest of extant LRH data in the related areas.

The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family unit. It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.

If you now realize that this is false and shouldn’t exist in print as legitimate LRH materials, close this report, because there is no need to read any further. Then take immediate action to get the false data canceled and reprinted.

If you somehow still think, consider, maintain, believe or remain convinced that this definition does “make sense” in any way and is consistent with extant LRH data, then please continue reading the report.

The next section looks over and explains various reasons why and how a person could fail or refuse to understand something despite all facts and observations to the contrary. These reasons are a combination of personal, political, social and organizational. I have done my best to examine them as best as I could.

Continue reading this report until you notice and realize that this definition of the second dynamics is false and shouldn’t exist in print as legitimate Scientology (LRH) materials. You might also come to realize that the entire section of the Dynamics in the latest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book is incorrect.


Section Three

In this section I examine how it is that such an error as this could continue undetected and unhandled for such a long time (11 years). Why a person would accept false data is a part of this. I also examine how the false data might have originally appeared in a Church publication. There really are not that many different possible scenarios. Lastly, I do my best to go over why a person could fail or refuse to understand and agree with something (the facts of this report) despite all consistent data or evidence to the contrary. Please bear with me. I am trying my best to explain a situation that is very real and it would benefit the reader to understand it in its entirety.

Misunderstood Words

A person could fail to understand something because they have misunderstood words. The concept or sentence or paragraph or subject doesn’t make sense because the person misunderstands the parts – the words. The same is true for the other barriers to study.

First Barrier To Learning

The first barrier to learning is the consideration that you already know all about it.

Failing to Connect Concepts to Observable Events

A person could fail to understand something because, while they “understand” the words, they have failed to connect the words and concepts to the real things the words and concepts describe out in the physical universe or inside the mind. This is far more common than anyone imagines.

Confusing or Switching Levels of Abstraction

This is a special case of failing to connect concepts to observable events.

Believing Something to be True Despite Contrary Evidence

This is also a special case of failing to connect concepts to observable events, and involves fixed ideas, which prevent people from looking at and basing their decisions on personal observations. It explains how and why somebody can even perceive and experience reality differently from others because of their unexamined rigidly held false considerations (i.e. fixed ideas, false data). This is covered in the Study Tapes.

Taking Things Out of Context

Words and ideas have specific meanings depending upon the environment they find themselves located within. The correct definition of a word depends on the rest of the words before and after it. The correct understanding and application of an idea depends on the situation involved in defining that idea.

Group Agreement

People in general have a difficult time disagreeing with things the rest of their peers seem to go along with. This is especially true if you believe that the leaders and other group members may be “smarter”, “better educated” or “more ethical” than you are. It is easy to deny one’s own perceptions and knowingness in such an environment.

Incorrectly Misrepresenting Valid Criticism

There is a general idea in Scientology that “criticism” always implies underlying overts. This is not always true. Criticism can be based upon valid faults or errors. It can be a mistake to slot every critical comment as only an indicator of overts, and thereby fail to examine carefully the content or basis of the critical remarks.

Intentional Internal Suppression

This is the most unlikely explanation, but I would be remiss if I failed to mention it as a possibility.

* * *

Each of these is covered in the next sections. I explain first, how this alteration of LRH data probably ended up in print, second, how the situation described here could have remained undetected and unhandled for so long, and third, why certain readers may be unable or unwilling to duplicate, understand and accept the facts contained herein.

In the end the situation I describe is amazingly simple. The definition of the second dynamic in the newest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book is false, and should not exist in print to confuse or mislead Scientologists. When I first read this definition I knew immediately that it was false data and could not have ever been written by LRH. It has taken me quite awhile to do all the research to support my argument. It took many rewritings to get this to a point where it was organized well and able to communicate. After digging through the Technical Volumes, the OEC Volumes, the Management Series, various tapes, and many LRH books, I am only further convinced that this “data” is utter nonsense. If you are sincere and honest in looking at the facts, you should have little trouble also knowing it to be nonsense. There is no room for reasonableness or wishy-washy attitudes when it comes to the exactness of LRH data.

LRH recommends in the Code of Honor:

Never compromise with your reality.

I urge you to know what you know and to act consistently and ruthlessly with what you know to be true. Please bear with me if you wonder at times where a section is heading. There is a goal for each section and I take my time and care to describe each point.


I have the viewpoint that the subject of Scientology is the best and only chance Mankind has to survive and attain higher states of awareness. I see that LRH was the sanest fellow to ever walk the planet. The subject of Scientology contains the best compilation of “truth” ever put together in one place. I agree completely with the idea that people should have a workable road to freedom available for their use and benefit. I agree that able and honest people deserve protection from the less savory members of our societies. I completely support these things.

I make routine unsolicited donations to CCHR CW and have been doing so for almost a year. When I recently was paid on a debt owed to me, in less than 24 hours I was handing the majority of it to FSO Reg, Paul Miller ($40,000). So, I am not speaking empty words. My actions align with and support my views. And even though I may not be able to do services for awhile at Flag, I still chose to give the funds to Scientology so it’s activities could be supported NOW. This all can be easily verified.

Though, I do not rotely support the actions of the group (or any group) in cases where it acts in ways contrary to the achievement of these things.

The subject of Scientology is made up of all LRH materials. The organization of Scientology is made up a large group of individual people, all with differing viewpoints and degrees of understanding of the subject. The subject and the organization are two very different things. Sometimes, as I see it, the two things are at odds with each other. Actually, the subject is what it is and is never really the problem. The problem is only when the organization seems to do and condone situations in conflict with the subject. The greatest danger involves cases where the organization alters the subject itself.

I agree almost completely with the subject and the goals of LRH. I love nothing better than to see decent people apply Scientology data and better their personal lives and the lives of others. I don’t always agree with the ideas and actions performed by various group members in their attempt to apply the subject. The problem is that too many people confuse the idea of the subject (LRH materials) with the idea of the organization (the Church of Scientology). When somebody criticizes a fault of the Church in its application of the subject, too many group members take it as an attack against the principles of the subject. That is an error. Too often the critical remarks are directed because the person simply wants to see the subject honestly and correctly understood and applied. The group incorrectly interprets the “attacks” to be against the purposes and goals of Scientology, when in fact, the “attacks” are against incorrect application by the group (the Church). Again, I have seen the two things confused far too many times. Examples are numerous. This is explained in part in this report.

Any group exists somewhere on a scale from zero to 100 percent duplication, understanding and application of the subject materials by each and every participating group member. Obviously this changes day by day and even hour by hour. The IDEAL SCENE would be the perfect duplication, understanding and application by each and every member. Obviously absolutes do not exist, and there cannot ever be perfect duplication, understanding and application by all members. But this can get closer and can always be improved. Any Ideal Scene can be approached.

The actual performance of the organization at any moment is a dynamic process involving the duplication, understanding and application of the subject by each of the individual members.

So, the organization is NOT the same thing as the subject. This can never be true for any organization and the subject upon which that organization is based. People get upset when they perceive any organization acting in ways contrary to how they understand or believe the subject materials define and explain how that organization should conduct itself.

The subject does not equal the organization. The materials of Scientology (LRH data) are not equal to the Church of Scientology. “Scientology” does not equal the “Church of Scientology”. That is a fact despite whatever anyone might choose to think, believe, assert or demand.

People often say:

Scientology is expanding”.

That means that the organization of Scientology is expanding. The subject is, or should be fixed and unchanging. This statement has little to do with the subject.

Hey dude, Scientology is really great and has some wonderful people in it”.

That means that the activity of the group known as the Church of Scientology is great and that this person thinks wonderful people participate in the group. It also can mean that this person likes the data they study within the subject materials.

Scientology is a criminal group intent on sucking every cent out of you”.

This person obviously is referring to how they perceive the group and organization to function. The subject can’t do anything, unless specific policies exist encouraging staff members to extract as much money out of every parishioner that they possibly can. It is just a subject. The subject is simply a body of data or information.

So, people often confuse the idea of the subject materials of Scientology with the idea of the organization of Scientology. The word Scientology is used to refer to the “subject” at times, and to the organization at other times. The word has two different definitions. People in and out of the group confuse these two things.

People do this all of the time in the real world. People confuse the idea of the theory of communism with the realities of specific forms of communism, such as Communist China, Communist Cuba or Communist Russia. The organizations practicing Communism are very different from the subject of Communism espoused by Karl Marx, and the organizations actually all differ greatly between each other in their application of the principles. In fact, different Churches of Scientology differ from each other in their duplication, understanding and application of the data of Scientology. If that were not true, then it could not be considered that Flag was somehow “better” than the rest.

This is also true for pretty much everything you see around you. There are first and foremost subjects and theories. The ideas underlie everything else. People try to understand these subjects or theories and apply them in practice as best they can. While the subjects and theories exist as one thing, most people confuse these with the attempts at practicing the theories by various groups of people.

There is no “psychiatry” really. There are only various theories and ideas that fall under the umbrella of the subject known as psychiatry. There are various people and groups who try to understand this nonsense as best they can, and they purport to apply it in various ways. These groups are also called by the name “psychiatry” when they have something to do with the subject known as “psychiatry”. The same is true for every subject under the sun. The subject materials and the group are two very different things.

There exist theories or bodies of the data known as subjects. Then there are people who group together in an attempt to understand and apply the data of these subjects. Usually the two things are worlds apart due to incessant alteration of data committed by the human mind at every step along the way. That’s how there could be one Jesus Christ, and one version of Christianity forty years after his death, yet now the world has over 500 different versions of “Christianity”. Chronic alteration of data by human beings is an insidious mechanism. It goes on everywhere if not ruthlessly stopped. And even then, it seems it still goes on.

The subject materials should be relatively fixed and unchanging. In the real world the subjects themselves seem to forever change as “new knowledge is gained”. That is something that LRH was very aware of and attempted to handle by the creation of the Qualifications Division and the ideas included in the various KSW issues and course.

The “Church” as a group changes moment by moment, day by day, and is based solely upon the total combined understanding and application of each of its members. In fact, the “Church” today is different from the “Church” of yesterday and the “Church” of tomorrow. The Church always, at any time, exists as a “version”. There is no fixed “Church” that exists anywhere separate from the understanding and application of its members. The “Church” is more of an idea than a reality, but then that is true for any group, and LRH concurs completely. People see all the various Church buildings, staff showing up for post day after day, books, course rooms, and so forth, and imagine that there is a “real Church of Scientology”. As LRH correctly points out, it is all just an apparency. What really exists is agreement amongst thetans.

There should exist a non-changing subject that is not susceptible to changing “versions”. That is point one of KSW, “having the technology”. Points 2-10 of KSW were written to keep the application of the subject materials intact and unchanging. The materials should and must remain free of alteration and degradation. It must be actively kept and maintained that way.

That is part of the problem I describe here. Too many people confuse between the subject and the organization. The Church, as a group, should routinely change in its attempt to more closely align with the Ideal Scene outlined in the subject materials. The subject materials should NOT change, but to a certain degree they are changing. That is not a good thing. That is what I discuss here.

Introduction - A Vital Point

While I do point out situations in this report that have taken place within the Church and by Church members, you must keep one thing very clear. I am fully aware of all the many good things and correct actions that have been enacted by the Church and Church members, because without these the Church would not be here at all or as successful as it is. I agree with the goals of Scientology completely.

The Church currently enjoys a high level of success. This exists because of a high overbalancing in the direction of rightness instead of wrongness. The Church has done and is doing much more right than wrong.

At the bottom of the scale is total failure. At the top is total success. An Ideal Scene is a statement of the perfect realization of any goal or purpose in some area. An Ideal Scene is an idea or absolute. It is unattainable, by definition, but it can be approached, on a gradient.

While the Church is closer to the Ideal Scene than at any time in its history, and this is a wonderful thing, it is necessary to point out and confront instances where the Church deviates from what it should be doing if it is to ever truly achieve it’s goals.

I bitch and complain at times. I maintain that if what I point out at times were honestly understood and handled that the Church would be that much closer to an Ideal Scene. That would be a good thing for everybody.

Please do not fail to look at the flaws I describe because you feel I am attacking or incorrectly exaggerating the flaws. Do not refuse to confront what I discuss because some may feel, out of defensive posturing, that I am unfairly pointing out the bad over the good.

I need to make a case here or the errors and mistakes will never be seen for what they are. If the errors and mistakes are never seen as the errors and mistakes they truly are, then they will never be addressed and handled. I concentrate on, and direct an unusual amount of attention on them because unless I do, they will never be addressed and handled. Please do not make the mistake of incorrectly assuming that I simply want to moan and complain about the “bad”. I would be very happy if I had nothing to complain about. The truth is that I want these things fixed so that the Church becomes even stronger. The Church becomes stronger as it more closely aligns with and applies LRH data. It becomes weaker if and when the Church misapplies or allows LRH data to become altered.

In the end I want the Church to expand and succeed because I am tired of what I see around me in the world. I want people to benefit from what LRH has left for us all. I want to see people finally become free from the errors of their own faulty considerations and agreements, and create a world we can each be proud of.

First Barrier to Learning

In study tape, Studying: Introduction, LRH makes the brilliant observation that:

. . . the first barrier to learning is the consideration that you know all about it”.

If the reader smugly sits in a chair, smirking at what I report here, then you will learn nothing. If you believe that your post, experience or status places you in an elevated position of knowledge above whatever I could point out to you, then there is nothing you will learn from what I point out. If you enter this report with a preconceived notion or fixed idea about me or the legitimacy of the situation I describe then you will shut yourself off from the possible benefits of your own observations.

Please try to put aside any ideas or biases that you might have that could act to block your willingness to observe and thereby duplicate and understand what I present here. Be willing to look at the things that this report details, and simply, please observe what is.

I am not the issue. The situation I report is the issue.

Incorrectly Misrepresenting Valid Criticism

There are numerous LRH references where the (auditor) response to criticism or critical thoughts is instructed to be “pull the overts and withholds”. There are many, and there is no need to list them here.

There is a hidden and subtle possible problem with that. It can turn into a knee-jerk reaction or response where the listener fails to take the time to observe for him or herself the veracity of the critical remarks. Please don’t do that with this report. If someone says, “oh, it is just his overts speaking”, and then fails to look at the information, then you can never see anything. To a degree this can lead to a situation where the observer can and won’t ever “see” anything because they are too busy mechanically misinterpreting everything instead of simply looking at the reality of the situation.

In a similar way, critical comments and written reports delineating “negative” things can be viewed incorrectly as “attacks”. In the past I have written reports about off-policy situations, only to be told that I had better knock-off “attacking” the Church. This is because people misunderstand the various meanings and proper uses of the word “attack”.

to try to harm, undermine, or destroy”

to accuse, blame or criticize severely; abuse verbally”

People often confuse these two, and Church staff members have done so with me in the past.

LRH correctly points out that anyone who attempts to harm, undermine or destroy the Church is suppressive. That is clear and true.

It is a false A=A=A to state or believe that someone making critical remarks or verbal “attacks” is also intending to harm the Church.

My purpose here is NOT to harm or destroy the Church. In fact, the opposite is true. My intention is to handle a situation that may lead to a weakening of the subject of Scientology.

So please, do not confuse the two things and incorrectly label my report as an “attack” against the Church or as an action to harm the Church. It is neither of these things. Though, sadly, I know full well that there are many who would happily confuse the two things and misrepresent this as an action to harm.

This is an attack against a situation that exists in the Church that in itself is potentially very destructive to the subject and goals of Scientology. But all instances of violations of KSW should be heavily attacked. I am sure we can all agree on that.

Confusing or Switching Levels of Abstraction

This includes errors most people make who are not educated into this phenomenon. As a word or idea becomes more abstract, it embraces more general characteristics and fewer differences. The similarities are viewed at the expense of the differences. Things and real events don’t get more abstract, only ideas do. Abstractions, or generalities, only exist in the minds of thetans. They exist only in your head. Ideas do not exist anywhere “out there”. The problem is that the only real things anyone can observe are specific cases. Therefore, one’s ideas (always generalities) and observations (always specific cases) can be wildly divergent. In fact, they usually are.

This section rambles on a bit, but it is necessary to clarify exactly how it is that people often think about things that are more ideas than much of anything else, and how far too often these ideas fail to relate well to actual observable reality. An “idea” is more correct to the degree it more accurately describes the things and events it points to or indicates. Too often many of the ideas of people have little to do with the actual true nature of things. This is no minor situation.

You can see, touch and pet a specific cat, but the concept “cat” includes any cat, real or imaginary, large or small, with thin hair or thick hair, whether purebred or a mutt. The concept “cat” necessarily leaves out a tremendous number of differentiating characteristics. The same is true for any “thing” named, such as “car”, “boat”, “marriage”, “planet”, “bowling team”, ad infinitum. Simply, the name or label (word, thought, idea) is not the thing, and the name or label purposely leaves out many characteristics that any specific thing possesses. In other words, while words and ideas might be an interesting way to relate to real things and events, they are forever and always quite inaccurate. Words and ideas can only fail and fall sort of the things they attempt to describe. A word doesn’t equal anything. It is a symbol that represents an entire category of things. The same is true for ideas. There is no single word in any language that describes or defines any actual real specific thing! Groups of words (phrases and sentences) can point to a specific thing or event, so that you can then observe it as an idea or as an actual occurring event. There is no understanding in words and ideas. Legitimate understanding only results from personal observation, although words and ideas can and do help point anyone to the things and events they should observe.

Words and ideas are useful only to the degree they accurately relate to and describe actual existing events and situations. Otherwise they mean nothing.

You might not like that statement because you might believe that “anybody can understand anything” and “perfect communication is possible”. Yes, anybody can understand anything, but not through words and communication of ideas, and ONLY IF YOU PERVADE IT AND BE IT. Perfect communication is not possible as long as there is any distance between the source point and receipt point. Only at zero distance, or infinite affinity, can that occur. But that is then the same thing - you are occupying the same space as the thing and pervading it as the means of understanding. Communication, as we know it, disappears when the distance approaches zero. Affinity is defined as the willingness to occupy the same space as or be near something. It is the greatest when you are willing to completely be in the same space as something else. Communication of ideas using words is a very poor way to go about understanding something. Just because everybody does it here on Earth does not make it any the less imperfect. Words are useful only if they get you to look at the realities the words define or describe. LRH never discussed this exactly in this way, as far as I know, but that doesn’t make it any the less true. But he would surely agree.

From P.A.B. 44, LRH says:

At the top we would have a complete understanding of all things, and it would be complete knowingness, but this would require no communication to effect.

Why? Because all communication disappears when the distance vanishes to nothing, or when affinity increases to infinity. Recheck Axiom 28 if you doubt this. For any communication to exist there must be a distance. When you pervade or be something, you occupy the same space as it, all distance disappears, and thus no communication. It’s very simple really. LRH talks about this in many places, and I just don’t have the time to dig out every reference. Communication requires distance (Axiom 28).

Words and ideas are useful only to the degree they encourage the reader to look and observe what they describe or discuss. The actual understanding results from looking at the things and events, and not from thinking with words and ideas.

In fact, LRH has designed the study of Scientology materials to do just that. This is due to the concern for application through demonstration and practical drills. But despite that, most people are unaware of just how much their ideas fail to connect up with actual observable things and situations. To a degree, most people think with ideas that fail to some degree to correlate with or be based upon the true nature of things. Language, words and ideas themselves contain these errors.

Let’s look at a gradual ladder of climbing abstractions.

Life form




House cat


Bessie is an animal on a farm in Indiana. It is little Billy’s favorite pet. Bessie is an individual, unique, and specific thing. Anyone can see and touch Billy’s pet house cat. The word or concept “Bessie” refers directly to an actual real and existing thing. Anyone can look at and observe the thing this word represents. The word and concept “cat” is a step up the ladder of abstraction. The concept “cat” includes a large number of possibilities, and the concept defined by this word chooses to equate all animals possessing the common trait of a “small, soft-furred, four-legged domesticated animal.” Conceptual labels or definitions function this way and act to point out the common traits uniting all specific cases falling within the category outlined by the label or definition. Names, labels and words define categories of similar things.

There is no actual “cat” that exists anywhere, but only specific cases of a “cat”. The definition of “cat”, in fact any definition of anything, leaves out the many various qualities that enable one to differentiate between the particular cases of those real entities with that same name or label. The definition of “cat” purposely leaves out size, hair color, breed, and numerous other qualities. Differences are ignored in every label, word or symbol. In other words, any single word refers to no specific thing. Every word is a generality. It refers to a category of things, and yet, it refers to no actual thing. Words can only begin to refer to actual things when used with other words, because the combination of words acts to point out or to specific actual things.

While “cat” is an abstraction that exists only as an idea, the phrase, “The cat sitting on my living room table last night at 6:30 p.m.”, does indicate an actual specific incident of a cat.

Realize that with abstracting the “word” doesn’t do it. You do it in the process of conceptualizing and accepting the label. You make up or accept the entire conceptual range of labels, categories and meanings, usually never realizing that you do so or how you do it. You put meaning onto and out into the universe around you partially through the definitions and concepts you have accepted about these things. Most people are completely unaware of this and remain to some degree the effect of their ideas, their “intellect” and their conceptual framework. The human mind labels, breaks up and tears apart everything in an attempt to bring the human experience of the myriad observations of reality into language. The world doesn’t do it to you. You do it to the world and universe around you. This becomes obvious and true for anyone who takes the time to observe these things and notice how the mind functions in this regard.

Of course, the only way to truly know anything is to observe it or be it and this attempt to understand through labeling and language is forever doomed to fail. The study of anything, using language and words should always and only get you to look at and involve yourself with the actual things and relationships the language and words describe. If you fail to look and observe, then you will never understand anything. But the world is overflowing with people who have never looked at much of anything, they often have very complicated minds filled with all sorts of labels, definitions, significances and relationships, and they claim to know much. Philosophers of all time periods are guilty of this, but also so are most people. There is nothing I say here that LRH would not agree with completely.

Words involve two things. First, a word is actually a symbol that has attached to it a definition or meaning. A word has mass and significance. The meaning of any word is simply the commonly accepted meaning(s), based upon agreement of word usage by various people who use that word. Second, any word refers to something, or at least, it should describe something that others can experience and observe.

When you clear a word, you shouldn’t ask, “what does this word mean”, but “what is the commonly accepted meaning of this word based upon common usage by other people, and what does it refer to and describe”? The word has no inherent meaning. In other words, “what have people accepted and agreed this word to mean and define”? A word means only what thinking beings conceive or agree it to mean. A word only refers to what thinking beings have agreed it to refer to. But it should refer to something!

The concept “feline” climbs further up the ladder of abstraction, as it covers a wider range of specific instances, and ignores more unique individual traits. A household pet “cat” is now only one category in a much large category that also includes lions, tigers and lynxes. The concept “mammal” climbs higher, absorbing and including any animal from mice to men to whales, and includes all animals that suckles their young. Obviously a tremendous amount of differentiating characteristics are ignored to make this category of a concept. All the things that separate one mammal from another are ignored to make the label functional. There is no “mammal” per se in the sense of the exact definition because it includes so many different things, but there are specific cases of individual mammals. Notice that as an idea becomes more abstract it becomes less able to differentiate. It becomes more general. It becomes less specific. It becomes more like the reactive mind that thinks in identities.

Each label, word or concept is a special case or subset of the label, word or concept directly above it on the abstraction ladder. A house cat is a special case of a feline. A feline is a special case of a mammal. A mammal is a special case of animal. An animal is a special case of life form. As you go up the ladder of abstraction, the concept covers a wider area, including more specific examples or things, and intentionally omits larger numbers of various differentiating characteristics. Reversely, a feline is a more general category containing the household cat. The mammal is a more expansive and general category of things containing the feline group, and so forth.

This is what your mind does as it conceptualizes the things it experiences and observes in its external and internal environments. But more to the point, you do it every second of every day to the world around you. Your world of ideas is a strange tenant indeed. There are no words or categories out in the world. You accept and place this system of concepts and categories upon the world you experience. You actually create your own entire world (or universe) of ideas and conceptions about all sorts of things. To the degree you are not personally and directly aware of this will you most likely go the effect of your own conceptual world.

Ideas are the stuff of thetans. Specific instances are the stuff of the observable MEST universe. These two things can be related, but due to faulty education, misunderstood words, fixed ideas and a general tendency for people not to observe well, these two worlds often remain disconnected and confused. I could fill a book with examples. Examples are everywhere you look. It is an epidemic on Earth in all areas and fields.

A producer of educational films once remarked that it is impossible to make a film shot or scene of “work”. You can shoot Joe hoeing potatoes, Susan polishing her car, Bill spraying paint on a barn, but never just “work”. “Work” is a concept that exists at a high level of abstraction and includes a multitude of activities. Specifics have an actual time, place, form and event, whether they involve physical events or mental events. One cannot point to any actual time, place, form and event for any word, idea or concept that has ever been. Thinkingness is very far removed from observable reality. Notice how and why “lookingness” (observation) is so far away from “thinkingness” (concepts) on the Know to Mystery Scale.

This becomes interesting when you notice that as a person becomes saner they tend to differentiate better. The more down-toned someone is the more apt they are to incorrectly equate and identify (A=A=A) things and concepts that are not equal or similar, yet the entire structure of language is to make things equal that really are not equal. First, language makes the word equal to the thing, and it never is (although people often treat and work with their mental ideas as if they were massy “things”). Second, the human act of abstracting creates concepts based upon the similarity and equality of characteristics while ignoring differences. Concepts are simply general ideas that people often confuse with real things. The entire process of abstracting, described above, is nothing but identifying things together that actually are not equal. The “idea” of a cat exists only in your head. The reality of a specific cat exists out in the real world. No two cats are the same. The same is true for the concepts “feline”, “mammal”, “animal” and “life form”. The same is true for every idea in your head. There is not one concept in your head that equals anything anywhere, and the closest a concept can come to legitimacy is when it is defining an exact, specific thing or event (Axiom 38). Interestingly, as one goes uptone they increase their willingness and ability to differentiate, and they stop noticing things as generalities (or abstractions). The very uptone person can comfortably view every situation as the unique thing it truly is, separate and different from all others situations. This is largely covered in the Data Series.

A thetan can conceive things to be equal as an idea. A thetan can conceive of an idea such as zero. A thetan can have all sorts of ideas about all sorts of things. The problem is that for ideas to be legitimate as far as words and definitions go there must be a correspondence between the world of ideas and the physical or mental world of observable instances of things and situations. People err often where they think in ideas that are not based accurately on observable events and relationships, and arrive at conclusions and opinions that are also not grounded in any observable anything. This has nothing to do with the reactive mind, although the effects of the reactive mind add tremendous additional confusion to the ability to look and think.

Try the following experiment on an unsuspecting friend:

What is meant by the word red?”

It’s a color”

What’s a color?”

Why, it’s a quality things have”.

What’s a quality”?

Say, what are you trying to do, anyway?”

You have pushed him into the clouds of abstraction. There is no understanding with generalities and abstractions. It is better to travel down the ladder of abstraction to understand anything. Referring to specific examples brings about greater understanding. To define or understand anything it is best to do as here:

What is meant by the word red?”

Well the next time you see some cars stopped at an intersection, look at the traffic light facing them. Also, you might go to the fire department and see how their tracks are painted”.

Thus, definitions are most helpful that give examples with which the reader or listeners may be familiar. In the end there must be a connection between the word and the realities the word represents to the reader or listener. For words or concepts to make sense they must be brought into the range of human observation and experience. That involves always and only specific actually cases and instances. Leaving ideas in one’s head, as concepts or abstractions, while failing to connect them to directly observable events is a recipe for intellectual and personal disaster. Many philosophers and people have traveled down that road. LRH snidely refers to them, correctly, as men who live in Ivory Towers.

What do you mean by democracy?”

Democracy means the preservation of human rights.”

What do you mean by rights?”

By rights I mean those privileges God grants to all of us – I mean man’s inherent privileges”.

Such as?”

Liberty, for example”.

What do you mean by liberty?”

Religious and political freedom”.

And what does that mean?”

Religious and political freedom is what we enjoy under democracy.”

Speakers and writers who never leave the higher levels of abstraction really say nothing at all, because, even while what they say might be true in some way, the ideas are vague and general and never connect up with actual observable events. They fail to get the reader or listener to connect the ideas with their own personal observations. They fail to list out the specific examples and situations that might lead someone to accept the abstract idea. The proper way to explain anything is to give the general rule, give examples that display the general rule to be true, and encourage the reader to find their own examples based upon their own personal experiences. That’s why LRH constantly encourages the reader to find examples in each chapter of The Way To Happiness booklet. Again, LRH knows all this, but he never discussed it much, except in passing.

Words act as labels and describe categories of things. There is no single word that refers to any exact thing anywhere at any time. Ideas tend to exist similarly as some sort of generality. They tend to be vague in some way. To test whether an abstraction is legitimate one must ask whether it is referable to lower levels. In other words, can one point to specific examples or cases? Interestingly a characteristic of suppressive people is that they speak in generalities, and fail to give specifics. This relates a great deal to what I have been describing.

I haven’t failed a star-rate checkout in years, because whenever I am asked for a definition of a word I respond with a definition that refers directly to real life things and relationships that I have observed. I bring up specific examples immediately from my own personal experiences for the definition and for the sentence. I don’t memorize anything. I immediately look to my experience and observations and simply state what I see or have seen. I don’t answer by “thinking”. I simply connect to what I have previously seen.

Of course, thinking and communicating in abstractions seems to work because they get the thetan to look at their own personal experiences related to these concepts. What the thetan is actually making sense of are the specific observations of real life connected to and elicited by the mental concepts and definitions passing through his mental landscape. You do this so quickly that it isn’t even noticed. The nuttier a person is the less their concepts or thinkingness elicit ideas based on personal observations, and they can get into crazy things such as fear of alien creatures or paranoia that the world is going to collapse under their feet tomorrow. The saner a person is, then the more their ideas directly hook up to their own personal observations. This aligns exactly with LRH where he says that the saner a person is the better is he or she able to differentiate, or deal in specifics.

Personal observations in their purest form are nothing but looking at specific instances.

Realize also that many people “see” what they want to see in alignment with their beliefs and fixed ideas. Beliefs, biases and fixed ideas are nothing but ideas and concepts that do not connect up to observable facts. People with fixed ideas always speak in abstractions and vague generalities. They automatically interpret events in accordance with their rigidly held opinions. A man sees a black man arrested and he instantly understands that “blacks are inferior and lower down the evolutionary ladder”. He perceives it that way. His ideas color and affect his ability to observe. His mental concepts and abstractions related to black people are loaded with unexamined opinions.

Here is another example loaded with prejudice for many people: “Mr. Miller is a Jew”. To such a statement, some “non-Jews” instantaneously have marked hostile reactions, for example, putting themselves on guard against what they expect to be Mr. Miller’s sharp financial practices or excluding him from tenancy in an apartment complex or from membership in a fraternity or country club. That is to say, they may confuse this high-level abstraction, “Jew”, and its accompanying erroneous connotations, with the real Mr. Miller, and behave towards Mr. Miller as if her were identical with the abstraction.

The picture of reality created in our heads is often widely divergent from the true state of affairs. Unless you have noticed this previously and taken time to correct your own errors in these things, you most likely are guilty of the same errors to some degree. Everyone is. Don’t toss this away as meaningless. You will be making a large error if you do so.

This happens all the time in people’s minds to some degree about a tremendous variety of things. Some of you may read this report, and immediately and automatically categorize this as “an attack” or “natter” and also immediately falsely assume “he has overts”. What would be occurring is that your beliefs and opinions about “how things operate” would adversely affect your ability to see what this actually is. You might attach all sorts of meaning and attitudes to the idea that I had been previously declared. Most people largely perceive and experience their world through their own unconscious system of rigidly held attitudes, beliefs and opinions. I point this out in an attempt to nip that possible situation in the bud before it happens.

An observer has to be sane to sanely observe.

This has been so far out in society that the word “sane” itself has come to mean “conservative” or “cautious”. Or something you can agree with.

Whenever an observer himself has fixed ideas he tends to look at them, not at the information.

Prejudiced people are suffering mainly from an “idee fixe.”

History is full of such idiocies – and idiots – with fixed ideas. They cannot observe beyond the idea.

A fixed idea is something accepted without personal inspection or agreement. It is the perfect “authority knows best.” It is the “reliable source.” (LRH, HCO PL 19 May 1970, Data Series 8, SANITY)

LRH understood everything I stated above. He discusses it much in the Data Series. The fixed idea is an idea that replaces ones willingness and ability to observe what actually is. Correct thinking involves relating ideas directly with actual things and events. People who choose to believe and assert that their mental concepts and ideas are right despite the actual facts of observable evidence are nuts. That includes almost all human beings on this planet to some degree.

The point of all this is twofold. First, the thing is not the idea. Second, people can accept all sorts of weird “ideas” that have absolutely nothing to do with anything, where one cannot ever point to any specific cases as actual existing examples of the concept or idea.

Devils, angels, gods, God, Satan, Holy, sacred, Garden of Eden, purgatory, Hell, Judgment Day, and so on are concepts that refer to no thing that anyone can observe or point to (outside of their reactive mind). While these are religious concepts, the same is exactly true for ideas such as chemical brain imbalance, mental illness, depression, bipolar disorder, addiction, schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, and insanity. These ideas do not refer to any actual observable situation or phenomena, yet many people believe and assert them quite forcefully.

This also exists in the world of “science”. The “Big Bang theory”, the “Darwinian theory of evolution”, the “germ theory”, and the materialistic idea of the universe are only ideas in the heads of people that have very little to do with the actual true nature of things. Again, this fault is the norm and not the unusual here on Earth. The general thinkingness of people here is horrid. This needs to be appreciated.

This becomes exceptionally apparent when one closely and honestly examines people’s beliefs about space aliens, god, angels, demons and that sort of thing. There can be words that describe mythical creatures, such as a unicorn. That’s not what I am describing here. Regardless whether any of these exist or not, people accept and believe all sorts of ideas and opinions, and these are based upon no actual personal observations of any sort. In other words, the ideas and concepts cannot refer to any specific thing for most of the people most of the time, yet people believe them anyway. But worse they often force these ideas on others.

In terms any Scientology management terminal should understand, at least if you have studied compliance data, the fact cannot be verified personally. There is no way to confirm or deny “aliens”. There is no way to point to a specific case of a “demon”. There is no way to experience “God”, outside of one’s own overactive imagination. The ideas forever remain abstractions in one’s mind. People chronically accept all sorts of ideas without so much as a hint of evidence. LRH says in HCOPL Technical Degrades that is a High Crime “to permit a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time without hint or evaluation”. It should also be a crime to accept a definition or description of a concept without any hint or evaluation of actual existing things and events that the definition describes. But then, I am often accused of being too harsh in my expectations of others.

Religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are filled with examples where people think one thing, yet any honest observation of reality exhibits contrary states or conditions. Religious zealots are notorious for believing and asserting things that neither them or anyone else has ever seen or experienced. I do NOT place Scientology in the same category as other past Earth religions, because Scientology encourages each participant to look for himself and to not accept anything that one has not observed as true for oneself. The subject of Scientology is eminently sane in this regard. It is not at all like most other examples of Earth religions. The theory of evolution and the Big Bag theory both fail to align with any honest observation. In this regard scientists often believe and assert fairy tales as much as the religious folks they often criticize.

The point is that ideas are often very different than the situations these ideas claim to define and describe.

Realize that you can point to a specific case of a cat, feline, mammal, animal or life form. You can point to an example. The words and concepts can refer to actual existing things and relationships. Also realize that you can get others to look at and see “invisible” realities such as “imagination”, “love” or “nervousness” by getting them to observe their own “internal reality”. What I am saying is not a rant for materialism, although various materialists incorrectly use the subject of Semantics that way.

LRH was familiar with this. The above ideas come from the subject of Semantics. LRH was very familiar with this subject, because many of his ideas come straight out of it, such as “infinite-valued logic”, “differentiation”, and “absolutes don’t exist”. Some might even say LRH “stole” these ideas, but that is neither here nor there (and he does give due credit to other authors in a few of his books). You can find these ideas and more in Korzybski’s Science and Sanity. In HCO PL 26 April 1970R, revised 15 March 1975, Data Series 1R, THE ANATOMY OF THOUGHT:

In a subject developed by Korzybski a great deal of stress is given to the niceties of words. In brief a word is NOT the thing. And an object exactly like another object is different because it occupies a different space and thus “can’t be the same object”.

Personally, from my own experience with people studying Scientology, and by working with many students on Scientology courses over the years to help debug their study, I think LRH undervalued this factor. In almost every case I find of a person having trouble with study, they are incredibly stuck in “ideas” and “significance”. They fail to understand that the words refer to real things, and have never taken the time to connect up their own words and concepts with the things and relationships the words and concepts define and describe. The solution is in the Study Tapes, where LRH tells someone who still can’t understand something after clearing the words to “ask yourself how it can be that way”. This question, while paraphrased, and able to be asked in numerous different way, actually coaxes the student to connect the words and ideas to the real world because the student must look to their experience based on their own observations of similar things. Supplying examples tricks the student into coming up with instances of their own observations and experiences of these things.

Get down to this other thing, you still can’t see how it’s that way – set yourself up some examples of how it’s not that way and how it is that way.

Now, this is the – really the first place where you really have to apply it to you and life, where it becomes an abs - a complete must. You must apply it to you, you must apply it to life. “Does this thing exist in life or doesn’t it? Has it existed in my life or has it existed in anybody else’s life that I know of? Is there any incident here that demonstrates this phenomena?”

How does it apply to me? How does it apply to life? Has it ever applied to life? Did anybody ever see this thing?” you see, and “Do I know of any incident or anything of the sort which would exemplify this thing?” (LRH Taped Lecture - Studying: Data Assimilation)

What this actually gets the student to do is look and connect up the data and ideas to their own perceptions, experiences and observations. THAT is the most important thing.

But too few people seem to understand the incredible importance of doing this because LRH basically mentions it only once on one of the study tapes, and never issued anything on it pointing out it’s relative importance. I have found that almost anybody can be helped markedly in study if they duplicate and apply that one simple technique. It is a grossly underused method and it markedly helps anybody with learning anything. I think LRH failed to notice the magnitude of importance of this datum, or at least he failed to communicate clearly this fact. I use that datum almost everyday of my life. It changed my life.

So, per this there can be an incredible divergence between 1) the existing reality of things, and 2) what any one person accepts as labels, definitions and concepts for these same things. Again, the word is not the thing. Also, the idea is not the thing. One must go outside the realm of words and concepts, and look at things if you want to verify and confirm the reality or anything. That is covered extensively earlier in this report when discussing the Know To Mystery Scale. Studying words and concepts should get the person to LOOK AT THE THINGS THE WORDS AND CONCEPTS DESCRIBE. Understanding concepts, and relating concepts in one’s head, while important, is far from the end of study, yet that seems to be what most people get after studying the Study Tech. The entire purpose of study should be to get the reader to look and observe. All else are sub-products. This is entirely consistent with LRH data taken as a whole. The end purpose is not to end off with only a “conceptual understanding”.

LRH seems to impart the idea that all study must be aimed at getting a result or a product. That is not always true. You can read for enjoyment. You can study because you are curious. There are many reasons to study besides applying data to get a result. That might be the reason for studying a post hat, or doing an E-meter course, but that is not always necessary.

This conceptual confusion can get tremendously worse. This gets compounded greatly when you realize that any person has a huge conceptual system of definitions, some accurate and some not, with all sorts of concepts that never can or will connect well to any observable reality. Each person also has tremendous interconnecting relationships between and amongst all these partially and completely “off” definitions and ideas. They don’t just have incorrect relationships of words and ideas with the things that the word defines, but they also have strange and incorrect relationships between the concepts in their heads. I am not even adding in the bank, false data, fixed ideas or anything else. It’s nuts already without any of that thrown into the mix.

The problem is that words and definitions are supposed to relate or connect to the things and relationships they purport to describe. Often they don’t. The theories and ideas are nutty to start with, because the ideas are more often “beliefs” than anything else (i.e. Christianity, psychiatry, communism, economics, etc.). And even if they do make sense, if understood, far too often the person has never taken the time to observe the specifics of what the words describe to successfully connect the significance with the mass. Lack of mass doesn’t only apply to “big things” or sequences of actions, but it involves everything. Every noun refers to a thing. Every verb refers to the action of some thing. Every word originally came from an observation of a specific thing or event. Every adverb came from observing how an action could be different from other similar actions. Every adjective came from observing how a thing could differ from other similar things. Language originally derived from the observation of things, events and relationships. Mental concepts are tied up closely with language. When you have lost the connection of the words to the things they label and represent, you have lost it all, if you ever had it in the first place. The truth is that most people never had it, much less are even aware of anything I discuss here.

The last point is that far too many people’s entire conceptual universes of ideas and definitions remain restricted to within their head (or mind), and their entire mental framework fails to correctly connect up to observable realities. The person who keeps pushing communism despite it’s nearly consistent failure wherever it has been attempted, the person who demands allegiance to socialism despite an ever worsening economy, and the psychiatrist who never relents and prescribes electric shock treatment despite the obvious harm it does, each chooses to stay in their heads instead of looking at observable things. They live through “thinkingness” and not “lookingness”. The truth is obvious but they don’t and can’t see it. They choose to accept definitions and concepts that are more theories than anything else. Yet they push the ideas on everybody else nonetheless. Worse, despite the fact that direct observation refutes what they claim, nonetheless they doggedly maintain that their beliefs are true. I call this the human belief syndrome. It happens nearly everywhere. People choose to run their attitudes, opinions and beliefs on everyone else despite the observable evidence that refutes their attitudes, opinions and beliefs. This is a chronic human problem and it has been playing itself out at all points in human history. It has happened in the Church at times also.

It is important to notice that most people are unaware of their conceptual universe of definitions, concepts, ideas, and considerations, and just how much and to what degree (or lack of degree) these correlate to observable things and relationships. Most people are utterly unconscious of their own fixed ideas, biases, unexamined theories held as fact, and I have seen far too many Scientologists use “self-determinism” or “my certainty” to excuse these things. As I like to say, you can believe what is true for you, but that does not mean that it is true. People can be certain about and believe all sorts of things, but that does not in anyway imply that their perceptions or views are accurate. Certainty is a state of mind. It implies nothing about truth or accuracy, although the person claiming certainty almost always asserts rightness and legitimacy.

There is a way to grade data and base what you know upon actual observations. This is covered by LRH in the Data Series policies. It seems very few have read this material, much less apply it to life and the world around them on a routine basis. Honestly, I would guess that less than 5% of all staff and public have read it, and less than 1% apply it to their life successfully as a way to determine validity of “data” (facts, reality, reports, study materials, news articles, etc.).

While I give very drastic and graphic examples here, most people confuse abstractions with specifics, ideas with observations, and opinions with facts.

What Does All This Have to do With Anything?

What I describe above explains one of the situations that may prevent a reader from getting what I am describing in this report, and surely explains why so many people couldn’t see the situation over the past eleven years. Real things, and the words and concepts used to describe and embrace them are confused. Theories are accepted as facts when they have never been verified personally in any way.

In this case, one may choose to accept the ideas (beliefs) that:

LRH is always right.

The Church would never authorize and publish non-LRH data.

Everything in print is by LRH.

I doubt the reader has any idea to what degree these fixed ideas affect one’s ability to perceive and judge data.

What’s funny is that LRH is probably always right, because his observations are so correct, but that “idea” should not be accepted as an ideology, belief or fixed idea that prevents a person from observing when a case surfaces where LRH isn’t right. Believing that the Church would never allow non-LRH material into print surely doesn’t help stop it if and when it occurs. Of course the Church would like its members to have confidence in how it is managed, as a PR concern, but again, faith in the Church cannot and should not ever replace one’s own personal direct perception of what is. Faith is a useless commodity compared to one’s ability to observe.

The ability to observe must always remain senior to anything else, and when one’s direct observations contradict one’s beliefs, one had better begin questioning their sacredly held ideas and opinions instead of their own ability to observe.

Lookingness is much higher than thinkingness. Lookingness involves observing, whereas thinkingness covers things such as ideas, concepts, beliefs, opinions and attitudes. Do not allow some unexamined personally held belief to interfere with your ability to observe and duplicate what is described in this report. I have no doubt that this partially explains why so many people first, never could see the error for what it was, and second, failed to do anything about it if they did notice it.

Know what you know by observing honestly. Don’t try to figure out the truth of anything by “thinking about it”. Just look and observe what you see. Be honest enough to know what it is you see. Besides that you really don’t have much of anything else.

Christians argue endlessly over the idea that “God is Good” and the fact of the existence of evil in the world. How could a loving a God allow such evil in the world? It is a game of playing with words and meanings. There is no God and there is no absolute good. The ideas are based on nothing outside of people’s imaginations and their acceptance of strange concepts. Yet many people believe and accept all sorts of statements as true that have never been and can never be verified. The point of all this is what? It is best to look to establish truth, instead of playing games of logic, thinking and reasoning.

Many people have a hard time understanding cases where the Church causes harm to somebody or some activity (when they shouldn’t cause harm). Lisa McPherson died under the Church’s care. Some Scientologists can’t make sense of this, because “the Church is good and is freeing mankind”. This statement of the Ideal Scene and purpose may very well be true (to free Mankind), but it is an error to confuse that postulate with the actual conditions that exist at any moment of time. If the Church had followed simple LRH policy in the area of illegal public the situation never would have occurred. It is no more complex than that.

Part of the problem is that people want their statements and postulates to be true, and they don’t like it when people present evidence that shows them not to be true. People don’t like viewpoints that contradict their own postulates and assertions.

The problem with this is far too many people can get off into having Scientology become an ideology, based on beliefs and fixed ideas, instead of it being what it should be - the workable application of the only subject on Earth that can actually dislodge crazy beliefs and fixed ideas.

To handle any situation the people involved must be able to view it as it is. If they cannot view it as it is, then they will not know the actual situation, and will not be able to repair it properly. Thinking in abstractions, accepting postulates and goals as statements of actual conditions of reality, and fixed ideas prevent this from occurring. These things act as a block to improvement.

It is very true that legitimate application of Scientology (LRH) materials obtains great results. That idea is right out of KSW data. It is also true that a failure to apply standard Scientology in a standard manner causes upsets and attacks. The problem is that too many people have the fixed ideas that:

  1. Exact application occurs as a routine matter in the Church (it doesn’t)

  2. People who attack the Church are evil suppressive persons (they are not always)

Why are having these ideas a problem? First, there are too many instances where application is simply not standard. Application, even at Flag, is an ever-changing thing. It evolves and changes. Interpretations change. That’s a fact. Ask any NOTs or Solo-NOTs pre-OT. Second, people get mad at the organized structure of the Church when certain actions that occur under the auspices of that same Church fail to align with a proper understanding and correct application of LRH materials.

So, in fact, what happens here is that non-Scientology (squirreling, alterations from LRH materials, misapplication) occurs at times within the “organized Church”. This is not as uncommon as one might think or like to believe. This can and does occur. So what! Nobody is perfect. That’s not the issue here. But, various people in the Church make a big deal out of this by first, denying that any squirreling occurs and second, placing any criticism or attack against anything about the Church into the category of suppressive behavior.

People get mad when Scientology is not applied standardly. They will attack the cases and instances of this. People will yell and scream like mad when Scientology is not standardly applied to them or in their environment. LRH describes this clearly in the KSW issues. But some Church officials seem to incorrectly place all “attacks” and “criticisms” into a neat little cubbyhole labeled suppressive acts. The problem arises when instances exist where public see and complain about out-Tech, and where the Church denies that squirreling is occurring. The Church, in these cases, misrepresents the complaints of out-Tech as “attacks”. I think some of you guys need to lighten up. This distortion of reality is harming the expansion of the Church. It is not necessary and it does not help anybody or the goals of Scientology. You might believe otherwise, but regardless, it just isn’t so. This is exactly a case where some of your ideas do not align well with the facts of reality.

To a certain degree I think that you have conceptually organized the world into a very oversimplified version of good guys and bad guys. In the process you have evicted and expelled many people who would have probably willingly and happily supported you if you had simply been a little less intolerant and rigid in your demands on them.

But, what do I know?

The point of all this is that there is often a contradiction between what people assert and claim, and what is observably true. People think in abstractions, and this is usually far removed from a direct observation of the same related data. I see this phenomena as a plague on Earth. People are mired in thinkingness. We all do it to some degree, and this phenomenon explains how and why the situation described here could exist for so long undetected and unhandled.

Believing Something Else to be True Despite Evidence

This is a special case of confusing abstractions with reality. History amply shows that people have a strong tendency to believe things despite facts or evidence. You might understand this as “fixed ideas” or “false data”. Simply, the person or people involved cannot observe because they are too busy thinking with their fixed ideas and false data that have nothing to do with facts or reality. This disability is widespread and LRH concurs. Again, as per the above, you need to take the time to look and notice the many real-life examples throughout history and modern civilization where this is true, or it will not make sense and will forever remain as a vague idea for you floating in the clouds of abstraction.

An observer has to be sane to sanely observe.

This has been so far out in society that the word “sane” itself has come to mean “conservative” or “cautious”. Or something you can agree with.

Whenever an observer himself has fixed ideas he tends to look at them, not at the information.

Prejudiced people are suffering mainly from an “idee fixe.”

History is full of such idiocies – and idiots – with fixed ideas. They cannot observe beyond the idea.

A fixed idea is something accepted without personal inspection or agreement. It is the perfect “authority knows best.” It is the “reliable source.” (LRH, HCO PL 19 May 1970, Data Series 8, SANITY)

Most religious groups fall prey to this. They accept, assert and believe all sorts of nonsense including concepts of god, demons, the devil, spells, angels, cosmic battles, heavenly plans, holiness, salvation, sin, and much more. These ideas are largely nuts and have nothing to do with any observable thing anywhere at any time (outside of the bank and implants). Yet the 15th century Inquisition Priest happily tightened the thumbscrews or lit the flames at the stake to “save the soul” of a naughty witch. One could attempt to argue, talk sensibly, and discuss with them what they were doing, but in the end their beliefs prevented them from looking at anything outside their ridiculous system of concepts. In fact, if you did argue or bring up a criticism, you would probably be burned alive or tortured to “help correct your errant ideas”. Those are the worse belief systems, where the belief system itself discourages and attacks dissenters. Don’t think that Scientology can’t or hasn’t functioned at times in a similar way. It shouldn’t, but it has and does at times. All groups have done so and do so right now as I write this.

In a sort of weird way, the same thing may occur here because what I am saying may be viewed as incredibly unpopular by some. I may be incorrectly labeled things or attacked. Some staff may understand this report and I in accordance with some weird, seemingly Scientological, system of preconceived notions. This report is what it is. Please don’t make the mistake of imagining it to be anything other than what it is. As LRH says in the first Student Hat tape:

Critical. Not that criticism is bad, don’t you see; but had developed a critical eye, did not have to slavishly say, “This is a picture by Sam Falk, New York Time magazine, one of the greatest exhibition photographers of all time. Therefore it is holy.” See? Gone completely through that and up to a point where, “That’s an awful good picture. That guy really has a good sense of composition, terrific sense of composition. But what the hell was he doing that day in the darkroom? Drunk?” See what I mean. And I could have put my finger on a point which I’m sure that Sam Falk himself would have agreed with.

His point is that nothing should be viewed as holy. He makes it clear that all criticisms are not created equal. He here describes a good type of being critical. One must be willing to look, see and know what you know without feeling you must conform to some fixed idea that something is beyond error. Nothing is beyond error. In fact, I have no doubt that LRH would agree with the points I make here. When the person or people who entered the new definition of the second dynamic into the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book did so, in the same way, I am saying to them, “But what the hell were they doing that day in the office? Drunk?” And if LRH wrote it himself I would say exactly the same thing about him, “But what the hell was he doing that day in the office? Drunk? The point is not even whether LRH wrote it or not. It is false data whether he did or not! And you must be free, bright and aware enough to see it for what it is and stand on your own two feet knowing what you know to be true. Also from the first Study Tape:

The other thing is the idea of the fixed opinion. One has to have a certain fixed opinions to protect the fact that he’s stupid on the subject, and that he can exercise no judgment of any kind whatsoever as long as he’s mired down in a bunch of fixed opinions. And that afterwards, that judgment, then, depends on a freedom from fixed opinions and an actuality of a – of a good assessment. You know what you know, you know what you don’t know, see?

Well, of course, that’s just a lack of perceptiveness. A fellow can’t see. He’s not capable of judgment with regard to his own skill. His judgment, then, with regard to what he’s doing is at fault to that gross error. He is uttering the fact that black is white. He can’t do it, yet he knows all about it. He knows all there is to know about doing it, yet he can’t do it.

It seems everyone who read this definition of the second dynamic could not exert a much-needed critical eye. They must have had various fixed opinions because they were unable to exercise any judgment about it. There was a very definite lack of perceptiveness by all involved. LRH data very easily explains how and why this alteration of LRH data could appear in print and exist for so long undetected and unhandled.

History is infested with similar examples. In modern times, the doctrine of materialism exists in the same way. People have accepted many ideas without personally observing the matter in any way. Darwin’s theory of evolution exists as an ideology for the “educated professional community”. Of course, it is utterly nonsensical, and the people who believe it cannot even look at or think of the possibility of alternate explanations for the existence of life, because they have accepted and endorsed their own pet theory to the exclusion of all else. They are obsessed with ideas over and above facts, while even at the same time claiming that they do nothing but observe the facts just as they are. They can’t see what’s right in front of their face. It’s a problem with perception, but that is based upon their fixed ideas. Psychiatry is based upon the “modern scientific” notions of biological evolution and the “naturalist” theory of existence (it’s all a big accident and we all come from mud). Much of what goes on in the minds of most thetans follows the same pattern. LRH never said much different.

They always manage to miss the obvious. And factually, it takes a lot of drilling before people will observe the obvious. And that is all there is to this step, is obnosis: the observation of the obvious.

So you have here, in essence, a new skill. It’s going to be very difficult to process it into somebody because they’ve never had it. They were capable of observation once, but how did they observe? They always put a curve on the observation in order to make a game out of it or something like that. Pure observation, pure study, pure duplication, pure comprehension or pure judgment have never been a study in the field of philosophy. They just don’t exist.

Oh, they’re just avoided like mad. Oh, it’s just like showing them a snake spitting in their face, you know? Huuuuh? Comprehension, understanding, duplication? Oh, no, no, no, no, no! That’s what you’re not supposed to do. (Study tape, Training: Duplication)

Well, you’re basic thing is just that, “Why can’t they see at all?” Well, they can’t see at all because they’ve never been – they’ve been trained into stupidity. And you’re talking to blind men, that’s all. Well, how do you talk to a blind man? Well, you talk to him very damn carefully! (Study tape, A Review of Study)

The man who believes that his wife would never cheat, because “she loves me so much”, is equally incapable of seeing the many obvious signs that all his friends have been seeing for over a year. He has a fixed idea that prevents perception, and colors perception. People view and experience reality through their belief systems. Wishful thinking is another version of this, and it also prevents one from observing just as much. Don’t misplace your faith or certainty in anything outside yourself, whether it is God, the government or the Church of Scientology. The Church exists only to bring you up in personal ability. The situation I describe in this report is a force in the opposite direction. Altered LRH data will only confuse people and block the Bridge.

Your faith should be in yourself and your own ability to observe. Your certainty should be in your own ability to see and view what is.

Make up your own examples. People everywhere, at all times and places, including staff and public Scientologists, fail to observe because they instead believe and accept certain things to be true. If you find yourself in a situation where the Church is at odds with your own observations, then you still should not question you own ability to perceive and know (unless you are wrong).

Do not confuse postulating with what I am talking about. You can choose to mock-up, assert or believe whatever you want, but there is a major difference between mocking up a reality, and believing something to exist when the actuality is quite different than how you believe it to exist. You can and should mock up values, personal character traits, responsibility, and goals, but you will have a heck of a time if you choose to mock up assertions that contradict with what is directly observable and able to be easily verified or confirmed by many others. Most people can understand what I describe here.

The problem is that far too many people accept beliefs with no verification at all, and refuse to even look at the possibility of evidence that conflicts with their rigidly held opinions and beliefs. I urge you not to do this in this case. But the first major hurdle is to get you to see that there might exist the slightest possibility that you could do such a thing. The next hurdle is to accept the possibility that what I describe here might be true.

And then look. Simply look.

Thetans Can Agree With Just About Anything

Beings, from my own observation, have an incredible ability to look at any and all sorts of inconsistent, false and nutty data, and have it “make sense” and “fit it in with everything else”. I could easily write 100 pages filled with examples and only be just starting. This is partially based on their own false data, but also is based solely on the fact that beings have an uncanny natural tendency to make things make sense, even when they don’t. Call it dub-in, or anything you want, but they do it all of the time. It is chronic. Most likely thetans do this because of their inherent urge to “be right”. Confusion means wrongness, so it seems most thetans simply have “everything make sense” despite numerous contradictions and absurdities. Failing to be aware of the degree to which thetans do this, or disagreeing with this statement does not make it any the less true. You then simply haven’t looked at the reality of this yourself.

An observer has to be sane to sanely observe.

This has been so far out in society that the word “sane” itself has come to mean “conservative” or “cautious”. Or something you can agree with.

Whenever an observer himself has fixed ideas he tends to look at them, not at the information.

Prejudiced people are suffering mainly from an “idee fixe.”

History is full of such idiocies – and idiots – with fixed ideas. They cannot observe beyond the idea.

A fixed idea is something accepted without personal inspection or agreement. It is the perfect “authority knows best.” It is the “reliable source.” (LRH, HCO PL 19 May 1970, Data Series 8, SANITY)

The point is that sanity and the ability to observe are rare. LRH says so. He is right. But don’t believe him just because he says so. Look for yourself, and if you do, you will find that what he says correctly describes the general state of human beings. There are other aspects to it. It is important to realize the Church and Scientologists are not immune to the things and situations LRH discusses and criticizes in his various discussions about current and earlier societies. Things such as fixed ideas, and the tendency to falsely associate or identify unrelated things (A=A=A) exists everywhere. If you think they don’t, then you are doing what LRH says, and are failing to observe and instead you are looking at your own fixed ideas. Honestly look and observe, and then make up your mind. But don’t assert anything so cockily unless you have honestly looked first.

As an example, see the attached report on a misprint I discovered. It has been this way for many years. Thousands and even tens of thousands of people have read this issue, failing to notice and report the error. It doesn’t make sense as written.


On page two of the issue it is written:

And so we shut ourselves from off the light and enter grey-faced gloom.” (my italics)

I suspect it originally was written:

And so we shut ourselves off from the light and enter grey-faced gloom.” (my italics)


And so we shut off ourselves from the light and enter grey-faced gloom.” (my italics)

Read the attached report to fully understand why it cannot be correct as written.

Most people probably read it as “shut off from” even though it is written as “shut from off”. This is a case of dub-in, and the mind does it automatically with no awareness by the reader. This sort of thing goes on all of the time. You do it, and everyone you know does it. A thetan automatically and chronically has data “make sense” when it is wrong, off the wall or false. Most do it without so much as a hint it is occurring. Be wary, and please be suspicious. This is a minor and fairly innocuous example given here, but it can get worse – much worse. People chronically dub-in to have things “make sense”, far more often than they are aware, and the problem here is that thetans can and will pretty much accept any nonsense handed to them, especially if it is presented to them with authority and force. This is a key point. Here’s another example.

In Study Tape, STUDY AND EDUCATION, 13 August 1965:

Now, what has happened here? Well, arithmetic, not being a subject in itself, and being a somewhat degraced and degraded subject, has gradually shrunk and is ceasing to be a subject, but is simply an auxiliary subject which moves up into higher mathematics.

The word “degraced” is not a word. LRH wasn’t saying it in a funny manner, as he does sometimes. Maybe he fumbled over his tongue. Who knows and who cares. But, it would be of interest to discover that many people either automatically dub-in (unconsciously) or choose to dub-in “disgrace” as the “correct” word. Again, the point is that many people dub-in so “data” makes sense. People “fill in the blanks” based on the context they understand. They think they understand the context, and then have the word (or idea) have the meaning that makes sense to them within that context.

Many years ago I came across a policy letter that had a typographical error for the word “imminent”. It means, “about to happen, soon to occur”. The word on the page, which obviously was a misprint, was “eminent”. “Eminent” means “distinguished, notable”. I pointed it out to the Supervisor. The Supervisor told me, “find your misunderstood words”. When I persisted he suggested that I was “requesting unusual solutions and originating weird ideas” and demanded again that I clear up my misunderstood words. I spent 4-5 hours between Qual and Ethics, until I finally found one human being who could be there, comfortably look, and see that it was a misprint. While that in itself speaks volumes of people’s inability to observe instead of think, one should ask what did all the thousands of others do who read the issue? I have no doubt that some dubbed-in “imminent” automatically. If anyone cleared “eminent”, and used that word, since there wasn’t any definition that could have the sentence even partially make sense then God only knows what they went away thinking. I wrote up the situation and it was corrected about three years later. Just because a person “feels good” or is “VGIs” about reading something does NOT mean that they understand it correctly. It simply means that they “feel good”. People can F/N when they “think” they understand something correctly – even when they actually don’t.

People dub-in chronically. It is largely unconscious because most people are low in awareness when studying. In the cases shown above, the person reading dubs-in a single word, but this process can get must worse. A person can read a phrase or paragraph that doesn’t make sense, because it is illogical and dub-in all sorts of meanings and streams of logic to have it make sense. Subjects such as psychiatry, psychology, philosophy, sociology and more are filled with information that is utterly absurd. I know because I have taken the time to study much of it. I studied many “modern subjects” after completing the PDC course. I did that to understand where human thought goes awry, in alignment with everything I learned on the PDC course. Yet, most people most of the time have nutty stuff make sense in some way.

Most people are stuck in trying to understand things, instead of just realizing that they are dealing with symbols (words), and the agreed upon definitions of other thetans about these symbols. I never go past a word I don’t understand. When I hit one I don’t know, well I clear it immediately. I am very aware while studying. Far too many other people pass words, and only clear them after crashing into a wall of confusion. I know what I know and I know what I don’t know and it is all quite clear to me.

People generally accept things when the source is considered to be “reliable” or “an authority”. People generally do not observe, figure out the facts for themselves, and base what they know upon their own ability to observe. Most simply accept data, assertions, proclamations, and just about anything else because somebody states it to be a fact. It’s on TV so people accept and believe it. It’s in a magazine so people assert it and defend it. A friend tells them something in a bar on Friday night and they are telling it to everyone as a fact the next day. It’s in an LRH book so you just accept it as it is with no personal examination. It is a sorry state of affairs. Re-read what LRH said above:

A fixed idea is something accepted without personal inspection or agreement. It is the perfect “authority knows best.” It is the “reliable source.”

These phenomena can and do occur in the Church, with public and staff, as well as anywhere else. It does occur. This factor is part of the reason why the situation I describe has gone unnoticed for so long. The Church and Scientologists are not at all immune from everything LRH points out about humanity at large.

Most people, most of the time, accept what is handed to them as true or factual, and they fail to simply observe and grade the data themselves.

It’s not that the Church chronically hands out false data or nonsense, quite the contrary. But because the same sort of situation exists in the Church where so many people trust and believe the source to be beyond error, when false data does get passed along, then nobody sees it. The above brief paragraph explains most Earth idiocy for the past 10,000 years. LRH is just SO ACCURATE and SPOT-ON. But it also explains the situation I describe in this report.

I am not being “critical” in the usual Scientology sense. This is just the way it is.

I can guarantee I could choose a few key Scientology points or data, alter them, quite obviously, explain them all “very sensibly”, and 99.9% of the readers would have it all make sense to them, accept it, and go along happily. Why? Because they implicitly take for granted, without inspecting each new data, that LRH is always right (he usually is), everything in print is by LRH (it usually is), and everything Church staff do is totally in accordance with LRH policy and intentions (things get a bit fuzzier there). That is what is partially going on with this. LRH concurs completely, and according to LRH in KSW #1:

So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable ‘technology’”.

This didn’t stop being true when LRH wrote this. It didn’t stop being true when he died. All the issues on KSW, all the courses, and all the attention put on the subject of KSW by management has not stopped this from being true. Thetans are as prone to these things as ever. What LRH wrote above is as true as it ever was. LRH’s observations were totally true. They still are, and I believe some of the people who read this need to understand this fact.

Just because someone understands the importance and concept of “keeping the Tech pure” does not mean that they do it perfectly, that others do it perfectly or that it is even done correctly most of the time. Again, you can believe whatever you want. When I was at the Tampa Org last year studying, I noticed misapplication of Study Tech almost every day. I couldn’t believe the tolerance the staff and students had for compromising something as simple as Study Tech. The truth though is that it was simply above their level of awareness. They just couldn’t even see it. So apparently is what I describe in this report since most people have remained quite oblivious to it.

Please realize that BELIEVING things despite obvious contrary perception of the truth has been a major hindrance of the entire human race for a long time. That has been one of the key stumbling blocks of most religions – they have far too often been based on beliefs and ideas (thinkingness and alter-is, enforced beliefs) instead of what actually is (lookingness & is-ness).

LRH put this subject together by himself with absolutely no research assistance from anyone. It MUST be kept that way, for the future of us all. The example given in this report is a case where that point has been obviously violated. Per LRH:

We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact – the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatizations of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out.”

Well, with LRH gone the group is left to it’s own devices, and NOW, more than ever the KSW data must be ruthlessly applied. The wild dramatizations are here as much as they were 20 or 30 years ago. The example given in this report is an example of the “group left to its own devices”. I know we would all like to believe it’s all under control, and I suspect that it is an important PR angle of the Church to convince everyone, both staff and public, that it is under control. But this example presented in this report does not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling at all. I don’t now, and never have cared much for PR. I do care for the truth especially when it involves the exactness of LRH data.

I am taking extra care to explain the probable mechanics of what is occurring here, because I sincerely doubt that a simple factual report would have so much as even raised an eyebrow. I have little confidence in the ability of almost any reader to understand this example for what it truly is unless I present it strongly and from various angles.

I find that people everywhere are almost completely incapable of viewing anything honestly without severe distortion and alter-is. You might consider that this entire universe and every agreement you have made in cahoots with it involve some alter-is of your own considerations at every step of the way. “Alter-is” IS a fundamental part of what every thetan does with and to the universe around them. Nothing can persist here without alter-is. Therefore if something is here, if anything is here, in any form, it contains a lie. Strange place, huh? Nothing is what it seems. Everything is pretending to be something it is not. (I am being funny – although this is quite true)

Point ONE of KSW is “having the technology”. If this one alteration shown here is tolerated, then there will surely be another, and another and another, until what any of us “have” will not even be the same subject – and it will cease to do what it was intended to do. Extrapolate this example of alter-is over 50, 100 or 500 years, and Scientology could very well become a pale shadow of it’s original self. But THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF KSW in all its forms. To prevent that and to ensure this doesn’t occur.

Per LRH:

A thetan can postulate or say or reason anything. Thus, there is an infinity of significances. - C/S Series 6 HCOB 16 June 1970 What the C/S is Doing

The point of this quote should not be brushed off or taken lightly. A thetan can and does “reason” anything. It is one thing you can be sure that any thetan will do quite compulsively. You are probably doing it right now whether you know it or admit it, or not. Give a thetan almost any datum, no matter how nutty, have him also believe at the same time that it “must be true” because of authority or something else and the thetan will conceive it to “make sense” - no matter how idiotic it is. Most extant theories and ideas in any Earth subject are fundamentally nothing more than connections of incorrect beliefs, altered facts, misplaced importances, biases and fixed ideas. The fact that this absurd alteration has existed for SO LONG (10 or more years), and has not been detected or corrected is one glaring example of just how true the above statement is. It’s not so much “the Church’s fault” as much as it is “people’s fault”. Not that I really care to place “blame”. I just want to see someone finally take responsibility for it and handle it. But first someone has to see it for exactly what it is – altered LRH data.

Thetans can agree with and appear to understand just about anything. They are, for the most part, complete fruitcakes (despite all social appearances to the contrary). Tie this in with and to what LRH says about a group’s tendency to accept and forward any nonsense as legitimate “tech” and I don’t see a pretty picture. Again, these statements are about people anywhere. Look around the world. It’s a crazy place. That’s because the people are crazy. But as part of that same world, Scientology and Scientologists are not immune to what I describe here. I am not attacking the reader or the Church, but you need to understand what I am saying and describing if you are to understand how the situation I describe here could come about and exist for so long undetected and unhandled. Things are bad on Earth. LRH never really says anything that would contradict that. Don’t make the mistake of thinking all problems or enemies will come from “the outside”. People making mistakes as described in this report are as much an enemy of the goals of Scientology as any raving suppressive newspaper or government.

If you, while reading this, also accept some version of the fixed idea that “such a thing could never happen”, and therefore fail and refuse to personally inspect (observe, look at) the reality of what I describe here yourself, then it will continue along.


The day that marks your death is the day you sit back and decide you know everything there is to know about everything there is around you, so there is no reason for you to observe anything anymore.

Now, if Scientology faces any danger it is the danger of stultifying because they no longer believe they have to observe, no longer have to apply, no longer have to get on the ball.

I don’t think the reader understands just how nutty most thetans on this planet are – staff and public included. Again, I am not scathingly critical, ranting or nattery. I am simply stating what I see around me most of the time. I can give endless specific examples. I am not speaking a generality to upset anyone. I will happily supply endless detailed examples that support my statement. But this report is already far too long.

Almost anything can be made to make sense to anybody. It’s scary, but it’s true. An honest, unbiased look over the past 2000 years of human history should make that painfully clear. The peoples of the world have believed, accepted, endorsed, followed, adhered to and enforced on others every imaginable lunatic notion possible in the fields of economics, religion, family, punishment, justice, politics, sociology, psychology and more. It’s been largely a parade of absurdity. The majority of the people’s observational ability is in the gutter. Most people “think” with incorrect and faulty “ideas” instead of “observing” and “seeing what is”. The gulf between these two things, thinking and looking, is tremendous. Deciding on truth through concatenations of logic, using one’s personal mental concepts as fodder is useless.

Psychiatry, psychology, modern economics, modern medicine, and even various aspects of modern science contain much false data and information that has absolutely nothing to do with real things and relations. People believe in God, gods, saviors, angels, aliens, the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the idea that Man is a huge cosmic accident, and all sorts of nonsense. In fact, if you honestly review the things and ideas human beings have believed and endorsed throughout Earth history, most of it is garbage. You must confront that beings on this planet are highly susceptible to accepting and endorsing almost any nonsense – this is the gist of a key section of KSW. Groups of people can and will accept and enforce every conceivable type of alter-is and nonsense and assert it as being true the entire time. Read KSW #1 again and think back to this paragraph. LRH discussed it in relation to Scientology and keeping the technology pure, but it is a general situation with people on this planet. They alter everything and accept just about any trash as true. There are unlimited examples of this. People do this everywhere. It is the norm and not the unusual. Make no mistake about it.

One last point. Just because all the words of any sentence or subject are cleared and understood does not mean that it is true, makes sense, or is right. Pick up any psychiatry text, economics text, social science text, psychology text, or political science text. Read some of it. Clear all the words. Demo it. Clay demo the ideas and concepts. Make sense of it. Maybe you will and maybe you won’t. But for the most part, it is largely false data, intertwined with some facts and some true observations. Word clearing does not guarantee understanding if the data being studied is nuts. But that doesn’t stop people from making sense of it. Such a thing has occurred with the situation I describe here.

People have made sense of the definition of the second dynamic in the new Ethics book, and have somehow tied it in with other existing correct data, even though the idea is absurd. That is exactly the situation.


One of the things about study itself is that there are a great many things around that are false and you could study a lot of false things and therefore become disabused of studying because you had studied something false.

But, and this is key, most of the people, most of the time, WILL AGREE WITH THESE THINGS, BELIEVE THEM, THINK WITH THEM and ACT ON THEM. Why? Because they fail to observe (look) and instead think with concepts and falsely defined ideas. In fact, they can’t observe and therefore only think.

In P.A.B. No. 11, LRH writes:


Please re-read the above quote. It probably explains 98% of human aberration and every conflict that has ever existed. That one line explains an incredible amount.

Look at the Know to Mystery Scale.

Native State

Not Know

Know About











The “distance” between look and think involves a tremendous amount of difference of awareness. The amount of distance on the Tone Scale, when laid next to this chart is tremendous.

LRH discusses and refers to “thought” in two very different ways. Thought as theta, is the high-end spiritual source of everything. That is NOT the “thought” that LRH is referring to above. Thought, as thinkingness, is something else entirely and it is largely reactive. This lower level thought includes the errors of mental abstractions, logic, and words used as labels (symbols) for everything else. The two things are worlds apart.

Thinkingness comes in down the scale at the level below Effort. And it comes in as a figure-figure-figure-figure. Now a person can postulate without thinking about it, and if that’s what we mean by thought, that’s fine. But usually what people mean by thought is figure-figure. “I’ll just figure this out and I’ll get a computation and a calculation and I’ll add it up to . . . now let me see . . . can you go to the movies? I don’t know,” – the kind of answer a little kid gets. “Now let me see. I’ll have to think it over. Give me a couple of days”. We don’t know how all of this mechanic got into a postulate, but they’ve let it get in there. So that’s the level, Thinkingness. (The Phoenix Lectures, chapter The Axioms)

Lookingness is at the top of the chart. Most people are far from there. Otherwise they would not be here on Earth. LRH relays the magnitude of importance of this in the Phoenix Lectures:

It is religion. It should not be confused as anything else but a religion. And the very word Veda simply means: Lookingness or Knowingness.

Please notice where Lookingness is on the scale. Then notice where Thinkingness is. Spend 50 or 60 hours reading about the difference and relation between the two. Study the Data Series. The majority of the thetans here on Earth are nowhere even close to Lookingness. They believe and assert they “see accurately”, “think logically”, and “observe objectively”, but in fact, what they usually do is “think” with incorrect, false, and bank concepts and ideas. LRH understood all of this, but I have found that very few Scientologists, whether public or staff, have the slightest clue what he is talking about. Maybe that’s because so few have studied and duplicated the Data Series. Maybe it’s because so many have failed to look at and observe the realities LRH describes for themselves.

The majority of people with whom he deals – and especially governments – cannot conceive of:

  1. differences

  2. similarities

  3. identities

As a result they usually can’t tell a FACT from an OPINION (because all differences are probably identities and all identities are different and all similarities are imaginary).

Wherever you have thought confusions (where FACT = OPINION, where suggestion = orders, where an observation is taken as a direction, etc., etc., etc.) and administrator is at risk.


LRH says, “The majority of people with whom he deals” suffer from this disability. He is right. They most surely do. It is no minor disability, and it involves tremendous errors in thinking for most of the people most of the time.

The example discussed in this report is nothing less than somebody’s opinion that has become a fact. The reason why it has continued so long is because of what LRH so often describes as the usual human tendency to fail to observe and to instead think. This is covered extensively in LRH books, issues and tapes.

Furthermore, from the chapter DIFFERENTIATION, ASSOCIATION AND IDENTIFICATION in Scientology 8-8008:

When he reaches a low level of association, he supposes himself to be thinking connectedly, but is actually thinking in a completely disassociated fashion, for he identifies facts with other facts which should not be identified.

People don’t know it when they are doing this, and they believe and claim they are thinking correctly. Scientologists are far from being immune to this.

There is no way that any aware, honest thinking entity can have the statement “the second dynamic is creativity” make sense, unless they commit the above errors and “think” associatively.

The facts or ideas of the second dynamic, sex, family and procreation can be related and identified, because they are comparable things, yet they cannot be correctly associated and surely not identified with the concept of creativity. Yet most people have done so through faulty thinkingness. Yes, creativity is necessary to have a second dynamic, just as it is necessary to have any dynamic, but no; the second dynamic is not creativity.

As a side note, I have read all the LRH books at least 10 times. I know what he says. I have also spent thousands of hours, outside of courses or auditing examining my own thinkingness and such in accordance with what he says. I am more aware about all this than most people, and I can supply endless examples. I have looked extensively to validate much of what LRH has stated. Most staff and public don’t even know there is such a thing as identification or association as described here. I can guarantee that most Scientologists cannot give examples of what I describe here about differentiation, thinkingness, lookingness and identity type thinking, and instead think in vague concepts that connect to nothing more than other concepts. In other words they have failed to connect the LRH concepts up with the realities and situations these words and ideas describe. They have remained glib. This is a far wider phenomenon than ever imagined. I am sure you probably don’t agree, but it is what it is regardless of whatever me or you assert or claim.

Scientology can be altered, and similarly, as above, most of the people, most of the time, would never notice it, much less mention it or attempt to do anything about it. This is a sad statement, but entirely true. I am not being overly critical – it’s just the way it is. So few people seem to be able to stand there, look at things, know what they know, and be able to hold their position regarding what they know to be true. LRH says exactly the same thing in KSW #1. They may be, for the most part, very decent and honest people. But they still will accept all manner of anything given to them (see KSW again and what LRH says about what type of technology a group will accept due to the reactive mind).

Thetans can agree with anything. As LRH has pointed out before, Man doesn’t lack examples of false data and false roads out of the mess. Every case of a false road displays groups of thetans agreeing on nonsense. Thetans always think they are “right”. So, try to pull back and out a little from it all and view this situation I describe. Just because many people agree with the data or agree it is okay means nothing and is no indicator of legitimacy. One of LRH’s goals was to put together a body of data that did mirror truth, in contradistinction to the many other bodies of data that were riddled with lies and false data, and to get thetans to agree with and forward those ideas. If the ideas themselves are allowed to change, while still calling the ideas “Scientology”, it will be all for nothing.

That’s why it is so extremely vital that those in charge of guaranteeing the purity of the data do so – because there is no one else who will ever do it. The people here are generally in poor condition and they need help. That’s why Scientology is here. The goal of this report is to correct a situation so it will continue to be here for them as a workable subject.

I am taking the attitude that the reader will understand this, it’s relative importance, and act on it accordingly, as I believe it truly needs to be. I am looking forward to seeing these “references” stricken from view in the not too distant future, and replaced with legitimate extant LRH words on the subjects.

That would make me ecstatic.


One cannot expand in awareness by reading and understanding mental concepts only. The entire realm of concepts resides in the band of thinkingness.

I remember when I first read LRH data about the social sciences, psychiatry, the suppressive nature of international bankers, the Rockefellers, the AMA, and so on. It all made sense and I liked the data, but at that point I did not really KNOW IT. I understood the ideas as concepts, but whether these actually related honestly to the facts of history and reality was another matter entirely.

So I spent a good part of 10 years reading and looking myself, and guess what? I came to the same conclusions LRH did, but now I know it instead of simply believing or accepting it. There is a big difference.

When LRH talks about the idea that most people think poorly, I don’t simply accept what he says and promote a belief based only on accepting what he says. I have taken the time to look closely at my own mental functioning and that of others, and from observations, know that what he says is true.

I realized awhile ago that there is a primary thing that must occur when someone is studying LRH data, and if this doesn’t occur they go nowhere (even though often they appear to be going somewhere). Studying LRH data must encourage and cause the reader to LOOK at the same realities LRH was describing in the materials, so that the reader comes to KNOW based upon their own observations. If what one does stays down at the level of thinking and relating only mental concepts, that person is doomed. The purpose of checksheets should force this to happen. Of course this occurs on training courses for posts and auditing, where application is of primary concern. I am talking about the studying of other data that LRH mentions and that is less apt to be so easily applied.

While on the PDC course at Flag I recall noticing other students reading page after page after page, with never so much as smile, and some would move (far too) quickly through the materials. I would read one paragraph, make up many examples, do endless demos, and relate the data to every dynamic in the past, present and future. I would laugh aloud, constantly smile, and shake my head in disbelief of the remarkable genius of LRH. I would squeeze every ounce of meaning I could out of every sentence LRH wrote. I invested myself extensively in the materials. I went exterior studying. I would go home looking at the data, go to sleep looking at the data, and wake up having cognitions, still looking at the data. I am not exaggerating about this.

I take this subject seriously. The situation I describe in this report, where LRH data has been altered and placed in print, is happening just as I describe it. I don’t want anyone to simply believe me. My goal is not to be right or make anyone else wrong. I would like you to simply observe and determine the truth for yourself. If you just look, you will come to the same conclusions because there really is only one actual state of affairs here.

The second dynamic is not creativity. Yet the statement, “the second dynamic is creativity”, is in print. That is the actual state of affairs.


29 April 2000

Tech Compilations Unit

Office of Snr C/S INT

Via: IJC


Gene Zimmer

RE: Misprint in LRH policy and book

The following issue, and corresponding duplications in other places (such as the new ethics book), contains what I think is a misprint or alteration of LRH’s original text:


On page two of the issue it is written:

And so we shut ourselves from off the light and enter grey-faced gloom.” (my italics)

I suspect it originally was written:

And so we shut ourselves off from the light and enter grey-faced gloom.” (my italics)

Somewhere along the line a typist accidentally switched the two words “from” and “off” and so it has been ever since.

Common usage examples are abundant, clearly demonstrate this, and exist as:

Their overts shut them off from benefiting by the fruits of their own observation.

Psychiatrists have shut themselves off from case gain through their destructive actions.

Nobody shuts oneself off from happiness more than the offender himself or herself.

These sentences would NOT be written correctly as:

Their overts shut them from off benefiting by the fruits of their own observation.

Psychiatrists have shut themselves from off case gain through their destructive actions.

Nobody shuts oneself from off happiness more than the offender does himself or herself.

The key words and word phrases are:


shut off (which is in the dictionary with a specific meaning)

Shut from” can exist as:

The door was shut from a gust of wind.

His rigid mind was shut from accepting new information.

The store was shut from 6 p.m. until morning.

People would not state:

Please remove yourself from off the square.

It would be said:

Please remove yourself from the square.


Please remove yourself off the square.

Shut off from” has a unique meaning, because “shut off” involves a specialized meaning (see a dictionary). “shut from off” seems to be completely incorrect English usage (as far as I can tell).

This is similar in usage and form to:

cut off from”, and also this makes little sense in the form:

cut from off”

I cleared all the words first, did demos, and tried to envision how it could be used this way or make correct grammatical sense. I couldn’t do it. It doesn’t make sense as written with any meanings of the words as defined and used in recent or current English.

If anyone doubts this, simple do this drill. Make two columns, and write out understandable sentences using “shut off from”, and “shut from off”. You will be able to write 5, 10, 15, 20 and on and on for the first case, and you will be lucky to come up with one for the second. Or, locate books, magazines, or newspapers where “shut off from” is used. You will find them. Now try to find any usage of “shut from off”. You won’t be able to do it. They don’t exist and I doubt they ever have existed.

I checked an older version of the HCOB and it was also in that issue, so it seems this has existed in this form for a long time without being noticed or reported (10-15 years).

Most likely the majority of people actually “read it” as “shut off from”, switching the words as they read them without even knowing they are doing it, or when seeing the word phrase “shut from off” they understand it as the meaning for “shut off from”. So they never notice the reversed words. A good test would be to have 5 or 10 people read the sentence out loud and see if they say it correctly or dub-in the correct phrasing, and how they respond to the line. I have wondered about this phenomena because I have located and written up other misprints, which are at times incredibly obvious as misprints, yet go unnoticed and unhandled for a long time. People apparently “make sense” of anything, even if actually incorrect or unable to make sense, because they assume it makes sense or must make sense (because it is coming from an “authority source” and “therefore must be right”), and they deny their own perception due to an assumption of senior validity and importance which they place above their own observational ability – or the perception never approaches awareness because some mental circuit is busy ensuring it “makes sense” even though it doesn’t or can’t make sense as written.

I hope this is accepted and acted upon with the same spirit it was given – a sincere interest to see LRH’s words correctly duplicated and transmitted to the people of Earth.


Gene Zimmer

2020 El Dorado Court

Clearwater, FL 33763

Personal Integrity

The LRH quotes below tie in exactly with everything I say in this report. If you cannot look at what is, and thereby know, you are gone as a being. Personal integrity has nothing to do with believing, thinking or anything else. It’s all about observation.

Axiom 38:

1: Stupidity is the unknowness of consideration.

2: Mechanical Definiton: Stupidity is unknowness of time, place, form and event.

1: Truth is the exact consideration.

2: Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.

Personal Integrity

WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself.

And when you lose that you have lost everything.

What is personal integrity?

Personal integrity is knowing what you know —

What you know is what you know —

And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.

And that is integrity.

And there is no other integrity.

Of course we can talk about honour, truth, all these things.

These esoteric terms,

But I think they’d all be covered very well

If what we really observed was what we observed,

That we took care to observe what we were observing,

That we always observed to observe.

And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude,

A critical attitude, or an open mind.

But certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity

And sufficient personal belief and confidence in self

And courage that we can observe what we observe

And say what we have observed.

Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you

Unless you have observed it

And it is true according to your observation

That is all’. (LRH, quoted exactly from Background and Ceremonies)

There is no good reason that any legitimate form of Scientology should allow or make anyone deny what he or she observes to be true. Don’t be “stupid”, or in other words, don’t choose to fail to view the exact time, place, form and event of anything I describe. Just comfortably observe and be confident and assured about what you know that you see. If your opinions or beliefs conflict with what you observe, cancel your beliefs and go with your observations, because they are senior to all else.

Taking Things Out of Context

This is something people do all of the time. They take an idea, that has a very specific meaning when used within a certain framework, and move it out into another framework or situation, incorrectly taking along various non-applicable relationships with it. This happens with words and it happens with ideas. The idea of context should be familiar to anyone who has done the Student Hat, although LRH deals only with words.

A word has a specific meaning or value within a certain framework. A word’s meaning is shown or clarified depending on the sentence any word finds itself in. The word “blue” can mean 1) a color between green and indigo or 2) a feeling of sadness.

Susan liked the dress immensely, as it was her favorite shade of blue.

He was so blue after his pet chameleon passed away.

The word “blue” has various possible meanings and the correct meaning is determined by the other words surrounding it, or by its context. A word works or functions a certain way depending upon the framework of other words it exists within. It functions differently depending on the environment around it. Ideas also operate correctly only when they are kept in their correct surroundings and context.

There is a small town in Vermont that has an old law that makes yelling after 7 p.m. at night a criminal offense. This may have had a use at some time. One hundred years later, it is quite inappropriate and useless, because the context has changed, but some still attempt to enforce it. One night a political group had a rally. People got excited and in their enthusiastic participation, many raised their voices in united chanting. The police came and arrested the lot for “yelling”.

That involves taking an idea, or rule, out of context. It involves applying something where it shouldn’t be applied. It means improperly taking a consideration, that involves an entire specific framework to make sense, and moving it out into another situation entirely. I could give hundreds of examples where people violate contexts. It happens everywhere every second of every day.

I give examples here to help make this real to you and bring it within your range of personal observation. I use examples that I have observed in the Church.

Example One

In 1996 a local Flag SOED came out instructing staff that they could not associate on a friendly basis (fraternize) with the public. The net result was that my children could no longer go on liberty with me, and also have their friends come along. As far as I was concerned this was a gross misinterpretation and misapplication of LRH issues.

I won’t get into it all again, but I will tell you this. Even though a report from RTC agreed with everything I said, the MAA at Flag and other INT executives chose to ignore that and instead enforced the local issue anyway. That is a FACT. I have all the evidence still if anyone would like to verify what I say.

Per SEC ED 138, STAFF AUDITORS, LRH states very clearly in an issue written to and only for staff auditors:

Do not go out to lunch or dinner or fraternize with your preclear.”

This one line was taken totally out of context to justify a local Flag issue that ordered, “staff are not to fraternize with the public”. What happens is that somebody comes along and orders something. Then juniors are instructed to dig through all the LRH materials trying to find something, anything, to explain or justify the order. In their attempt to do this, it happens at times that they perform amazing tricks of mental gymnastics to have the original issue somehow magically explain the local issue or order. It is hilariously stupid to an observant person, but it goes on nonetheless. It is actually very sad that such nonsense can occur within the group that possesses the only subject able to produce increased awareness. Making up data, contriving reality, altering situations, misrepresenting events or concocting facts to explain something is so very not okay, no matter who does it or for whatever reason. It is really quite sad when one considers the magnitude of just what the data of Scientology actually involves – the ability to KNOW.

I guess that in some over-generalized, abstract and A=A=A sort of way, one can look at staff members as the “auditors of the 3rd and 4th dynamic”, and thereby incorrectly misapply all issues about auditors to staff members in general. Doing so is an error of analogy. It is taking things similar and making them equal through faulty thinking. I don't know what was done here, or what the actual “think” was on this (i.e. the concatenation of logic used), but this data is under the heading in the issue, “BEING AN AUDITOR”. The information was written for, and intended by LRH to be applied to staff auditors acting as auditors. LRH very clearly does not say that a “staff member” may not go out to dinner with a public person. An auditor is a very specific type of staff member. It says what it says. Also, this is the only issue that I have ever seen LRH use the term “fraternize”. The word “fraternize” cannot be found in either the Tech or Admin Volume subject indexes. There may be other issues that I am not aware of, but I have never seen them. I don't recall any Sea Org issues such as Flag Orders or Base Orders that mention the concept of “fraternizing” either. When I asked no issue was shown to me.

Again, it's a very long conceptual road, with many bends and twists, to get from “auditors not fraternizing with their pcs” to “all staff not fraternizing with any non-Sea Org members”. This is a tremendous A=A=A type identification of unrelated ideas. The problem though was that many people did not see the ideas as unrelated. This involves amazing leaps of logic and disregard to the specific context involved. Most of the people did this without question. The error here involves a failure to comprehend context and the resultant misapplication of a rule. If such contextual liberties are taken willy-nilly with all of Scientology data the subject will become useless in a short period of time because of endless alterations of meaning and application. The scary part is that nobody involved thought they were altering anything at the time. They simply enforced it on everybody.

Scientology is so very much liable to interpretations and misinterpretations no matter how fixed and exact anyone may believe or assert the subject materials to actually be. In other words, the urge to alter is gargantuan.

The staff at Flag used the above LRH reference to explain (i.e. justify, excuse) why my children no longer could enjoy the company of their friends when they visited with me on their days off. This was such a glaring example of illogic that it was frightening to me that supposedly sane people could commit such nonsense. I was told by the MAA that it was okay for them to do whatever they wanted (i.e. Flag) because “we are so successful”. That was pure rubbish. At one point the MAA finally admitted to me that she had no choice, that she understood that it was contrary to what LRH really said, but that she was being ordered to enforce it anyway. She did it because somebody told her to in no uncertain terms, despite the fact that the issue and her actions violated existed LRH issues. She shrugged her shoulders and grimaced.

The point is that the actual legitimate LRH datum was taken out of context and misapplied to other situations that were not the same or similar situations.

That is ludicrous and displays very errant thinking (see the Data Series; it explains this). This involves thinking in identities and a lack of ability to differentiate.

Example Two

The FPRD techniques have been taken out of context and incorrectly used to add time and money to public people’s bridges. “FPRD” stands for False Purpose Rundown. It is a rundown. It is a series of actions designed to handle specific things, just as the PTS Rundown, Primary Rundown and Drug Rundown each are designed to address and handle specific things. The FPRD is its own thing and it is different from all other processes and rundowns. From what I hear, L-10, as originally designed by LRH, also has been extended greatly by the addition of FRPD techniques. I might be wrong on the L-10 thing. Additives are alterations.

As anyone familiar with the subject knows, the FPRD handles false purposes that underlie why a person commits harmful acts. Simply, as the overts and withholds are tracked back, additional steps are taken to also handle the various purposes and considerations underlying the harmful acts. That is a fantastic thing.

Please do not take this out of context and incorrectly state that “Gene Zimmer is attacking Ethics”. I am doing no such thing. I am attacking the misapplication of standard Ethics.

The problem is that people can, and did, crazily choose to apply the additional FPRD techniques to any process involving pulling overts and withholds. This is an additive by definition. It is the situation of adding things to existing Scientology methodology that didn’t have these things included when originally designed by LRH. It involves altering LRH materials. This is a scary phenomenon when LRH materials can be so freely messed with within the Church itself. Adding other techniques that didn’t belong there originally alters any Sec Checks or processes involving O/Ws.

They are altered because LRH didn’t write them that way. LRH didn’t design them or intend them to be delivered that way. It is amazingly simple to me, but apparently not to others. Sec Checks do a certain thing. They have a specific purpose. In other words, the techniques of the FPRD were taken out of context, incorrectly understood and broadly applied to other unrelated situations where they didn’t belong. This is exactly what happened to the 6-month Sec Check that any Solo NOTs pre-OT receives. As with all additives to standard Scientology this dilutes the subject and interferes with moving up the Bridge. This was actually a severe KSW violation. One might ask, “how could such a thing ever occur?” If the subject were so fixed and exact, it would seem that such fiddling with the materials would not be possible. But it happened, and it happens more often than anyone cares to admit. That is not a good thing.

Somebody came along and decided that this “missing technology” needed to be put into everything involving O/Ws. Is the reader yet getting the idea of just how easy it is to add to and alter LRH materials? The same thing could be done with Grade Two processes where the auditor pulls overts and withholds. The same thing could be done with any confessional or Sec Check! The FPRD is its own thing. Sec Checks are their own things. L-10 is its own thing. Yet these get mixed up and together due to a failure to differentiate. LRH could differentiate, but I have yet to see any other human being capable of doing so.

I could dig in more and look at what sort of ideas and weird think must have created this situation, but the fundamental idea here is that certain LRH data were, again, taken out of context, and misapplied in situations that were not germane. This is another one of those things that human beings do chronically, and it would behoove the reader to understand and notice just how much of this may actually also occur in the Church to it’s detriment.

Example Three

My son Scott was brought up in the Sea Org. He is now 16 years old, and a staff member in the Flag Crew Org. He told me an interesting tidbit of information awhile ago. He originated that FOR YEARS he has not been able to comfortably study because he has had the idea that it was a suppressive act to pass by a misunderstood word. He was so heavily indoctrinated into this incredibly exaggerated sense of Ethics by the various staff in the Cadet Org that he became totally introverted into the details of individual words. He was constantly nervous that he would be “out ethics” if he passed by a word he failed to understand. This exaggerated worry over the definition of words actually interfered with his ability to study! He felt that he would be destroying Mankind if he passed a word. He became quite obsessed with it. He told me about friends of his whom have carried around little notebooks, also for YEARS, writing down any word they contacted that they didn’t know, because they were in absolute fear that it would be out-ethics for them not to do so. Can you imagine such nonsense? He wasn’t taught to study. He was overwhelmed with nonsense! With this incredible false importance given to Ethics, he became so obsessed with not passing a misunderstood word, and not committing an overt, that his entire ability to study was sabotaged. And this is “standard Scientology”? It is not. This occurred at Flag, the “highest” technical delivery org on the planet.

This is, again, taking an application out of context. Ethics has a value and a correct use. Using it in situations where it doesn’t belong or exaggerating its importance is an error of context. This situation with misuse of Ethics has been rampant.

Possibly the leaders of the Church have sequestered themselves so far off from reality that some don’t see or know that any of this nonsense exists. It surely does. What I describe are not unusual infrequent cases. If you really have no idea, then please listen and look.

The only thing you can be upbraided for by students and pcs is “no results”. (KSW #1)


Now and then we hear of “somebody’s case messed up.” Or that someone was complaining or dissatisfied with results. Research into such cases uniformly shows that STANDARD TECH was not applied.

Recently there was a spate of “out tech” on some executives that “messed up their cases”. (This of course impaired their effectiveness and made them feel “Dianetics and Scientology did not work and so was not worth defending”.)

A careful review of these cases showed that the “Case Supervisor” and a small clique of “auditors” (all of whom knew better but who were serving their own ends) were NOT applying Dianetics and Scientology but were only pretending to. (The clique has been detected and thoroughly handled and so are the “messed-up cases” – by standard tech of course and so successfully.)

But this brings up an interesting and useful legal and public relations point:

When people complain and are “dissatisfied with results”, it will be found that Dianetics and Scientology were NOT being used on them.

Someone was doing something else and calling it Dianetics and Scientology.

Legal and PR situations from people who have complaints stem from two reasons:

  1. They are themselves engaged for whatever reason in some self-serving end by complaining or

  2. They did not receive Dianetics and Scientology.

Please realize that the examples LRH himself gives involve alteration of materials or application within the Church and by Church members. It involves the misrepresentative of Scientology by the official Church of Scientology. He is discussing the result that out-tech has on bringing about complaints, upset and attacks on the Church due the Church’s OWN FAILURE to apply standard Scientology.

The problem is that somehow the idea of “squirreling” has been twisted to mean and imply only “bad people outside of the Church”. It is far from only that and a quick examination of how the Church constantly changes things in an apparent attempt to more closely align its practices with LRH materials bears that out. The Church seems to always be announcing the latest “era of standard tech”, “tech correction roundup” or “removal of all arbitraries”. Anyone who has been around awhile has seen this occur repeatedly and knows as a fact that the Church seems to almost always be ushering in a new period of standard tech (following a previous period of obviously not so standard tech).

In HCOPL 14 February 1965, LRH describes “squirreling” as “altering Scientology, offbeat practices”. The policy above explains why and how this occurs within the Church and the problems this causes on delivery, PR and OSA lines.

In my experience members of the Church have altered or misapplied simply LRH materials far more often than anyone would like to confront or admit, and the result has been upset people in many cases. I give at least six or seven personal examples in this report where basic LRH application was altered resulting in me alone becoming angry or irritated with “the Church”. Every Scientologist I know has their own little bag of similar upsets. The problem really arises though where the Church incorrectly views and handles the “upsets” and “attacks” as “suppression”. It seems the Church falls into a defensive posture far too quickly under such circumstances. In some weird group dramatization, the Church fails to confront or admit its own complicity in causing any of this.

I don’t have a problem with the fact that getting Scientology applied standardly is not an easy task. It is not easy. I understand that errors and mistakes will occur within and by the Church. I do not expect or demand perfection. The problem I do have is 1) the Church tends to deny errors and claims legitimacy despite its own errors, and 2) the Church tends to treat all upsets and attacks as cases of true suppression. This actually hurts the Church.

What I described is more of the same case of taking something out of context and using it improperly where it doesn’t fit or belong.

I could write a very long and detailed report, with many more examples about that subject. That is an entire other area where some chaos and confusion has been caused by the Church in its misguided attempts to “get in Ethics”. Freeing people should not, at times, appear or feel so damned oppressive. Lighten up, and put Ethics back where it belongs, as that step necessary, and ONLY necessary for the Tech to go in. Please realize that I get angry with all of this because what I describe actually weakens the power of the Church and limits its own ability to realize the goals set forth by LRH. I do not say these things to make anyone wrong or upset anybody. While you may take it the wrong way, my only purpose is to communicate these things so that somebody might see them and handle them with the result that the Church becomes stronger than ever.

In the original Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, the first chapter was entitled, THE PURPOSE OF ETHICS. This chapter and brief essay by LRH has disappeared into oblivion somewhere along the road involving the rewriting of LRH materials. Where could one find it now even if one wanted to? That’s a good question. I looked and it doesn’t seem to be anywhere. That is a case of “lost technology”. It is a case of LRH material disappearing from view, possibly never to be found again.

LRH said:

All that Ethics is for – the totality of the reason for its existence and operation – is simply that additional tool necessary to make it possible to apply the technology of Scientology.

Somewhere along the road from A to F to D to Z and finally to B, Ethics has become much more than that. (That is metaphorical sarcasm about the failure to go from A to B and going everywhere else instead along the way) At times Ethics seems to have become the only tool. It would be nice if somebody decided to dig out this wonderful essay from the original Introduction to Scientology Ethics book and got it put back in the book where it belongs – as the first essay read.

The reader, by now, may surely feel that I have absolutely no standing or legitimacy at all with you, and that it may seem very weird for me to be lecturing you on this. Who the hell am I, huh? But what I say is true and it needs to be said. If you wonder why I take such a stance, it’s only because I have seen and experienced much too much nonsense throughout my years of involvement with the Church.

The situation of taking things out of context partially explains how some people may have used other existing LRH references to explain how the “second dynamic is creativity”, when these other references explain no such thing at all.

Taking things out of context happens everywhere all of the time. Be aware of this and beware of the tendency to do so.

Magnitude of the Situation

I would like to clarify and impress upon the reader the truth of the severity of this situation. I will not “pull punches”, “mince words” or “be gentle” about any of this. I will not try to “walk lightly” and “not step on any toes”. The people who did this deserve to be run over by a fleet of very fast moving Mack trucks. The people who did this are total idiots at best, and true suppressives at the worse. The people who authorized, approved and oversaw this atrocity are minimally in Treason against the Church, fellow staff, fellow Scientologists and Mankind. Whoever finalized and published this nonsense is equally culpable. That is a situation in itself deserving immediate action by the powers that be within the upper management structure of the Church. And every staff and public person who read this nonsensical “data” (and I use the term “data” very loosely and euphemistically), passed by it, and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT are equally in Treason to themselves, the Church and Mankind.

This “data” is total and complete nonsense. The fact that nobody found it strange is a huge outpoint in itself. It would be comparable if it appeared in print that “taking psychiatric drugs helps auditing progress faster”. The absurdity of the “data” is that severe. It’s as if I walked outside on a rainy day and saw all my neighbors sitting out on lawn chairs, in bathing suits, reading newspapers with sunglasses on. My utter astonishment at my fellow human beings is similar in the case I report here. What planet is everyone else on? Can the entire population of Scientology staff and public be so unobservant or dull that they can accept and happily think with this nutty data? I hope I have made my point. The “data” in question is completely NOT LRH DATA. In fact, it is quite absurd.

The Church currently heavily promotes the idea that we are enjoying a “Golden Age of Tech”. That seems to be true in certain ways. But please do not allow someone to come up to you and assert that what I describe here “could not be true because the Church is undergoing the highest technical level at any point in Scientology history”. The term “Golden Age of Tech” is a PR slogan. At best it is a statement of an Ideal Scene to be aimed for and worked toward achieving. It is a good thing to aim for. There is no doubt that the Tech Certainty Drills improve duplication and understanding. But if this slogan becomes a “belief” to be blindly accepted, and acts to prevent you from looking and seeing what is sitting right in front of you, then Scientology has failed – because Scientology never has and never should expect or demand that people “believe” anything other than what they themselves observe and know to be true.

From an earlier quote by LRH:

Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you

Unless you have observed it

And it is true according to your observation

That is all.”

Do not confuse concepts and ideas with reality. Again, look, and don’t listen. Just look at the is-ness. Look at the facts. The truth is what is – not what someone tells you it is.

I consider this a HUGE thing. I hope the reader also does. This sort of thing, if done in more places, and spread out over time (say 100-500 years) will result in the deterioration and eventual rendering into uselessness of the greatest technology of Man, the mind and the Spirit ever put together anywhere at any time – LRH’s subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. I believe this example given here is severe, and I hope that you concur in your understanding of what has been done here and the magnitude of such alteration of LRH materials.

Failure to Observe and Take Responsibility

I don’t simply have the opinion or believe this is off-policy and NOT LRH data. I know it. I have surveyed about 10 other staff and public, all quite familiar with Scientology basics (and more), and all had similar disagreements with the second dynamic definition in the latest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. Minimally they all initially disagreed with the data when they first encountered it in the new version of the ISE book. Some eventually rationalized and dubbed-in how it could or had to “make sense”. At the other end some still viewed it as totally nuts and not in alignment with anything else LRH has written about the second dynamic. No one at any time jumped up and down and declared their love for it and proclaimed how much sense it made.

Their response was uniformly not in agreement, yet not one said or did anything.

It is a strange phenomenon indeed where the public and staff members in a group find it necessary to quietly think and believe things contrary to what the group leaders imagine them to think and believe. Of course, due to a strange phenomenon where staff and public seem to have an unspoken fear where they cannot communicate what they actually see and experience, if it contradicts certain aspects of the current Scientology party line or “zeitgeist”, this has remained largely unnoticed. Don’t take that the wrong way. I am not insinuating there is some big bad conspiracy in the Church. Party lines exist wherever two or more people get together in a group. It’s a sad, but necessary aspect of social existence.

For Scientologists though, that is a very strange way to exhibit responsibility. Ultimately they each denied what they knew to be true so that their ideas aligned with their assumption and belief that the data “must be true”, “it’s by LRH”, and “the Church management structure would never allow false data to be published”. When the majority of thetans are incapable of seeing what is right in front of them and incapable of acting on what they know to be true based upon their own perceptions, well God help us all. Scientology is supposed to produce beings with the qualities of increased awareness and heightened personal integrity. This whole situation makes me wonder what the hell is going on here. It is a very weird outpoint. Please don’t look at me, get mad because I tell you this, and attack me. Look at the facts and just get mad. I got very mad when I read the strange new “data” in the new version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book.

In fact, at first I laughed. I thought it had to be a joke. Then I thought that it must be a “test”, placed in the book by someone high up in management to see just how good or bad the public can be as far as perception and responsibility go. I finally realized that it was actually there for real and quite seriously. And that everybody else was pretty much happily (and blindly) accepting it.

When I asked my children why they didn’t do anything, when it was clear to them that the data was off the wall, they answered that they didn’t know. They are each Sea Org members. I asked my daughter Sabrina, what do you do when somebody orders you to do something that you don’t agree with? She answered, “I say ‘yes sir’, and just don’t do it”. In other words, she acts as if she will do it, and then doesn’t do it. My son Scott said that it never made sense to him. He “brushed it under the rug” so to speak. He just didn’t confront it or anything about it. As we all know, that never solves anything. In both cases they disagreed, had major confusions, went passed it, and did nothing.

Both of them are severely bogged students. Both of them are NOT happy where they currently find themselves. To a degree, that was created by those responsible for them.

A side effect of being forced to accept or understand nonsense is confusion, and the “data” regarding the dynamics in the new Ethics book is surely nonsense.

They each contacted, went by and failed to handle this nutty data. One should wonder how many others have hit a major roadblock in their understanding and progress due to this nonsense in the Ethics book. LRH talks about NOTs and how there are various booby traps designed to mess up a thetan. The placing of non-LRH, nutty data in a “legitimate Scientology publication” is equally a booby trap. I am not accusing anyone of intentionally doing this, although that may be the case, but I am surely accusing everyone of allowing it to stay in existence for so long. Nobody saw it, or at least, if they did, nobody did anything to handle it.

Everyone I talked to did some version of that. In fact, everyone who has ever read it must have done some version of that.

Interestingly, when I originally asked them about this, they immediately, without any comm lag at all, knew immediately what I was talking about and jumped into explaining how it made no sense to them either. It took absolutely no steering or convincing on my part. Realize that this could not be done with things like the chapter on ARC in Fundamentals of Thought or the eight dynamics in Science of Survival because these things do make sense. I didn’t have to “steer them to cognition”. They knew it the second I brought it to their attention, as they had both noticed it and been confused by it before when they initially contacted the nutty “data”. In fact, Sabrina twinned with Scotty to handle him on his “confusion” on this definition in the new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book while he was on the EPF. He was never “handled”. He went by it.

FACT: Both my children are blown students and nearly “hate” study. Do you have any idea possibly why? Do you understand what happens to people when you enforce nonsense on them, that is obviously nonsense, yet force them to accept it as legitimate data, and thereby deny their own knowingness? Do you have any idea how many blown students may be out there, never to be handled because of passing this same nonsense?

What did they do? Well, what can you do when presented with something that is nuts, makes no sense, but at the same time you are supposed to believe and accept that it is genuinely “by LRH” and “makes sense”? Sadly, the solution for most people seems to be to reduce one’s own personal awareness, blow from it and pretend it’s not there. And the group exists and functions in a way that contributes to and tolerates the perpetuation of such nonsense. This is so not Scientology. Yet here it is, existing right there in the book.

Do you have any idea how many blows and confusions have been spread because of this nonsense in this book? Do you have any idea how many people have not and will not be able to “think with” SCN data because of this section? Okay, so I may be exaggerating a bit, but it is nonsense nonetheless. I am just trying to make the point.

What is going on here is real suppression, whatever you want to call it. I am not calling the Church suppressive, but I am saying that suppressive actions have been created, condoned, and tolerated by somebody in the Church in regards to the situation I describe here. Altering LRH data, and putting it into print is nothing less than that. That’s not my opinion. That’s a fact.

It is possible to get dull and banky people to understand “truth”. That is basically the goal of Scientology on planet Earth. It is not possible to get anyone to truly understand nonsense when it is supposed to be truth or presented as truth.

Of course, the readers will often dub-in and rationalize and go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to have it “make sense”. The result will actually be more confusion. Forcing false data on people actually increases confusion and sticks thetans further into the mud. You hopefully will understand that, and also understand your own part in creating, allowing and finally solving this situation.

Every person who has contacted this trash will need to be cleaned up as a student and ethically. There is no legitimate solution short of that (to me anyway).

Management Concerns

Additional Concerns From A Senior Management View

There are additional questions a person in charge of all of this should probably ask.

Scientologists, especially trained and audited Scientologists, are expected to be aware and responsible. What is going on here? How could the entirety of Scientology staff and public fail to notice this absurdity? To me, that is incredibly weird. What sort of mental nonsense must be going on in the majority of Scientologists that they could “make sense” of such nonsense? Second, if a few did notice the absurdity, why didn’t they do anything about it in accordance with the simple data of KSW? If this could happen, fail to be noticed, fail to be addressed, and fail to be corrected, then anything could happen of a similar nature to destroy the subject and it’s effectiveness. The huge lack of awareness and responsibility that has created and allowed this to continue for so long has not passed by me unnoticed. It should also concern you.

Observe the reality of the evidence. It has occurred. It exists. Somebody did it. Everybody chose to not see what was right in front of his or her faces, or worse, they did see it and chose to do nothing about it. If there ever was a situation deserving a head on a pike, well this is it. By the way, that head is not mine. My only crime is being here and communicating, and maybe having a penchant for being noisy and somewhat dramatic.

If this fails to get handled then I will become disabused of the notion that the Church is capable of monitoring and ensuring the quality or legitimacy of LRH data. At that point the available options become very strange indeed. Here’s what I would expect:

  1. Immediate issuing of a correction to the Introduction to Scientology Ethics Book, LOC pack, and wherever else this false data is in print. The issue must be distributed immediately and clearly indicate the sections involved, what is false, how it is false, and give the correct references from existing LRH books and policy. This must be distributed to all staff, all public, all Organizations everywhere on planet Earth.

  2. Immediate convening of an investigation team with unlimited power to go anywhere, question anyone, and look into specifics at any level of the Org Board anywhere within all of Scientology. This investigation team must pull the strings and discover:

  1. who wrote the sections

  2. who issued the orders to do so

  3. who reviewed the rewritten sections

  4. who okayed and approved the rewritten sections

  5. who has received reports of the alter-is (before mine) and did nothing about it

  6. when (e) has occurred, who has stopped this from being looked into (this is probably the most important area with regards to locating the REAL SP or source of the stupidity).

  7. anyone who acted to endorse or tolerate the alter-ised sections after it was issued

  1. The investigation team must have absolutely no limitations in it’s power and must question everyone and anyone without fear of reprimand, ethics action, or threats of any kind from senior Scientology management personnel.

  2. The results of this investigation must be broadly published, without cover up or too much PR.

  3. The investigation team must suggest and adopt firm policy and a management framework that can and will detect and prevent any such future occurrence (Danger Formula). There are other similar alterations and these also need to be addressed. In a quick survey of recent editions of books compared to the originals, it is clear there are many changes in words, phrases, and even entire chapters have been added or deleted. My unreasonable view on this is that NOBODY has a right to do this to LRH materials. LRH has been dead over 15 years now, and others have enacted many of these changes without any direction from him. Apparently though, there are those doing it who think otherwise. My reports cite only a few of the actual existing examples. I am sure there are “reasons” and “excuses”, but that is part of the problem.

  4. The WHOs discovered must be dealt with severely – whoever they are. This is extreme suppression. Altering LRH books, policies or technical bulletins is a High Crime. There is no excuse that makes it okay, and I suspect there are many excuses. The severity of what has been done here cannot be overstated. RPF minimally, and declare as a suppressive person maximally. There may be more than one person involved. Do not allow those on senior posts to get away with anything and only “nail” the one guy who wrote the garbage. There were seniors who knew about it, endorsed it, okayed it and approved it. Someone ordered it. There is no excuse for any of them. They are all equally culpable in this and must not be allowed to “walk free”. Why? They will most likely do it again. This sort of stupidity always rears its ugly head again. The example shown here is simply too nuts to be a mistake.

  5. The WHOs found must be dealt with in an official Church issue that is distributed widely. This is no less severe than the David Mayo situation. Please don’t imagine it to be otherwise. This actually may be worse. It may just be only the tip of the iceberg.

  6. Communicate to me clearly what is being done and what has been found. Do not try to PR me or get me to accept some excuse for any of this. That will simply set off another Red Flag in my mind, and it will mean, “Gene, things are even worse than you imagined”. It will mean to me that things are so infected or absurd on the inside of the Church that it may be impossible for it to correct itself.

Also, every staff and public who has studied this and either failed to notice the false data as false data or failed to minimally report it, needs to first, clear up the false data, and second, should work out of lower conditions from a ruthless KSW viewpoint. I can understand how that might be difficult to do from a PR angle.

I pointed this out to 7 or 8 people within the past 6 months. All agreed that it was nonsensical. Not one wrote it up or did anything about it. They all made up reasons and excuses to explain and justify how it could be this way. If I waited another 10 years I suspect still nobody would do anything about it.

If anything else other than the above occurs it will mean that it will not get corrected, non-LRH data will slowly become more and more interwoven into the subject of Scientology, and the subject will eventually lose all possibility of helping individuals and Mankind as a whole. Don’t imagine anything other than this scenario. This is the real situation here.

If the data supplied here is read and understood and if the steps outlined above are enacted quickly and ruthlessly without any Q & A, then I will breathe a sigh of relief, immediately improve my viewpoint of the Church, and truly be a happy person.

There have been a few instances in the past where I have communicated obvious misprints and/or alterations of LRH material, only to be attacked, hit with ethics actions and suspected of unsavory motives by certain high level staff. In each case what I was attempting to point out was discovered and corrected sooner or later, usually and sadly, much later.

I recently finished the Personal Ethics and Integrity Course, Introduction to Scientology Ethics course, KSW Course, and new Student Hat, having just read KSW #1 in a new unit of time. I really don’t like being in a situation where I have to exercise or think I have to exercise my notion of personal integrity with or “against” staff or Sea Org members. I am hoping I will be thanked or minimally acknowledged for bringing this to the attention of caring and concerned beings. My communications have been resisted and attacked before. I am hesitant to communicate, but I cannot hide what I know to be true or my response to it.

I can understand that no one likes to be told that they or their associates may be guilty of what may very well be considered one of the greatest crimes in SCN – altering or condoning the alteration of LRH data with the intention of destroying the only Road To Freedom. Of allowing the door to be opened to incorrect technology – but that is exactly and only what this is all about. I just hope the reader LOOKS at the data, and doesn’t confuse me, my past, or some notion of me with the actual data here. For those of you who may choose to tell me or others that it’s none of my business, that I have no “right” to meddle in Church affairs and say any of this, I can only say that it is my business by default. Nobody else has done anything about it. In accordance with the KRC triangle, one must be responsible for what they know. Keeping Scientology Working is everyone’s business. Everyone else who should have noticed and handled this, at every step along the way, failed to. It’s my responsibility and it is my business, because nobody else did it.

Accepting Responsibility

In The Phoenix Lectures, chapter six, IS-NESS, LRH states:

We learned in Dianetics that people would not accept responsibility for their own acts, and actually they’re as bad off as they will not accept responsibility for their own acts. And individuals are other-determined to the degree that they will not accept such responsibility.

When you achieve that point of acceptance of responsibility, then havingness as such, and the universe, or that part of one’s interest in the universe, would vanish.

A NOT-IS-NESS is a protest. The common practice of existence of course is to try to vanish Is-ness by using it to destroy itself – taking a mockup such as a building or something of that sort and trying to destroy it by blowing it down with dynamite.

The definition of Not-is-ness would be simply: trying to put out of existence by postulate or force something which one knows priorly, exists.

This LRH quote and data is very pertinent to what I have been discussing.

The right way to handle this is for the group to accept responsibility for what it did and created. That is the right way to make the problem go away. The problem is that non-LRH data exists in print. The Church, as a group, did this. The Sea Org, as a group, did this.

Of course, I understand that any group is made up solely of individuals, and that actually some person or group of people within the Sea Org, or various sections did this. But nonetheless, it is also a common idea that groups are supposed to be responsible for and accept responsibility for the actions of their members. If your idea of accepting responsibility is to hit a few staff, and act like the “Church” didn’t do anything, then you are sorely mistaken.

The Church gets attacked quite a bit. Personally, I think that part of the reason this occurs is because it shunts blame and refuses to accept responsibility for what it itself creates and causes to others (in a bad way). It seems to me that the Church accepts “blame” for the wonderful and great things it does, and it does many excellent things, but mistakenly, it tends to blame individuals for all the bad things that are done under its direction or auspices. The reason the Church gets attacked isn’t only and always because the big bad suppressives hate you so much and are trying to destroy the route to freedom and bigger beings. Yes, that is part of it, but no, that is not all of it. As with any and all motivators, the person or group receiving the motivators has done or is doing something to bring the attacks about. That is basic PTS/SP data. If you are being attacked, it generally means you did something to pull in the motivators. That is what an MAA would tell me. The data is true. That’s what someone should maybe tell you.

Read the above LRH quote again. The correct way, exactly in accordance with LRH data, to handle this is to accept responsibility, cancel everything quickly, issue corrections referring to already existing legitimate LRH data in the area, investigate heavily and nail the staff who caused this to occur.

The wrong way to do this, and the way that will make this persist and grow to be a much larger problem for you, is to deny it, attack my report that describes this, make up excuses, accept justifications, and resist what I point out.

It is so very simple. View the situation for what it is. The Church screwed up. Handle it quickly by correcting the mistake. It will VANISH if you accept full responsibility as individuals and AS A GROUP.

I have absolutely no concern to “be right” or to “make you wrong”. I couldn’t care less. I simply want to see it rapidly corrected.

If you alter the facts, or try to PR people with phony explanations that present a false picture of what actually occurred, then you will add further persistence and trouble for yourselves. So be wary how you handle this, even if you do cancel the areas in question and issue corrections.

Alter-Is results in persistence. It causes problems to exist and expand. That data is from the same chapter referenced above. In other words, anything that is persisting must contain a “lie” so that the original consideration is not completely duplicated. (The Creation of Human Ability, A Summary of Scientology)

Please do not “lie” to yourself or to anyone else about this. It is what it is. It won’t “go away” if you do so. There is only one correct solution where everybody truly wins. Confront and view the is-ness here in all its aspects. False data was entered into LRH books and has existed this way for over 10 years. That means many things. What this means must also be calmly viewed, confronted and handled. This may be the tip of the iceberg of something. Strings need to be pulled. It needs to be investigated, looked at, confronted and handled appropriately. It may involve quite a few people, some on very high posts.

People become more aware receiving Scientology services. If the Church tries to deny things that others can clearly see as obvious, the Church will be creating a very weird dilemma. Try not to PR (alter-is) things too much. If you do, it has the potential to come back at you eventually in ways that you might never have foreseen.

High Crimes and Crimes

The following are High Crimes or Suppressive Acts:

Issuing alter-ised technical data or information or instructional or admin procedures, calling it Scientology or calling it something else to confuse or deceive people as to the true source, beliefs and practices of Scientology.

Intentional and unauthorized alteration of LRH technology, policy, issues or checksheets.

They are taken verbatim out of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book.

The first exactly describes what has been done in the situation contained in this report. Altering a basic definition, which the entirety of the subject of Scientology rests upon as a foundation, is a severe case of this High Crime. Please notice that many processes and techniques are based upon the definitions of the Dynamics. The world of Scientology rests upon the basic definitions.

The second also accurately describes what occurred, as long as one doesn’t nit-pick over “intentional” and “authorized”.

It is also probably true that this High Crime applies:

Acts calculated to misuse, invalidate or alter-is legally or in any other way the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology.

This data on the second dynamic is NOT legitimate LRH data. It is NOT legitimate Scientology, yet it is being called and presented as Scientology. You might try to argue, “Gene, are you accusing us or someone of trying to confuse and deceive people?” If you need to ask that, then you don’t get it. It does not matter whether it was planned or not. Only the fact of the actions matters. I don’t know why the people did what they did. I really don’t care. But it WAS DONE.

It is a fact that the situation referred to in this report involves altered BASIC SCIENTOLOGY DATA, is NOT legitimate Scientology, yet is called “Scientology”, and can and does confuse people about the true practices of real LRH Scientology.

Please don’t get complicated about it. It is what it is.

The following are Crimes out of the same book:

Condoning circumstances or offenses capable of bringing a course, section, unit, department, organization, zone or division to a state of collapse.

Treasonable neglect.

Being a knowing accessory to a Suppressive Act.

Falsifying a communication from a higher authority.

Anyone, who passed by the definitions in the new Ethics book, suspected or knew these were off the wall, and did nothing, are guilty to some degree of the first two crimes.

Anyone, who was at all involved in the project that put the new Ethics book together is probably guilty of all four.

I have done most of the research already. I have done a good part of a Data Series “evaluation”, and have even supplied the rough beginnings of a Bill of Particulars for a Committee of Evidence.


Please do not attempt to misrepresent what I did here to yourselves or to others. I am very aware that some people could twist this, and alter it in an attempt to convince others that I am somehow causing trouble. I have seen things twisted before by people in the Church. I can supply numerous examples.

It would not be correct to try to claim that I am guilty of such things as:

Pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology.


Spreading destructive rumors about senior Scientologists.

What I report here is a specific case of alteration of LRH data by Church staff members. Of course, if you choose to believe that not to be so and deny what is obvious, then you can probably play mental games, twist things around, and make the above crimes make sense and apply them to me. Do you see how that could be?

In a nutshell, I believe that most of what is in print is exactly as LRH wrote it. I am not implying that things are “all bad”, or that the scale leans more towards bad than good. I believe the truth is that the Church of Scientology is the only hope Mankind has. It is doing an amazing job against tremendous odds. The people running the Church are about the brightest, most dedicated and decent people on the planet. I know that as a fact.

What I describe is a specific situation. It is true. It is very dangerous. Please perceive it for what it is, and handle it accordingly.

Suppressive People versus Stupid People

The results of suppressive people and stupid people are indistinguishable. It matters little whether what was done here was done intentionally or not. The potential and real damage is exactly the same in both cases. I used to be confused about this. When I was doing my A-E steps, I couldn’t quite understand how I could be declared because I never, at any time, intended to cause the Church of Scientology or Scientologists any harm. LRH says in the Ethics book:

Suppressive acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. (Chapter entitled, Suppressive Acts)

My problem was that I knew quite well and clearly that I never at any time intended, planned or calculated to do any of these things. I never desired to cause harm to the Church. So how could I be declared a suppressive person? I figured it out.

The High Crimes are not “suppressive intentions” or “suppressive plans”, but “suppressive acts”. In Scientology ethics and justice materials, for anything to be an overt it must cause actual damage or harm to some person or activity in the physical universe. You must actually inhibit the survival of another person or group to cause any harm, and for it to qualify as an overt (i.e. harmful act). LRH does actually clarify this, but only in passing, and it takes an observant student to notice this. In the same book and in the same section he says:

Musical chairs (transfers of person around an org) is the single most destructive action to an org’s stats.

A stupid or suppressive person will tear up Division A to get personnel for Division B. These errors are of long duration, and they do more to . . .

LRH makes the clear distinction between a stupid person and a suppressive person. It obviously matters very little in the end, but the mental components of each differ greatly in the two. The suppressive usual knows what he is doing, he knows it is harmful, and he intends to cause the damage. A stupid person is thinking no such things. The stupid person usually has no idea of the consequences of his actions. He’s just being stupid.

The point, as it relates to all this in this report, is that it is not necessary to assume grandiose scenarios of complex conspiracies within the Church to understand how false LRH data could become printed and distributed widely. While there may be a group of people planning and acting to destroy the Church from within, I personally doubt it. I have seen consistently through my own observation and experiences, that most idiocy on planet Earth rears its ugly head out of stupidity, and not out of blatant evil.

Many Scientologists, and others, like to imagine that psychiatry is backed by a huge international conspiracy, and that the world is controlled by a tightly knit secret organization of international bankers. Yes, there are international bankers and psychiatrists, and they do cause a tremendous amount of trouble for everyone else. But I perceive it a different way.

It is more a case of self-perpetuating idiocy. It is institutionalized stupidity. It is condoned and self-propagating lunacy. In other words, the overly “educated” (indoctrinated) professors write all the stupid books describing the nonsense of psychiatry. Rich people send their children to these universities to also become “rich people”. The upper classes, which suffer the most from the idiocy of modern ideas, perpetuate the stupid ideas in their goals to remain rich and in power. The corporations, which are also peopled by the same “college kids”, financially support research to colleges and other groups. The results of the research align with and “prove” their theories and beliefs. The media, controlled and peopled by more of the same “college kids”, agrees with and disseminates all the nonsense. The unaware public eats it up hook, line and sinker.

Awhile ago ads started running on TV promoting “Prozac Weekly”. What utter nonsense! The modern crazy world is based on the crazy ideas existing underneath and supporting the modern crazy world. Simply, through a process of never-ending indoctrination, the idiocy continues happily along. It’s mostly a case of poor and improper education – and a very gullible human population. My point is that it is not so much planned and intended as it is a case of stupid people accepting, believing, asserting and doing stupid things. Many people look around and see “suppression”. I look around and see tremendous idiocy and stupidity. I don’t see conspiracies; I see dummies.

But in the end it does not matter. The results of each are the same, however you choose to conceive it. The destructive acts of psychiatry exist whether due to a conspiracy of suppressives or due to general stupidity. The destructive acts of socialism and income tax exist whether caused by a planned conspiracy intent on bringing about a New World Order, or by a high-placed band of lunatics. The harm caused by the modern medical industry to people en masse, through the actions of the American Medical Association and the Federal Food and Drug Administration, exists whether you believe it to be organized manipulation by a select secret society conceived at Yale University (Skull & Bones) or due to the idiocy of group agreement.

Stupidity is actually a greater threat and more widespread than active suppression. But in the end there is no difference between the effects brought about by the two. They each bring about harm, destruction, confusion and the collapse of decent things and activities. The acts each commits are equally harmful.

The Concern of RTC

From the Internet,

“While each Scientology organization and, indeed, every Scientologist is expected to enforce the standard application of scriptures, RTC is the final arbiter of orthodoxy.”

RTC has many other activities, all of which add up to performing its basic ecclesiastical functions: ensuring that what is represented as Dianetics or Scientology is genuinely so; protecting the general public by not allowing any organization or individual to do something entirely different while using the religious marks to misrepresent itself as Dianetics or Scientology; and not allowing any individual or organization to deliver Dianetics or Scientology while calling it something else. Any misuse or unauthorized use of the Scientology religious marks is rapidly corrected by RTC so that the religion is kept pure and all people may benefit from the application of Mr. Hubbard's Scientology technologies.”

“For this reason, Scientologists emphasize the orthodox and standard application of the Scientology scripture. Thus, Scientologists never interpret scripture for each other but always refer to the original source materials. A Course Supervisor in a Scientology church is not a teacher in that he does not lecture or give his own opinions because to do so, even if well-intentioned, would inevitably enter alterations, even if slight, into the technologies which would lessen their effectiveness. This alteration could accumulate over time to the point where Scientologists could never achieve the full spiritual benefits of the religion.”

In contrast, RTC investigates any departures from that standard administration and ensures that orthodoxy is restored. It also ensures that no individual or group misrepresents itself and offers an altered technology while calling it Dianetics or Scientology.”

“There are certain matters of particular importance and concern to RTC as provided here on a detailed list. Whenever these occur, copies of your reports should also be sent to RTC. RTC’s Inspector General Network uses such reports to help locate hidden suppression, infiltration, subversion or corruption within and external to Scientology Churches, Missions and other Church organizations — to protect The Bridge for all.”

Per the above, RTC is the “final arbiter of orthodoxy”.

The subject matter of this report is nothing except an issue of the legitimacy of Church documents. The entire point of this report is that the data in question is false, and should not exist in any manner as accepted orthodoxy.

The purpose of RTC is to ensure standard application of LRH materials. One of RTC’s jobs is to prevent anyone from “practicing in a nonorthodox manner while claiming it is standard Dianetics or Scientology”.

Additionally, as stated above, “every religion has experienced periods during which growth has met with alterations of religious doctrine and practice and even downright derailment from the initial mission.”

While the usual concern of RTC is with ensuring standard application, this situation is slightly different because it involves an actual alteration of LRH materials that has been issued and distributed widely to all Churches and Missions worldwide. Also, Church practices based upon the use of these altered materials can only be adversely effected. In this way application is adversely affected.

Alteration and reinterpretation of original LRH data has occurred. It has been broadly published and disseminated.

This is surely an issue for RTC. The entirety of the “official” Church of Scientology has been practicing in a nonorthodox manner, in this case, while claiming these practices to be standard. This is also true in the case of any technique utilizing the new incorrect definition of the second dynamic such as Exchange by Dynamics, Conditions, etc.

The purpose of RTC should not be to “protect the Church” rotely no matter whether the actions of its affiliated members are correct or incorrect. The purpose of the RTC, as I understand it, should be to ensure false data is not tolerated as part of the Church orthodoxy. Of course, as anyone knows who has completed the KSW Course, the Church will eventually get attacked if it begins or continues to sway from legitimate LRH source materials, because sooner or later results will falter.

The purpose of this report is to get someone to perceive and understand this situation so that it can be corrected.

Why Am I Doing This?

There may be a tendency for some readers to view me as some great troublemaker intending only on causing upset and confusion. I can be noisy, but I can also be very perceptive. Most of what I say here can be understood and agreed with by aware Scientologists.

The point is that I want the things addressed because I care how Scientology does and I want it to succeed. But I really don’t care about any pretense of “the Church surviving” if it is not exactly in alignment with LRH materials. If it “survives”, yet deviates from standard materials and application to do so, it means nothing of any value in the end.

I truly love to see people become more aware, do better in life, and happily succeed as decent and honest people. Anyone who knows me knows that by direct observation. Whenever I have been on course I help others and they benefit by my help. That is an observable and verifiable fact. I help and encourage anyone I know. But I detest bullshit.

I am writing this all up to correct an alteration and misinterpretation of LRH data. I am doing this so that the points of KSW 1-10 are more closely approximated. I am doing this because I care about people and the Church as the only effective means to raise their awareness and ability.

Some might try to bend this and say I am “attacking the Church” or behaving in an antagonistic fashion. I am attacking a destructive situation that, in the end, can only hurt the Church and its mission. I am attacking an enemy of the Church – alteration of LRH data.


I understand that someone reading this may question why I seem to have the need to explore this from so many different angles or perspectives. There are very good reasons.

First, this situation has existed for almost 11 years. Nobody seems to have noticed that it doesn’t make any sense. That’s a long time for something to exist that is fundamentally idiotic, and for nobody to say anything about it. Considering that Scientology is the only effective subject enabling an increase in awareness and responsibility, one should wonder just how this situation could fail to be noticed (awareness) and handled (responsibility).

Second, people on Earth, in the condition they are in generally, have the strange ability and tendency to be able to have anything “make sense”. People are largely in very poor shape as far as their universes of significance, meaning, definitions, logic and abstract thought are concerned. They tend to not understand or be aware of exactly what they have accepted or created as their personal world of ideas, meaning and definitions. They also tend to have very poor awareness of how their ideas and concepts connect up to the actual things and situations these ideas and concepts define or describe. To that degree they are not in control of their mental world of ideas, and they can easily go the effect of concepts.

Third, most Scientologists have the belief that “everything in print is by LRH”, and that “everything LRH says is true”. While that is largely true, it is not necessarily always true. Attached to those considerations is the notion held by most that “if I disagree or fail to understand something, then it must be due to my own failings with the application of study tech”. The result will be that most people will deny what they observe or know to be true, if it conflicts with what is assumed to be “LRH data”, and will instead agree with something that is incorrect because they come into every situation with the fixed ideas outlined above. A person’s own beliefs and assertions can severely restrict their ability to observe and view facts. People do this everyday of the week. It is very common. Scientologists at all levels are not at all immune to this phenomenon.

People can agree with anything. They can have anything be true for them. That doesn’t mean those things are true. There is a huge difference. You might agree and believe that the New York Yankees are the best team, but if they lose the World Series, what does it mean? Or you may believe that a fossil is 4000 years old, but if it is really 16 million years old, what does it mean? There is a realm where one’s opinions and beliefs are senior, especially in the area of goals, values and morals. What is true is what is true for you. But that doe not mean that you are right. More to the point, LRH says, “what is true for you is what you observe yourself” to be true. The problem is that so many people’s power of observation stinks. In those cases, just because somebody believes they have observed something, again, does not make it true. The person may believe it to be so, but that is a far cry from it being so.

Yes, you have an inherent goal to be right, but again, it does not mean that you are. (ref: HCOPL You Can Be Right) This is not the case when someone believes, asserts or agrees with things that are demonstrably not true – especially things and events that occur in the physical universe and have an exact time, place, form and event. Someone might believe, and it may be totally true for him or her, that a man levitated the Empire State building yesterday, but if it never happened, then his belief is unconnected to any observable reality. You might believe that it is impossible for a severe alter-is of LRH data to appear in print. It may be unlikely, but if it is observably sitting right in front of your face, I encourage you to base what you accept as true upon what you observe and not on what you think or believe. Lookingness (observation) is senior to thinkingness (ideas, beliefs, logic, and significances) – always. (Reference Know to Mystery Scale)

Forth, it may be extremely unpopular to assert what I am pointing out here. For whatever reason, it seems to be somewhat politically incorrect to even suggest that management might somehow have failed to ensure that only legitimate LRH data was published and printed. I don’t doubt that some Sea Org members may view any criticism of senior executive activities, no matter how true, as “intolerable”, “unacceptable” and “inappropriate”, and that such attitudes could prevent some of them from being willing enough to attempt to understand what is presented here. In other words, their own beliefs or attitudes could prevent them from understanding this and thereby inhibit vital corrective actions. That would not be a good thing.

Fifth, in the past I have attempted to handle various violations of LRH policy. I have almost consistently failed. I would usually end up getting very angry at what I considered to be the stupidity and inability of staff members to duplicate what was so obvious to me. Upon examining this I tried to see how I was failing to take responsibility for the situations in the past. So, in this case, I am doing everything within my power to get the reader to duplicate me. I cannot be any more responsible for ensuring the reader’s understanding than I am in compiling this report.

Last week a good friend of mine, Richard Birkenshaw, was getting a handling by a Public MAA. The MAA was going over his program and generally ensuring Rick knew what he needed to do. The MAA went over the Dynamics and stated to him with the Ethics book in front of him, “so the second dynamic is creativity”. He was leading and steering him to use and accept that definition. How did Rick handle it? He acknowledged the MAA, nodded in agreement, and chose to ignore it completely and applied the data, as he understood it correctly to be (sex & family). This sort of game-playing should not be necessary between public and staff (or between staff and staff). It is organizational nonsense. Aware people look at instances of this and giggle. It makes the Church look stupid. It should not exist.

Rick told me that a friend of his had recently returned from the Ship. He had with him a diagram of the Dynamics portrayed as 8 concentric circles. The second circle was labeled “Creativity”. I am sure further investigation would find this being done in many places where this false definition is being used and enforced on staff and public. It is spreading.

So, while I am may be erring on the side of supplying too much evidence, so that the reader will duplicate and understand the situation described herein without fail, I strongly suspect this is appropriate and necessary.

Since so many people have accepted this “data” without so much as a blink of an eye or a question, I believe I must present the evidence as strongly as possible. While it is as clear and obvious as a bright summer day to me, it seems to be quite unclear and vague to many others.

I knew the instant I saw this definition in the latest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book that it was not written by LRH and therefore bogus. It took no extensive analysis, demos, or trying to “see how it could be that way” on my part. It was immediately recognizable to me as illegitimate and not by LRH. It has taken me many hours to present the reasons why it is not legitimate LRH data in a format others might be able to duplicate, understand, and accept.

Here we find ourselves more than 15 years after LRH dropped his body and things are still being rewritten. This doesn’t strike anyone as odd? The Introduction to Scientology Ethics book existed for many years with the previous, largely correct definitions of the dynamics. Suddenly there are new definitions that directly conflict with and are inconsistent with the earlier data. It’s not inconsistent because I have misunderstood words, false data, or that I am an evil suppressive person.

It’s inconsistent because it’s inconsistent.

The manner in which the ideas are written and communicated in this chapter on the dynamics clearly betrays them as altered LRH material. To me, they stand out like screaming demons or a crowd of people waving red warning flags.

An interloper has infected the entire section on the dynamics.

Take the time and compare this section in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics Book with the same section in the previous edition of the Ethics Book. Compare it to everything and anything LRH has ever written or spoken about the second dynamic. The difference is startling.

Some have asked me WHY I get so irritated and upset about this situation. This is why:

I consider the deterioration of the subject materials left to us all by LRH to be a tremendously severe situation that involves nothing less than the intentional or unintentional sabotaging of the only existing route to spiritual freedom.

This situation was allowed or caused by past or present Sea Org staff members. It is an “internal” situation and problem that needs to be recognized for what it is and addressed appropriately.

RTC itself erred. Per the RTC web site:

“To ensure the purity of the religion and its Scriptures, RTC supervised a massive five-year project to republish all of Mr. Hubbard's writings on Dianetics and Scientology. RTC ensured that the authenticity of each work was verified by comparing them word by word with his original manuscripts — only once RTC was satisfied that the works were accurate were they republished.”

This “data” cannot be by LRH yet it is in print.

Thought Experiment

This is a game of “make-believe”. I am not indicating that what I describe here is happening right now in PT, but only that it is a possibility.

A Possibility – How To Destroy Scientology

If someone wanted to destroy Scientology, remain undetected, and accomplish the goal, how would they do it? They would do it from within. They would remain invisible. It would be an “inside job”. There is actually no other way to successfully destroy it.

As LRH so correctly points out in KSW Series No. 1, Keeping Scientology Working,

So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests. It’s our possible failure to retain and practice our technology”.

The only way Scientology might ever collapse is by failing to retain and practice the technology. That’s it. LRH states it clearly.

So, how would a very intelligent, careful, dedicated SP accomplish it? How would he or she bring about the “failure to retain and practice the technology”? That’s very simple. Get inside, on important lines, get into positions of power, and gradually, VERY gradually, alter the basics and fundamentals upon which all the rest of the subject is built upon. Implement a change here, then another change there, and so on. There would be no hurry because what’s 50 or 100 or even 1,000 years in a battle that has been going on for eons? There is no hurry at all.

Someone who had looked this over very carefully would systematically render the basic ideas a bit confusing. They would address and attack the definitions in areas such as:

The dynamics

Three parts of Man


Know to mystery scale


Cycle of Action

States of existence





Attack the nomenclature, because the entire subject rests upon the definitions and ideas embraced by the nomenclature.

If the actual fundamentals were sufficiently altered, and therefore made confusing, and came to no longer refer to the real things in life that LRH observed and described, then everything else built upon them (the entire subject) would also eventually get re-written (to align and “make sense”). The entire subject would eventually go by the boards. This could also happen anyway simply by accumulated mistakes and errors, and actual intentional suppression is not necessary.

For instance, there are second dynamic sec-checks. These always and only have had to do with sex and family. They always have. There are many “second dynamic” lists, which quite correctly have everything and only to do with sex and family. Go take a LOOK yourself. Do some extensive searching of all listings in the HCOB and HCOPL volumes. Look up every reference you can find for “second dynamic”, “sex”, and “family”. Don’t just simply believe what I say because I say it. Please verify it yourself personally.

VERIFY IT PERSONALLY (HCO PL 8 January 1975, Compliance, How To Get One)

Creativity is nowhere mentioned in any list outside of creating and being responsible for one’s sexual life and family. But, give 20-30 years for the “new” definition to get out, rewrite the places where the second dynamic is mentioned, get it appearing in all the newly released basic books, and so may also come about a slow realigning of all the extant lists with the new altered data. Then, someone somewhere discovers an “LRH note” where he supposedly “says” to update all processes and lists with the “new” definitions. Of course, somebody could just as well forge the note, and who would know? We are all so trusting of our leaders. So now second dynamic sec-checks have to be rewritten, and reconfigured using the absurd notion that the “second dynamic is creativity”. Mmmmm? How would we do that? Let’s see:

Start of second dynamic sec-check!

Q: Tell me a time you failed to be creative?

A: When I didn’t do my mechanics job like I should have.

Of course, this is really a third dynamic question and answer, but NOW it’s the second dynamic per the new definition. Or,

Q: Get the idea of total creativity?

A: Ah, being an exterior being and intending life and action everywhere.

Q: Good. How does that relate to sex? How does that relate to your family?

And then the PC is sent off on absurd excursions to make sense of something that makes no sense at all. But he will have it make sense – and get no case gain – and never go free. Sadly, thetans can make anything make sense and have been doing so for what? About 4 trillion years now?

Or, look at how almost any Scientologist discusses their sexual partner:

I am going with my 2D to the movies”.

My 2D is doing great”.

Write up your 2D overts and withholds”.

What do these all mean when and if people gradually come to accept an entirely new and different meaning of the second dynamic – as creativity?

The first sentence no longer makes sense. I am going to the movies with my creativity? Well, I guess you do actually carry your “creativity” around with you everywhere, since it is part of you, but of course, this is ludicrous.

The second sentence now means that as far as my overall creativity goes, I am doing great. It is so general as to be useless and meaningless.

And the third sentence could mean almost anything, since the 2D per this new definition “includes any creativity”. In this form it actually can and will be misinterpreted to cover all the dynamics because creativity occurs on all dynamics.

Sometimes I feel like I am the only one who sees what is so glaringly obvious. It’s no fun.

Errors committed over a very long time are not noticed. Once people happily accept the new definition of the second dynamic as creativity, then another absurdity can be added on top of that, yet nobody will notice because it is being done so slowly. Compound the errors and you will one day find yourself with any entirely different body of data. “Scientology” (as it exists at some time in the future) will no longer actually be “Scientology” (as it existed before it was altered).

Also, now that the definition of the second dynamic has been redefined, it wouldn’t take much to remove the concept of sex and family all together, and have it just simply be “creativity”.* What would then be the result of EXCHANGE BY DYNAMICS, DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT, and all sorts of other processes that use and are based upon the basic concepts of the dynamics and other related LRH definitions?

Anything can be brought about in gradients. You can better situations, or you can worsen situations. When situations are intentionally or unintentionally worsened on a gradient, almost nobody notices – until the area has totally collapsed. And then it’s too late. This is a fact. People are quite blind already, and when the changes are spread out slowly over time, nobody will perceive it.

I am serious here. How would a real SP do it? The Church has a tendency to perceive (imagine?) that its worse enemies are on the outside. The Church seems to take the PR approach that every bad thing that happens to it is due to bad nasty evil suppressives. I don’t personally agree. I think much of the antagonism and attacks the Church experiences are due to it’s own poor handling of various situations in the environment. It’s simple PTS/SP technology. When one is being attacked or experiencing motivators, the primary thing to ask is “what have we done wrong”, and “what are we failing to take responsibility for”? I think it’s a bit too much of a stretch and convenience to imagine that every attack or messy situation is due to raving SPs. Personally, I think if the group, OSA and the people making decision in these areas looked at it a bit more this way, that the group would find itself more powerful very quickly. And with quite a bit less trouble from antagonistic people and groups.

Yes, there is no shortage of lunatics, idiots and morons outside the Church, some in positions of power in government, banking, medicine, and academics, who do attack the Church. But how would a real SP truly achieve their aim? They would study LRH data closely. They would understand it well. And they would get it altered, ever so slightly, a little here and a little there, done in such small amounts that no one would ever notice each small deviation as it occurred. He or they would USE the data to destroy the subject. They would do it in gradients. It would be spread out over a very long period of time.

Of course, they would promote the idea of a Golden Age of Standard Application, encouraging all members to believe things were never more stable and under control. There would be much PR that everything was wonderful and the best that it has ever been. Most people believe what they are told. I don’t. At least, not necessarily do I. I am not so trusting anymore (in a good way). I try now to base what I believe on what is observably so.

The whole idea behind somebody wanting to destroy Scientology is because they do not want others becoming more able, so that they can maintain their monopoly on personal ability and control of others. The morons and idiots who attack the church, because they think it is a “cult”, or a brainwashing outfit, or a money-hungry business do NOT see, understand or believe that Scientology actually does anything useful for anyone. They truly perceive and believe it to be a farce. They are not the REAL suppressives.

The top level suppressive would understand exactly what Scientology is and what it can do. They would know that it can and does increase the power and ability of others. They would understand that it undoes implanting and other techniques of real suppressives. They would understand that the data is true and works, but they would STILL want to destroy it. THAT is true evil. All else you see and label as “suppression” is mostly dramatizing morons. So, they would intend and plan to destroy it per the above, infiltrate, and slowly alter the materials. They could also work to encourage misapplication, but altering the data itself strikes right at KSW point number 1, which is the foundation upon which all the other points rest. If point 1 goes by the boards, points 2-10 become moot indeed.

As it was happening, any member of the Church would still firmly believe they “had the technology”. They would still go through the motions as if they had the technology. Similarly, the truth is that they would have nothing, just like the example involving this “new” definition of the Second Dynamic. Worse, actually, they would have nonsense and confusion parading as truth. The truly brilliant SP would make people continue to apply steps 2-10 as if the technology was legitimate, and still existed in its pure form. It would be a fantastic charade and the subject would gradually become ineffective to do what it was designed to do – to free beings. The tech itself, the tech that everyone studies and applies, would have become part of the trap and lost all ability to free anyone from anything. Of course, PR and assertions by the group would be to the contrary, and if anyone came along who pointed out this truth, then they would be (incorrectly) labeled as a suppressive person for “attacking the Church”. And since most people follow implicitly, and do what they are told, instead of looking and seeing for themselves, it would simply all fall apart. This is not an absurd possibility.

This is pretty much exactly what has happened to the United States of America. Originally there was the Constitution, which was the sanest document for a government to ever appear on Earth. It guaranteed and rewarded individual competence. Over many years there has been a gradual eating away at the fundamentals through increasing misinterpretation of the fundamentals by the Supreme Court. In this case they couldn’t rewrite the basics, so they successfully misinterpreted the basics. In effect, the country has become more socialistic than anything else, now having even a graduated income tax (a key point of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx). There is much about the history of how and why this occurred, but that it has occurred is a fact. LRH, being the observant fellow he is, naturally concurs.

The point is that people believe themselves to be representing democracy and freedom, when what they now really support, whether they know it or not, is an out of control combination of Welfare State and Corporate Oligarchy. The fundamentals have been altered but most of the people most of the time still believe and act is if they are supporting and promoting the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. It’s all really a big charade. People confuse the ideas of the original USA with the realities of the modern USA. The same thing can happen with Scientology where people could come to support the principles outlined in the beginning of Scientology, yet at the same time be supporting a Church that had long since altered the subject away from a workable technology able to free people. The outpoint is dropped time. The USA of 200 years ago is not the same as the USA of today, but people talk of ideas and principles that existed 200 years ago. They assume the USA still represents these ideas, when it actually doesn’t. The same could happen with the Church where it argues and defends itself as the “road to freedom”, yet had changed so much in materials and application that it was no longer capable of delivering the goods. Of course, even to say such a thing would be viewed as treasonous – even if it was true.

A more appropriate example is the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), because it is secretive and there is no way of knowing what is going on or correcting it. For many years it became a renegade agency, with it’s own agenda and goals. It funded dictators across the globe and aided major international drug traffickers. It had its established defined goals and procedures, but over a period of time, the details altered until its actions aligned only slightly with the goals of the USA it supposedly was a part of and worked to support.

Organizations take on a life of their own, and they fight doggedly for survival, long past the point of betraying all their original principles. This isn’t my opinion. It is a fact of how groups function and evolve over time. Just look. It’s quite obvious. There are many examples in recent history.

Because the Church is basically a dictatorship and run by a select few, if it got out of control, nobody would know and there would be almost no way to handle it from the outside. I don’t use the word “dictator” in a negative way. Democracies are nothing but a process of “majority rule wins”, and that manifests as the lowest common denominator of group (bank) agreement. Democracy is useless in a society or civilization made up of aberrated individuals (anywhere on Earth). An enlightened and benevolent monarchy or dictatorship is about the best there can be. LRH again concurs and doesn’t think too highly of democracy.

This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular”, “egotistical”, and “undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is a survival point. And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for man but push him further into the mud. Currently popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the Southeast Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax. (KSW Series No. 1)

Here’s another LRH quote that explains why democracy is unworkable:

If you have a hard time invading people’s privacy, you’ll have a hard time 8Cing them into a chair, in a HAS co-audt unit, first PE, and so forth. Because you think they have rights. No. They don’t have any rights. What do you mean? What do they have? What has rights? That machinery? Those dramatizations? Those computing circuits? Do you mean those things have got rights? Hah. Pish pash.

The next thing you know, why, we’ll have laws out, saying they have a perfect right to kill everybody. Hey, rights. Where’s this thing called rights begin and end?”

The modern “liberal” world is nothing but that process above gone out of control to the point where any idea or viewpoint is considered valid because every person has an equal right to be and do whatever they choose (no matter how aberrated it might be).

Also, please realize that LRH is describing just about everybody on this planet. The minds of most people are not much more than computing circuits. Everything gets altered in this universe. Despite all LRH’s efforts to prevent that from occurring to the technology in Scientology, it may simply not be possible.

Don’t laugh. If you think I am being paranoid, type III or overly conspiratorial, then you simply haven’t read enough LRH material. If there really are dedicated, die-hard SPs, who truly understand what Scientology is, it’s effectiveness, how it threatens them forever, and it’s workability, how else do you think they would do it? Again, I repeat, LRH tells him or them HOW to do it exactly!

So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests.”

That means what it means. This sentence is metaphorical. The cause of the destruction of Scientology will not be from the outside. It won’t be the psychs. It won’t be the government. It won’t be some other attacking lunatic “out there”. Who and what will it be then? Again, LRH answers that very clearly.

It’s our possible failure to retain and practice our technology”.

LRH actually spells it out very simply and clearly how to do it.

The way to do it is to work it out and ensure the group fails to apply KSW.

The points regarding “to have the tech, to know it, to apply it”, etc. And the best way to do that is to attack point number 1 – “having the technology”. Once that can be sufficiently alloyed, the rest will easily go by the boards. And the only place this could be done would be on and from the inside. This can’t occur from the outside. It could occur unintentionally, due to mistakes and pure stupidity, or it could be done intentionally, due to planned suppression. But no matter how it might happen, the results would be the same.

Do you see that steps 2-10 could still be “ruthlessly” applied if point one, “having the technology”, has been cleverly messed with, and that nobody would have the slightest idea? It’s an interesting and possible scenario. I am not saying that this is occurring, but that is how it could be done. LRH spells it out very clearly. Please do not put words in my mouth. I am not accusing anyone of contriving to implement this scenario. I am saying only that it is a possibility.

If you think that is impossible you misunderstand and underestimate the nature and dedication of the enemy. They are definitely not dummies. You need to dig out the issue called Current Planning and especially read the last page.

If we fail, we’ve had it. It’s not just a matter of getting killed. It’s a matter of getting killed and killed and killed life after life forever more. Even if you have no great reality on this now, you will soon enough. But probably you already understand it.

Those guys up there mean business. We’ve got to match or better their energy level and dedication or we lose. (HCO PL 30 July 1963, Current Planning)

“Those guys” know what they are doing and they don’t take their mission lightly. They have been at it a long time.

You might like to think you have it all under control, but the example shown here clearly exhibits that you surely do not. I do not say this to make you wrong, to make you feel bad, upset you or to cave anyone in, but to get you to see what is sitting right in front of your face so that you might decide to do something about it. I don’t care if you think I am right or not. I know I am right. I need nobody’s agreement or support to know what I know. The situation is exactly what it is whether I am here or not.

Of course, the above scenario is all very hypothetical. But regardless of that, the data has been altered grossly in the cases I refer to here. Whether intentional or unintentional, it has occurred.

I understand, and I am sure it would not be popular to state this, that LRH may not have actually finished the Bridge or consolidated all his materials. I understand that some people, with markedly less than LRH’s understanding and awareness, might have to sort through all this material and make decisions about how certain materials will be organized and presented.

But that does NOT give anyone the right to grossly alter things in their apparent attempt to “make things understandable” to the general public. There are many examples in print now of alter-is of original LRH books. Most are minor, but the one I outline here is severe.

I sincerely believe that the manner in which this report is received and acted upon will set the stage for what actually occurs with Scientology in the near and distant future. Consider this a test case. But what I describe here is real and it is a step in the wrong direction.

The thing to realize is that the beings in this universe will have it (the altered data) all make sense, fit in, and seem to be perfectly reasonable, no matter how distorted or altered it gets. Most people would never notice anything changing as it was changing, and would continue to believe they still “had the technology” - until the subject was completely subverted.

This could be an isolated mistake, although it is now in at least THREE different places (up from two places before the new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book came out):

LOC pack

Introduction to Scientology Ethics book

Some div 6 course (which I don’t recall the name of)

I would want to know and SEE any and all LRH notes, orders, comments, directions, and letters relating to the subject. I would want to see what exact LRH quote(s) the compilers used to come up with every line of how the “dynamics” are now defined in the new Ethics book, LOC pack, and div 6 pack. They all come from the same place, so find one and you will probably find all. It probably goes back to the LOC pack, and the mission that handled getting that done and implemented. But I can only surmise. There is something here though needing discovery.

LRH was doing the World Out Of Comm evaluation back then, and that’s how he came up with the LOC and KTL courses. The problem was that people couldn’t understand much of anything that they read or observed. In fact, largely, they still don’t. Not much has changed really. Just read the evaluation done by LRH. I am not saying anything that he didn’t say and wouldn’t agree with completely. That is still the general condition on Earth. Whatever is going on here, it is interesting that such a huge alteration of LRH data appeared in the very same materials that were based upon the fact that Earth people were pretty much incapable of duplicating or understanding anything.

Find who did it and check out what else they might have done and what they are doing now. I expect you will find a slimy trail and a huge Sherman Tank at the end of the line.

Maybe there is an actual LRH quote or reference where he says, “the second dynamic is creativity”, and instructs that all previous references should be re-written in accordance with this. But I sincerely doubt it. If there is a reference it is most likely taken greatly out of context. Why? Because it doesn’t make any sense!

And if you run into resistance, unwillingness or terminals who defend or try to divert any attention away from the investigation into the area, I would start to get real concerned and allow nothing to interfere with or prevent a complete detailed investigation. But I am out here and cannot do anything except write a report.

On one end minimally it is a mistake. But it could be more. But whatever it is, it needs to get corrected. The other extreme end of the spectrum would place this as a red flag indicating the actions of some individual or group to sabotage and alter-is the data and technology of Dianetics and Scientology. Possibly the truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes.

There is nothing I can do except report it, and trust the reader to act responsibly in accordance with his or her own knowledge, and personal integrity. I can’t know from out here who did this or why. I won’t even guess. But it DID occur.

Just because many people may have agreed with, seemed to “understand”, and enjoyed the new definition of the second dynamic means nothing. It is nuts just the same.

Please realize that the previous ethics book had its earlier correct definition of the 2nd dynamic and other dynamics altered by the “new” definitions. One might wonder if, as each basic book is newly released, that the definitions of the dynamics will be similarly altered from the original LRH wording and meaning.

Since it did happen with the new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, this may be an indicator of some pattern. And it may not be. I will obviously be watching any new releases of older books.

*A friend mentioned to me that he saw a chart that a friend brought back from the ship. It was a series of concentric circles. It was like the one at the beginning of the write-up, The Expansion of the Dynamics. The second circle was labeled “creativity” and there was absolutely NO MENTION of sex or family.

While this same person was recently visiting with the MAA, he was working on Conditions by Dynamics. The MAA was going over the definitions of the Dynamics and verbally read from the new Ethics book and indicated to him that the second dynamic is creativity. When he disagreed the MAA persisted, directing him to the definition in the new version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book.

I am sure there are hundreds and even thousands of similar cases. Lunacy spreads fast anywhere. It’s known as the contagion of aberration.

A friend told me a few days ago that the pilot version of the new Scientology dictionary has the new altered definition of the second dynamic as the primary definition.

The redefining of the basics may have already begun.

An Few Earlier Similar Incidents

This write-up contains examples of earlier experiences where I found myself in disputes with various Church staff that seemed very odd and unnecessary. I only mention these because the current situation I describe displays similar characteristics to these earlier examples. Most of these examples did exhibit very real instances of off-policy behavior by certain staff. These have mostly since been corrected. But at the time there were very few people who could or would buck the momentum of the group as it was functioning in the then accepted off-policy manner. In fact, most could not or would not even perceive that there was anything off-policy going on in the first place. Group agreement IS a strange phenomenon indeed. I explain these past occurrences in the hope that you will see that they did exist, and so you might be able to extrapolate and thereby envision how such a thing could occur with the example that is the subject of this report.

These examples show a tendency that has existed at various times during the history of the Church where the majority of staff implement, encourage and tolerate off-policy actions. The current example, if resisted and denied, will then simply be another additional example on this earlier chain.

Scientology is that body of data that teaches and enables one to observe and know truth (is-ness). It should not exist that there is a tendency of the group that owns this same data to discourage people from knowing and communicating certain facts and truth (is-ness). But it has done that and it seems to be doing so now in the example described in this report. The examples below are earlier cases of similar (counter-productive) behaviors.

Example Number 1:

Within a few months of starting in Scientology I encountered a very strange phenomena. I was at the NY Org in 1977. I discovered a misprint in an issue (a now canceled policy). The word written in the text was “eminent”, but it was supposed to be and only made sense as “imminent”. The two words mean very different things. I approached the Supervisor, believing that it would be a good thing to point out a typographical error in a text. How did I know it was a typo? It was obvious (to me anyway). It’s not that it was my opinion that it was a typo. It was a typo. I saw easily, quickly and clearly that it was a typo. I expected that my efforts and clear display of responsibility would be appreciated. What I encountered was quite different. For the most part I was viewed distrustfully, with disdain and attacked.

The Supervisor looked at me and told me to locate and clear up my misunderstood words. I assumed he simply didn’t understand what I said and was pointing out to him. I reiterated the fact that there was an obvious misprint, that the text could not make any sense as written, and that the correct word was something other than what was written on the page. It should have been obvious to any aware and intelligent person, or at least it should have been to me. I came to learn that far too many people are apparently nowhere near being aware and intelligent. He persisted in instructing me to clear up my misunderstood words, because I “had confusions and was requesting unusual solutions from him because of misunderstood words”.

This was very absurd to me. I understood that most people, most of the time, display confusions and disagreements due to misunderstood words or false data, but there could also be the case of misprints where an incorrectly typed word was the actual cause of the trouble. I explained this all to him to no avail. He pointed out to me that my weird ideas followed only from my misunderstood words. He pointed out that LRH policy dictated that weird ideas and disagreements come from misunderstood words. I looked at him like he was a raving lunatic, or a mindless robot. He was parroting LRH quotes with no ability to observe or judge. He was a trained staff course supervisor.

One needs to see what was actually going on here. It’s not that anything the Supervisor said was wrong. He was stating things that were true, and from his viewpoint he was right. The problem was that he failed to simply observe the situation in front of his face, apply judgment and act accordingly. LRH has much to say about exercising judgment in the study tapes. I suspect that the Supervisor’s own misunderstandings, fixed ideas and beliefs in the area prevented him from looking and seeing what was right in front of his face. Far too many people behave this way, as this report demonstrates.

I was sent to Qual for correction. Please realize I did not need any correction. The understanding and conduct of others needed correction. The Cramming Officer basically pushed me down the same line, arguing endlessly that I must have misunderstood words. I spent an hour or two there. I left very frustrated and annoyed, failing to communicate and bring these dolts to understanding. This was my first encounter where I felt isolated, because what was obvious and clear to me seemed far above what others would or could duplicate and understand. To me, it was so simple. How could it be anything but clear and apparent to anyone else? I even tried to walk them through it step-by-step, but to no avail. My viewpoint of the ability of others, even in Scientology, to duplicate and understand was quickly and rapidly dive-bombing.

This was a huge break in reality for me. It was as if I walked outside on a beautiful and clear day and everyone else was walking around with raincoats on carrying umbrellas fully extended. I looked around and wondered just what these people could have possibly been looking at because it sure wasn’t the same world of facts that was sitting in front of me. This has only increased, as I have become increasingly well studied in Scientology, various wog subjects, life and reality. People consistently refuse to see what is right in front of their faces. It is quite amazing once you see it. It goes on everywhere.

I finally ended up with a senior executive of the Org. I explained it to him. He said. “Oh, it’s obviously a misprint, write up an error report and get back to study”. It took four or five hours to finally locate somebody who could observe and make a sane decision. I wrote up the situation. I checked occasionally to see if it was corrected. About three years later I finally saw it corrected. It makes one wonder how many people before and up to that point, first, never noticed the error and dubbed in the correct word and meaning, or second, “cleared” the word as written and somehow “made sense” of what could only have been utter nonsense. What confusions did they birth contacting this issue, and carry forward with them ever since? It should make one wonder.

Another key point is that most people either didn’t notice it in the first place, or second, if they did, they did nothing about it to correct the error (that could only cause confusion and disagreements for readers). This same phenomenon, in other forms, is no stranger to Scientology and is potentially very dangerous. It is made up of two parts. First, unawareness and failure to see what is an obvious outpoint, and second, if seen, failure to take any responsibility to handle the outpoint.

I never forgot the experience and it has occurred over and over again in various forms over the past 25 years. The key underlying factors are:

  1. Something is there that shouldn’t be there, usually in writing, but often in behavior or conduct.

  2. Most people involved either agree or fail to see there is anything wrong with it.

  3. Most people make sense of what is actually nonsense, by dubbing in, justifying and implementing strange concatenations of logic and mental gymnastics involving alteration of meaning and significance.

  4. I end up fighting a veritable World War trying to get anyone to duplicate and understand the situation, much less to encourage him or her successfully to do anything about it.

  5. The situation is clear, obvious and simple, yet others fail to see it that way for many reasons (confusions, fixed ideas, low IQ, internal politics of the group, etc.).

  6. It finally gets addressed or corrected; usually much later.

My perceptions have borne themselves out as accurate too many times now. I no longer doubt myself or invalidate what I observe and know to be true. It should be pointed out that the first five points above occur almost everywhere in the various fields and subjects of the world. It is not unique or limited to Scientology but that it does happen in Scientology also is very true. I will give further exact examples to make this clear. This is the “short list”. There are others. There are nearly infinite examples in the wog world. I give only examples from my involvement with the organizations of Scientology here.

Example Number 2:

In 1977 I was posted at FOLO EUS as the FR EUS. I remember writing to LRH about something, and getting an answer. After reading it I knew without a doubt that he didn’t write the letter. How did I know? Call it intuition, good perception or knowingness, but whatever you might choose to call it, the letter was not from LRH.

Of course, it was signed as if it was from LRH. At the time I didn’t say anything to anyone except my wife, who thought I was possibly wrong. This was an earlier example of a situation where others assumed something must be true (i.e. LRH answered his letters), yet most failed to perceive what was in front of their faces because they were too busy THINKING instead of LOOKING (reference: Know To Mystery Scale). In other words, their ideas about the subject were so strong and fixed that their own beliefs prevented them from simply observing what was right in front of their faces. This is common here on Earth. People do it all of the time.

In the current case which is the subject of this report, everybody believes 1) the new Ethics book is written by LRH (almost all of it is), and 2) everything LRH says is true (he usually is). So, when something presents itself that is not by LRH and false, they cannot see it, because their own fixed ideas (beliefs) alter and inhibit their perception and knowingness of the facts of reality. Most people place the considerations that “everything Ron says is true” and “all books are perfect renditions of Ron’s words” above their own ability to observe and know. The result is that when people encounter something they observe to be weird or doesn’t make sense, they then assume (incorrectly) that it must be their own failure in understanding, when actually the material in this case is suspect. Granted, this is rare, but it can and does occur.

Within a year or two, LRH letters started appearing with the infamous rubber stamped signatures and the little initials at the bottom right hand portion of the signature. Being the suspicious person I am, I took a few letters and held them up together under the light, and lo and behold, each signature was exactly the same. They were perfect matches, and I checked more than only two letters.

Some tried to handle me then by saying that LRH was so OT that he could write his signature exactly the same every time. I considered that a great example of how Earth people will think up just about anything to force their perception of reality to align with their beliefs, even when, and especially when the facts of reality directly contradict one’s pet beliefs. Please realize that things are a certain way, and all the beliefs and assertions to the contrary will never change the way something actually is. The various LRH Communicators questioned it up their lines, and the consistent answer coming back was always the same – LRH was fine and well and answered every letter. Except he didn’t.

Of course, earlier copies of letters from LRH showed his signature varying quite markedly from letter to letter. I checked that too. I LOOK and I don’t listen, just as LRH admonishes us to do in HCO PL 16 March 1972, Issue I, LOOK DON’T LISTEN.



It is a SCENE. It is in three dimensions. It’s composed of spaces and objects and people.

None of these things are verbal.

To adjust a scene you have to LOOK AT IT.

There is a tremendous amount of LRH data on the subject of the Tone Scale, the Know to Mystery Scale, looking, thinking, and the huge difference between looking and thinking.

Another response attempting to handle my queries was, “the initials are by the typists who type the responses from Ron’s recorded messages”. That’s fine and well, but there had been typists for years, and it seemed unusually odd that the signatures started shortly after the answers from Ron stopped seeming to be actually written by Ron. Color me paranoid. Or color me right on the money.

My answer was, “well you can believe whatever you choose, but I choose to see what IS and not what you or I would like to imagine to be true”. I got sec-checked for it one time, and the auditor kept trying to find out WHO told me such horrible things. They wanted to know the SOURCE, the THIRD PARTY behind my “false data”. There was no false data. I saw it myself from direct observation. It was simply data or observations that many people couldn’t feel comfortable with. In the end, I made it clear that there was no source of the ENEMY LINE other than my own accurate perceptions. I was simply saying things that too many people were unwilling to hear. The sec-check ended, and I went back to post (now at Flag). Nobody ever bothered me again about it. But I never wrote to “LRH” again.

Eventually LRH stopped answering letters, and ED INT took over the SO #1 line. I believe that this was well before the date LRH is said to have died.

There are a few points about this example that are similar in some ways to the situation I am writing about here.

The truth was obvious. LRH was not writing his letters as far back as 1978. Nobody told me that. I saw it. I didn’t need “proof” to know or to change my mind. All “proof” presented to me was solely handed to me to encourage me to think along the acceptable party line. In other words, various high placed SO staff had more of an interest in ensuring the staff and public believed certain things than whether these things were actually true or not. It had nothing to do with a concern for “truth” – exactness of time, place, form and event. Yet the “truth” was meaningless and the entirety of the Church management structure and staff attempted to present everything as “all fine and well”. Personally, I didn’t care a bit whether LRH answered his letters or not. It mattered not at all to me. But I didn’t want to be told one thing when my own observations led me to directly believe the opposite. When someone stands there and tells me that something is a certain way when I know full well that it isn’t that way, especially with force or condescension, then I consider them to be a complete and utter moron.

Actions taken to get others to see and believe things in contradiction to facts that one knows to be false is nothing less than attempts at “mind control”, Madison Avenue advertising and belief manipulation. The “Church” would do such a thing? Don’t be absurd. Everybody does such things. Personally, I have a great dislike for belief manipulation of any sort, no matter what you choose to call it, including the name, “PR Tech”.

The staff believed the LRH Communicators, who believed the LRH Comm FOLOs, who believed the LRH Comm INT, and so on. I just looked at what was and listened to and believed nobody. Yet no one along the line could or would simply LOOK and KNOW, based upon their personal observations. Instead everyone was encouraged to THINK and LISTEN to authorities proclaiming to everyone what was true, even though it was NOT true. Basically people were instructed what to think and how to view reality, despite and in contradistinction to the facts. I don’t like that or agree with that.

I didn’t care that someone may have decided that it was a vital PR issue to keep staff and public believing what they were already believing - that LRH answered his letters. Why didn’t I care?


When the group that is supposed to be bringing that about acts in a contradictory fashion, and chooses instead to mislead people by telling them a PR line that contradicts the facts of direct observation of reality, then the result is that staff and public are forced to compromise their own awareness and knowingness by denying what they observe to be true. Or one looks at the people in the Church involved to be idiots, if one chooses to maintain their knowingness.

I understand that there is such a thing as choosing to relay only good news and not relaying entheta, but it is not correct to therefore assume that nobody should ever be told anything. Because the result is that they end up living in a dream world cut off from the facts of reality. One requires facts to make a decision or to correct any situation. One cannot deal with and handle anything without actual facts of the existing scene. (Reference: Data Series)

The “truth” of any occurrence in the MEST universe is determined by its time, place, form and event. Altering an is-ness (alter-is) causes aberration and persistence. When one desires to learn and know the exact time, place, form and event about something, but is presented with some alter-ised version, either due to PR concerns or worse, then the person never can “understand” because they are being presented with an incomplete picture. Worse occurs when a person suspects or sees the truth, but is told otherwise repeatedly. The subject of PR includes the idea of telling an “acceptable truth”, and that always means failing to give all the facts. I think the use of this on staff and public by senior management and OSA has, in some instances, gone way out of control. “PR”, pushed too far, becomes lies. Actually though, PR is always some alter-is of truth.

The desire or need to make others “feel good”, “have space” and “stay uptone” should not be at the sacrifice of awareness and knowingness. There can be a happy balance. It is also incorrect to “protect” people from facts because the facts upset or confuse them. The correct solution is to get them uptone enough so they can comfortably LOOK at the facts and NOT get enturbulated. The solution is NOT to lie to them and PR them with sugarcoated versions of the truth. So LRH didn’t write the letters. Who cares! I didn’t, but it pissed me off that so many people would propagate a continuing myth, especially in the subject and group that is supposed to consider “truth” paramount.

This becomes especially distressful when the organization doing the altering of facts is the same group claiming and actually able to bring about increased perception, awareness and knowingness. It becomes very contradictory, and I have no doubt more than a few folks have walked away from the Church because of this conflict. That has not been a good thing in the cases where it has occurred.

Example Number 3:

I will give another example so the reader doesn’t sit there pre-judging all this and make the mistake of dubbing in, incorrectly, that I am simply presenting “entheta” or “speaking in generalities to upset others”. My goal isn’t to upset you, but while you may get upset reading some of this, my purpose is to get somebody important aware of this stuff, and to do something about it so that it ceases to occur - for the benefit of all staff and public.

In 1980 I was a Flag Rep at the Toronto Org. I received a package from FOLO EUS with a series of policies and a program to implement these new issues. The issues were a series of finance issues, including a new staff pay system. They were green on white, and the heading was the same as any other HCOPL. The only difference was that none were written or signed by LRH. While I don’t recall the exact wording, basically they were written by the “The Board of Directors of the Churches of Scientology”.

It was all quite simple to me. Per HCOPL 24 September 1970RA, ISSUES – TYPES OF, these could not be valid HCOPLs because they was not written by LRH. End of story (to me anyway). Per this PL:

HCO PL – Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter. Written by LRH only.

I refused to implement the “policies” and the program. I pointed out the obvious and clear LRH references. Of course, I had everyone from the FREUS to the CO FOLO EUS on the phone to me screaming, yelling and ordering me to “do your job”. I received telexes from the FFR and others at the Flag Bureau ordering and threatening me. Just as now, then I also felt like I was surrounded by a veritable sea of lunatics. I did my best to explain what was so damned simple and obvious to me. The above issue said what it said. If it’s not written it’s not true. Many other staff tried to break the foundation of my resolve, but I couldn’t conceive of not knowing what was so simple and obvious.

Per KSW Series 22, HCO PL 16 Apr 1965, Issue I, THE “HIDDEN DATA LINE”:

The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and tapes I do and release.

Don’t for heaven’s sake mistake alter-is by somebody as evidence of a hidden data line.

In Scientology we say, “If it isn’t written, it isn’t true.” That applies to orders.

If it isn’t in an HCOB or an HCO PL or recorded on a tape in my voice, it isn’t tech or policy.

Next time you hear a pretended order or a squirrel process attributed to me, say, “If it isn’t written or recorded, it isn’t true”.

It was all very clear to me. LRH writes the issues. If he writes them LRH signs them. Only LRH can write and release HCOBs and HCOPLs. Yet, once again, alter-is and violations of KSW were coming from inside the Church and I was doing my best to hold my position. I was told, “LRH can no longer write issues, it was a legal situation, he is trying to get off management lines, and even though he is still writing them, he simply isn’t signing them”. My viewpoint was that, “Sure, and anybody can now issue anything as LRH and we are all supposed to be good little unthinking robots and believe that?” I had then and have now no tolerance for that sort of idiocy. To me, if that became accepted, then any power hunger lunatic could grab the reigns of control and issue whatever they chose pretending to be LRH. I had no interest in listening to any of it. I didn’t. I was attacked severely.

It is a strange feeling indeed when you are finding it necessary to fight the entire Church structure in an attempt to simply apply simple LRH policy. That was the situation and that is how I felt. It was not comfortable.

The result was that I got called to FOLO EUS. I was supposed to get a Committee of Evidence. Certain folks at Flag were convinced I was an “SP” because I refused to enact “Command Intention” and they were freely communicating such nonsense to FOLO executives about me. Their argument was so very “logical” and many believed it. I thought the people involved were idiots - they were. I continued to tell everyone who would listen in no uncertain terms. I have absolutely no tolerance for such insane politics and nonsense. It is such a tremendous waste of time and energy. It hurts the goals of Scientology. I went onto the Data Chief post temporarily, partially because I was bored and also because he was off on mission and somebody had to do it. I ran the area great for six or seven weeks.

My wife was up in Toronto. I was getting really angry that my life was being screwed with, and that I was separated from my wife, due to some bunch off misguided morons who just couldn’t understand that an LRH policy must actually be written BY LRH. Go figure. I have absolutely no tolerance for this sort of thing. I won’t pretend to. Nobody should have any tolerance for this sort of thing. But the politics of people and peer pressure are very funny things indeed. From my years of experience with the Church it is occasionally overwhelmed with such nonsense to it’s severe detriment. Every case I give here is verifiable and true as written.

When most people think of the subject of KSW and applying KSW, they relate it to public people and lower organizations. The “out tech” and “alter-is” is something “they” do. The problem is that far too often I find senior Church terminals initiating and implementing alter-is of data and application. Seeing and voicing the facts of such situations has always been tremendously unpopular with various Church staff. A further problem is that anyone acting responsibly in alignment with a good understanding of KSW cannot and shouldn’t do anything else.

In the end I CSW’ed via the LRH Comm FLEUS to cancel the Comm Ev due to slow justice. Part of the evidence was “Gene can’t be an SP because he is doing such a great job on the Data Chief post”. I wasn’t a suppressive person, and I was doing a great job on the Data Chief post. The Comm Ev was canceled and I returned to Toronto. The issues disappeared and I never heard anything about it again. But I surely never got an acknowledgment, an apology, or so much as a thank-you. It seems that the viewpoint was that senior terminals “don’t make mistakes”, “the Church never errs”, or at least the idea apparently is anathema to most of them. I have never seen one ever own up to the fact that their errors caused trouble or harm for other people and activities. It seems that somehow the idea that “we are freeing the universe” excuses all stupid and harmful actions enacted by those claiming to that high-purpose goal. I don’t see it that way. It’s also as if the “group” accepts responsibility for and promotes it’s own direct participation in any and all “good” effects, and places “blame” on (unsavory) individuals for any and all “bad” effects.

Of course, the existing LRH Comms and other Execs in the Toronto Org agreed with what I said completely. They were quite glad that it all went away (i.e. the utter lunacy of upper management pushing non-LRH “HCOPLs”). But they did so “quietly”.

Please do not try to tell me that every instance of this is due to evil SPs who infiltrate the lines and cause all the trouble for the good and decent folks. If that is so, then there are some or many still on very key posts, and I don’t believe that is true anyway. I simply think people are people, and far too often they make dumb mistakes and decisions based upon faulty thinking and poor observations. I wouldn’t mind it so much if they didn’t act like they were God’s gift to perfect Scientology application and put on airs as if they were completely free of all such faults. It’s the denial that irritates me more than anything else. The denial and the tendency to attack and belittle those who correctly see and say anything about it.

The point of this example is also that again I saw what was so very simple and clear, yet so many others couldn’t and didn’t see it, and were basically insane about the entire topic. Many on the lines above me had all sorts of reasons why I should or must implement the issues. I was given endless VERBAL DATA. I was told that LRH wanted to turn over the Church to upper management (he probably did), and that his name could no longer appear on issues for legal reasons (it probably couldn’t), but that he was writing them anyway. Yeah sure, and the Pope is Jewish! Geez, the nonsense just never seemed to stop.

I just saw what was right there, and held my position, while all sorts of complexity raved on around me. But it was pointless. To me, it has always seemed absurd that I should have to submit to so much nonsense. These things shouldn’t even exist in the organization that should be saner than any other group on the planet, since it maintains possession of the greatest bundle of data about Man ever known to exist. The underlying thing about these examples is that something was nuts within the group. I saw it clearly and I held my position. I got nailed each time for disputing what most others agreed with. I was correct in my perception despite the tendency of most staff to simply go along with the nonsense and somehow make sense of what made no sense at all. I would not and will not simply agree to “be nice” or “create harmony” if doing so violates what I observe and know to be true.

Yes, this is critical. But it is critical because any sane, caring person would also be critical of what occurred in these situations. It is not critical because my intention was to harm anybody or somehow harm the Church so it failed to realize its goals. I maintain that if such things were handled so they could no longer exist, then the Church would be that much stronger and realize it’s goals even faster. The examples I mentioned above depict a lack of sanity by various group members.

The next example also shows the same tendency for some staff at times to deny what is true and run their attitudes, beliefs and fixed ideas on everyone else, to the detriment of some or many. In the end one can make the mistake of viewing the Church as promoting insanity, because in a very real sense, at times, some of its staff do behave in ways not so very much aligned with anything I would call sane.

Again, please realize I am not saying the Church is insane, or that the Church promotes lunacy. From where I see things, the entire population of the world is largely nuts. People are the problem, not the Church, but because the Church is made up of people, well, the same problems show up there, despite all the policies attempting to prevent such from occurring. Add to that the fact that the “pressure” on staff lines can be incredibly forceful at times, then it is no wonder some may at times go a little weird in their actions.

HCO PL 6 July 1970, Data Series 13, IRRATIONALITY

Man has been harassed by irrationality in individual and group conduct since there has been man.

The existing scene of man’s activities is so immersed in departures and outpoints that at first survey there would seem to be no possible handling of the situation.

Very well, man can and does get drowned in his own irrationality. And his civilizations rise and fall.

Man’s primary plague is irrationality.

I am not stating this or pointing it out to attack or make anyone wrong. I am pointing it out in the hope that some may notice it, and then address the problem so that it no longer occurs. One cannot handle anything unless it is seen and seen clearly as it exists in all its aspects. Of course, if the existence of any situation is denied or unable to be duplicated, then it can and will never be addressed or handled. To a certain degree, man’s inherent irrationality is the reason the examples given here existed, and is also the reason the current situation exists and may be so difficult to get handled.

I am also not saying that the Church doesn’t do MANY things right. It does. But to make my point about all this, I must concentrate upon and delineate the crazy things that I have encountered.

Example Number 4:

In 1983 or so I was at Flag. Jerry Jerritt, a local, now well known Chiropractor, at Family Life Health Clinic, was just starting up his business here in Clearwater. He had a small office on Cleveland Street. I went in there and he told me all about muscle testing, a now commonly used practice. Within a short time, the Church came out with an edict banning all staff and public from participating in it because it was “other practices” and “weird practices”.

I thought that the edict by the Church was utterly nuts and I did it anyway. I had absolutely no concern with what a bunch of poorly educated morons had to declare while wallowing in their own ignorance. That is exactly how I viewed the people in the Church who made such a decision. That accurately describes their condition exactly. I am sorry that they just happened to also be highly posted, well viewed Scientology executives. It happened. They were wrong and misguided. Yet they flaunted their incorrect ideas and power freely.

I knew the idea of muscle testing made sense and was valid. But most everybody just towed the line, did what they were told, despite the fact that the edict and the following of the edict were totally unwarranted and not based upon FACTS of any sort. Of course, now, today, in PT, many CMO Sea Org members go to Family Life and get muscle testing done every week. My question is “why did the idiocy have to ever occur in the first place?” Will everybody please wake up and stop the cycle I describe here! It has not stopped yet. Maybe most people cannot even see what I describe here. That’s too bad if that is true, but ignorance or blindness leads to only more disaster and failure, despite good intentions to the contrary. I give some examples here, and I could give many more.

In a sense this was a case of people fearing and attacking what they didn’t understand. Just because you or someone else doesn’t understand something does NOT qualify it as a “weird practice”. The case of a majority of staff and public just doing what they are told despite the legitimacy of the issues is a typical case of bank agreement and failure to observe. That sort of dramatization should NOT exist in Scientology. Anything can be corralled and labeled “weird practices”. How can something be a “weird practice” today and not be one next week or year? Well, it can’t. It just means the people making the decisions are very much flawed. This example existed. You can’t correct it by making it go away and by forcing people not to talk about it. Hiding things solves nothing. Declaring the Hulda Clarke “zapper” as a weird practice was another example. Issuing an OSA edict ordering staff and public not to read The Gods of Eden, by William Bramley, or Behold a Pale Horse, by William Cooper, because the books “electrified” the staff and public was another example. There is no shortage of examples. These examples are not rare or uncommon. They should be.

These actions weaken the Church, and do not help it, although some people must believe otherwise, or the things described here would not continue to occur.

Example Number 5:

I was the Flag Rep at the Toronto Org in 1980-1981. The Org was split into Day and Fdn units and I was posted on each as the FR. In that time period WDC sent a few missions. WDC was sending missions to many of the Orgs at that time to observe and then to institute major handlings. I don’t recall who did the obs mission, but the I/C of the action mission was Alan Buchanan. One of the key views of Buchanan, the Mission I/C and WDC at the time was that “management” was too involved and that it was time to let the orgs get on with their business without so much interference. I clearly remember listening many times to the ED Emile Gilbert and Buchanan discussing their mutual dislike for management because my office was across the hall. I also went into his office late at night when doing reports and read various communications from Mission IC and the WDC. They completely agreed. I have always been very curious. I don’t feel there is any limitation to what I should be able to know. I always find out more than anyone wants me to see and know.

Very early on in the mission I was told by Buchanan that the FR duties were being changed because they didn’t want management to interfere and overburden the orgs with numerous distracting programs. He even said that the FR issues were going to be re-written so that LRH policy aligned with the new attitude of management.

I wrote it all up many times. I watched obvious LRH policy ignored, and even attacked. The entirety of the upper Church management structure seemed totally in agreement. I sent reports EVERYWHERE, as I always do in major situations of gross LRH alter-is. Nothing happened.

I finally walked out and returned to FOLO. I couldn’t play such a game of nonsense. I told the Execs at FOLO all about it. I wrote it up. But what is one to do? “Senior Management” was behind it all! So I routed out. Maybe I took the “less responsible” route, and I can be criticized for that. I understand. But it is strange feeling indeed when I am watching the stable datums of SCN ignored all around me by people who SHOULD know better. Worse, I reported on every line imaginable. What else can one do? I am reporting on every line possible this time again.

The current situation is very similar. What I describe is accurate, yet I don’t doubt that a similar dramatization will prevent it from being observed clearly for what it is, and suitably handled.

It is also likely true that the actions of COB in the early 80’s were directly related to weeding out these lunatic management terminals. I also understand that. I understand that it wasn’t “all management” that was bad, though some surely was.

Example Number 6:

In 1985-1986 or so, I was posted as the FSC INT Admin at Flag. My job was to keep track of all the confirmed GI from all over the world for all the FSC offices, and make sure it arrived on time by Thursday at 2 p.m.

While doing my mini-hat within the first few weeks on post I discovered a weird situation. I read a policy or FO that clearly stated that the GI was to include all money deposited in the Church’s bank accounts by 2 p.m. on Thursday. I recall when I was FSC Miami that I would be at the bank at 10 minutes to 2 on Thursday being sure to deposit all funds in time. That is the way it has always been done. That is per policy and long standing tradition.

I discovered that for a long time the FSC Network had been operating in violation of the references on correct counting of GI. The procedure was that the various FSC regges and FSMs from Europe would bank wire the funds to the Church’s accounts by 2 p.m. on Thursday. The money would actually “hit” the Church’s accounts a day or two later (usually Friday morning). In fact, the funds were NOT in any Church bank account at 2 p.m. on Thursday.

This was very simple and clear to me. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to see what was going on. But that is the way it is with everything – unless others want to make it complicated. One day I was sitting at my desk across from Bo Wennberg, the FSC INT. In front of him were the Captain FSO, Ron Norton, and the FLB Finance Director, Jon Lundeen. I mentioned this to them all. You would think that I had walked on a grave with the way the Captain and FD looked at me. They looked at me like I was the devil incarnate. It was actually funny to watch. It was obvious that I was missing many withholds. Of course they knew that what they were doing was off-policy. Ron Norton looked at me and said something like, “well if you did your job right and got all the money in on time then it wouldn’t be off policy”. He basically told me that it was my “fault” and both he and Lundeen feigned innocence. I quietly giggled to myself. I could see the discussion would go no where. The absurdity of internal politics can be a weird thing. He sat there lecturing me on how it was MY fault, and pretended no involvement at all. I watched in dismay. He and Lundeen had been condoning it for YEARS! It was a strange thing indeed to see senior Scientology executives behaving in such a manner.

I reported it all on every line, to the FBO Admin FSO (still to this day Ray Lovering), the FBO FSO, the FBO Assistant FSO, FBO INT, and many others including the Finance Director INT. I came to find out that everyone knew all along quite well what was being done. I was told, “well if we stopped counting it that way the GI will crash”. My response was, “well, it would only crash for ONE WEEK”. Plus it’s a FALSE STAT, and is false EVERY SINGLE WEEK. Of course, the combined agreement of thetans in mutual complicity involving obvious violation of LRH policy is not a pretty sight. It continued. It always seems to continue in some form or another.

I was left in a situation where I could “do my job” the way everyone up to the FD INT wanted me to do it, and VIOLATE LRH policy, or refuse to do it and get slammed, sent to ethics, and who knows what else. I took the chickens way out and just did my job. I did do everything I could though by reporting it to everyone. I no longer think that reporting outnesses to seniors who should be responsible and waiting is a correct method to handle such things. The problem is that too often those receiving the reports are involved in and agree with the same violations! But what else can one do? I guess I could have printed a write-up in a local Clearwater newspaper, and taken some bigger Ethics view and responsibility to get someone to DO SOMETHING. It was almost like I would have had to go outside of the Church to get anything done about it. That’s weird indeed.

Also, I was aware of financial irregularities in Europe and wrote them up a few times to all the same terminals. Simply, in some Scandinavian countries there was a poor credit reporting system. The result was that many of the Scientology public were co-signing loans for each other. It was an intricate spider web where it seemed almost everyone was co-signers for loans for everyone else. The result was that way more money than could ever be paid back was borrowed by Scientologists for Flag services from many Scandinavian banks. It was very clear that this could only continue for just so long. I wrote it up. I was told that, “well the laws allow it and we are not breaking any laws”. Yeah, right. I was also told that, “it would crash the GI if we stopped doing it”. Yeah right again. The shit did eventually hit the fan.

For any of you who know the later history, some of the Scandinavian banks did investigations into all this and Scientology was slammed heavily for this. Scientology, as a group, apparently declared various people (very good FSMs) such as Kjell Westfall and Heinrich Palmquist, and busted various FSO staff. The irony is that most EVERYBODY up to the very top knew all along, and for a very long time, what was going on. In fact they condoned and encouraged it. The pressure for upstats is a strong motivation indeed.

This is extreme nonsense. In typical Scientology style, the Church accused and declared a few individuals, blaming them as the source of the problems, when in fact, key senior staff knew about it all completely and even heavily encouraged such things. I could talk more about this phenomenon and why it occurs, but it is usual Earth scapegoat tactics – blame another to free oneself from the beacon of blame. And use “the greatest good” and “the survival of the Church” as a convenient justifier.

The key point is that very SIMPLE and CLEAR policy on the correct counting of GI had been ignored for many years resulting in false stats. All senior Scientology Execs involved played this game of pretense where they acted like it wasn’t their fault, yet they knew exactly what they were doing. The phenomenon is this:

Groups of people act in direct violation of simple and clear policy while pretending to be doing otherwise. They attack anyone who brings it to their attention or tries to correct it. The entire organized structure of the Church at times can function as a huge juggernaut out of control, involving agreements with off-policy situations, and with a momentum all it’s own.

Other examples in this section display a similar tendency. These things occurred. They can all be verified if anyone wants to take the time to check them out. Nothing is made up or exaggerated. Of course, I understand that I may be the last person you would want to have to point these things out to you.

The current situation I describe is similar in that many people agree with the (out-tech) situation, and seem to be unwilling or unable to confront and handle it.

Of course, I am aware that someone can say, “oh see, he labels and attacks good hats, so he is suppressive . . .” I am not saying Jon Lundeen or Ron Norton are bad people or generally destructive. In fact, I greatly respect and admire both of them quite a lot, as they are both very capable, likable and extremely competent individuals.

The point is that even though they each are extremely able people, they each still went and stayed into agreement with very crazy off-policy stuff. The point is NOT that they are bad or anything like that (they are not), but that the phenomena I describe involves everyone including the best of the best. The crazy stuff goes on regardless.

They agreed with, condoned, encouraged and participated in very off-policy actions for many years (resulting in chaos on finance lines and other PR flaps). The main thing here is to notice that almost NOBODY is capable of resisting this sort of thing. The situation I describe in this report is a similar example where something VERY WRONG is occurring, yet it seems nobody will say or do anything about it.

Group agreement is a very large part of the situation and problem.

I am not referring to the “good” group agreement based upon well thought-out policy and intelligent pro-survival actions, but the “bad” group agreement that seems to have it’s source in the bank.

Example Number 7:

While I was doing my training steps for A-E at the Tampa Org, I brought the situation discussed in this report to the attention of the Course Supervisor. I showed him and told him that it was nuts. He showed me the same quotes in the LOC pack, and said that it “came from there”. I said, “that’s fine, but it makes no sense no matter where it came from.” He said, “well it makes sense to me”. I looked at him and realized that talking to him would be like talking to a Jehovah’s Witness. They continue to believe that the world will end any day, and they believe that they will be one of God’s chosen 144,000 saved people, despite all evidence and facts to the contrary. There is no talking to people who are convinced. These people believe instead of observe. I gracefully PR’ed my way out of the conversation, because I could see that it would go nowhere. He was incapable of looking and seeing the simple reality of what was right there in clear view.

The next day the D/ED called me into his office, because he heard that I had had a “problem” on study. I had no problem at all. I briefly explained the situation. He explained that it originally seemed weird to him also, but that he “made sense” of it by applying the “data” from Science of Survival. I go over this in other places in this report, but it explains nothing, and accepting it as an explanation involves very poor logic and errant thinking at best. I could again see that he was not going to be swayed from his fixed viewpoint.

I could also see that if I pushed it, I would possible endanger completing my training step of the A-E steps. I feigned resolution and went back to study. I wasn’t about to allow the failures or inabilities of others to understand something block my completion of my training cycle. But, it was nuts being in a position where various Org staff members were quite happy to accept and promote such nonsense. I left increased in the attitude that this is one heck of a crazy world. The irony has not passed by me unnoticed that Scientology actually can increase awareness and responsibility, yet in this example, awareness is all but gone, along with responsibility.

You might say, “that sort of thing doesn’t happen any more”. I have been told that every time I have gotten back into comm with the Church, and it always has appeared again in some form or another. I beg to differ. It has never ceased. It is happening right now, but now that you have read and hopefully understand all this maybe some of you will act differently this time.


In each of these cases policy was superseded in some way by group agreement. In another very real way, truth took a back seat to a real or imagined perception of the actions necessary to ensure the security and survival of the Church. In other words, truth became secondary to someone’s ideas involving the continued survival of the Church. Please realize that if the truth of the data (legitimacy of the subject materials) is altered, all efforts to continue survival, even if they succeed, will be meaningless if what is surviving is no longer actual “Scientology” based on legitimate LRH materials. If the goal to “survive” becomes greater than the goal to “truth”, it will be all for naught. What must survive is only the true and actual data as outlined in true LRH materials.

Please realize that almost everybody has accepted and endorsed this nonsense in the new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. People seem to be blind as ever. There are reasons for this, and I attempt to describe them in other sections of this report, but nonetheless, most people most of the time are mentally and observationally ineffective. If they weren’t, someone would have said something about this already. I noticed it clearly over a year ago. It took me about five seconds to completely know it was nuts. It took me about two hundred hours or more to do the legwork and research to support and communicate what I knew to be true. I waited because I was curious if anybody would do anything about it. I even told others about it. But nobody did anything.

Most of them appeared to be “too afraid” or some weird version of that. They didn’t want to get into “ethics trouble”. They didn’t want to possibly “endanger their Bridge”. They didn’t want to “make waves”. That is a poor way to demonstrate responsibility. Don’t any of you see what is being created in some very weird ways with this sort of thing?

So, instead of attacking me again and trying to force me to somehow accept the absurd new second dynamic definition, please simply confront the situation I describe here and handle it. Don’t try to come up with excuses and reasons why this illogic is logical (reference: The Data Series). It is not logical and it is a huge outpoint.

Because if you don’t, it will eventually get handled in two, five or ten years, because it is INCORRECT. And somebody will confront it sooner or later. Well, hopefully anyway.

And maybe, instead of attacking me this time around, how about possibly giving me a well-deserved and polite “thank-you”. That would surely be nice. I know I can make it hard for anyone to like me when I am so brutally on the offensive, and I do rant on at times, but I know how great the subject of Scientology is. I know very well what it has the potential to do. I hate to see people misuse it and create havoc and lunacy while pretending to apply it standardly. I am trying to take responsibility for this as best as I know how.

Please do not try to excuse or handle me by pointing out all the good the Church does. I KNOW VERY WELL that the Church of Scientology does a huge amount of good for many people. The Church does more good than any group on the planet, and in ways that really matter. Pointing out all of the good does not excuse or justify the crazy stuff. They are two completely different things.

My point is that the crazy stuff actually harms the power and success of the Church. Everybody would win even more if it all disappeared. I get really angry at times, and I guess I can enjoy hearing myself ranting on and on, but please try to understand that what I hate is the examples of idiocy that actually inhibit the Church from being as powerful as it truly should be. I am NOT attacking the Church as an institution, as a generality or its noble goals. I am attacking the instances of lunacy, off-policy and out-tech situation, which inhibit it from reaching its goals.

I list out these past instances to show that these things have occurred. This is not an extensive list by any means. Everyone I know has instances and examples they could supply. The point is not to make anyone wrong. The point is that these instances are NOT correct applications of legitimate LRH data, although they are claimed to be exactly so at the time when they occurred. It is important to realize that people know you (the group) by what its members do and how they behave, and not by what they should have done in accordance with actual LRH data.

I consider this thread of lunacy that has been with the Church as long as I have been familiar with it to be a major impediment to realizing the goals of the Church. Again, to handle anything one must see it as it is, and confront the reality of the situation. Denial leads to nothing except occlusion and failure. Please note that a “thread” is a small single fiber part of a MUCH LARGER weave of fabric. This “thread” I speak of in the previous examples is a very small aspect of the overall EXCELLENT activities of the Church. I am NOT saying or asserting that the Church is primarily crazy. I AM saying that in certain ways, and at certain times, that some of its behavior by some of its members has been far less than optimum. I am NOT stating a generality, insinuating a wide tendency, or implying some overall general negative label. So please do not falsely assume that or indicate that to me as an (incorrect) evaluation.

For whatever reason there is an unspoken agreement that it is not okay to speak such things, even if, and especially if they are true. Personally, I don’t get it. You can ignore these instances, and imagine that I am hallucinating it all. You may believe that my detailed examples are nothing but the result of overts and withholds, and that nothing I say could be true. You may choose to excuse it all and shrug it off as insignificant. But it is really simple. The examples I just gave all happened and pretty much just as I described them. The point is NOT to make anybody wrong or to attack anyone. The purpose was to illustrate a certain tendency for strange things to occur within the activities of the Church, so that these detrimental occurrences could be spotted and handled when and if they occur again.

I don’t have charge on the fact that these things occurred. So what, nobody is perfect, no organization is perfect, expecting perfection is nearly suppressive anyway, and I am sure these things were largely addressed and corrected. What does irritate me is that there still seems to be a viewpoint and attitude that 1) it is not okay to mention such things, and 2) that anyone who does mention such things is incorrectly perceived as “attacking the Church”. In fact, what they are actually doing is attacking instances of misunderstanding and misapplication of legitimate Scientology data (the real enemies of the success of Scientology).

I want the nuttiness to go away, so that Scientology can be even more of what it truly has the potential to be. This entire report is written from the attitude that this planet needs Scientology more than anything. But it needs legitimate Scientology or it will all be for nothing.

The Indicators I Will Watch For

If this report is duplicated, understood and acted upon the following should quickly occur:

  1. An issue will be widely distributed canceling the section on the Dynamics in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, the Life Orientation Course pack and anywhere else it occurs. The issue will refer students to other existing correct references on the Dynamics.

  1. As the new versions of these books are released, the offending sections will have disappeared and been replaced by correct LRH material from other books and issues.

  1. An issue should be issued instructing all staff members not to any longer refer to or try to get others to think with and somehow apply the screwy definitions, but especially the second dynamic definition.

If these do not occur, it will only mean to me that the people reading this report, and the people responsible for this sort of thing, were unwilling or unable to duplicate, understand and/or do something effective about the situation described herein.

Here are a few more targets that would be nice (but I may be dreaming).

  1. Broadly issue an explanation of the situation, how it was found to have occurred, and use this example as a validation of an individual Scientologist’s willingness to accept responsibility for the state of the Technology. Use it as a vehicle to bring about a higher level of awareness and responsibility for maintaining the points of KSW Series Number One. Instead of sweeping the occurrence under the rug, use it to your benefit.

  1. Issue a commendation on me. Erase out my entire ethics file. Award me something nice. Recognize this for what it is and do not minimize its value or the extensive efforts I took to handle this. Between you and me, I had many other things I could have done, and needed to do, in the 250-300 hours I spent on this.

One last point.

  1. Please don’t assume to be the source of discovering this and happily ignore me. Alteration of the source of creation of anything is the most basic form of lying (alter-is) in this universe. That is the action of claiming or asserting ownership for something one didn’t actually create. Mis-ownership and misrepresentation of ownership is a basic source of aberration for all thetans. I did the research, I did the work, and I am the only one who has brought this to anyone’s attention in a way someone might understand it. Appropriate acknowledgment would be a nice thing.

Keeping Scientology Working Series 23R


  1. If it isn’t written it isn’t true.

  1. If it’s written, read it.

  1. Did the person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order it?

  1. If you can’t understand it, clarify it.

  1. If you can’t clarify it, clear the Mis-Us.

  1. If the Mis-Us won’t clear, query it.

  1. Has it been altered from the original?

  1. Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech order.


  1. Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow it.

Verbal Tech Checklist

A few friends have suggested that I query the reference in question by going though the Verbal Tech Checklist. There are a few problems with that, and in a sense doing so is rigged to fail. I will explain why.

  1. If it isn’t written it isn’t true.

Well it sure is written, but it is not true.

  1. If it’s written, read it.

I have read it many times.

  1. Did the person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order it?

The problem is that it is presented as being written by LRH, when that is highly unlikely.

  1. If you can’t understand it, clarify it.

I understand what it says completely. It makes no sense as written, and does not align with everything else LRH says about it and related subjects. I have “clarified” it extensively, and probably more than anyone else alive, yet it makes even less sense.

  1. If you can’t clarify it, clear the Mis-Us.

I have cleared all misunderstood words, and have researched all related concepts extensively. The steps of having done so are in this report.

  1. If the Mis-Us won’t clear, query it.

There is no way to “query” material that is presented as being written by LRH when it is not. Most people would push, incorrectly, to straighten out my “confusions” in Qual or Ethics. There is no way to query this successfully within the current framework of the Church. I am not questioning or looking for “more data” to have the reference “make sense”. I am instructing and trying to make it clear to everyone else that the data is crazy.

  1. Has it been altered from the original?

This is the best case scenario, in that someone altered an original LRH reference or took an LRH reference very much out of context. The worst case scenario is that either someone made it up all on their own based on their own confusions of related data, or LRH actually wrote it himself. Basically, whether it was altered or not, the idea is altered very much from everything else LRH has ever communicated about the second dynamic, sex, procreation, the future race, creation, the act of creating and creativity. That is the highest level fact about all of this.

  1. Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech order.

I don’t need or want to have people tell me, “Yes Gene, that is an in-channel, on-policy, in-tech order”. That wouldn’t solve anything. I don’t require any “authority” to confirm to me what I know or don’t know. I don’t need to feel comfortable with some phony knowledge that “everything’s okay”, when it isn’t. The problem is that this reference appeared in Church publications, after presumably passing numerous verification and quality control stages, yet is very much NOT “in-tech”. Why? Because it violates and is inconsistent with everything LRH says about the same and related topics. It makes no difference whether people in the Church “think” it is “correct”. It makes no difference that it was “issued properly” along the “correct channels”. It makes no difference that people “believe” it is “on-policy”. It is bogus “data”. That is the truth.


I am working very hard to get it canceled. It is canceled for me and for others whom I have talked to, but it needs to be broadly canceled by the Church. The solution is not to receive False Data Stripping so the reader can somehow “make sense” of the crazy data. The solution is to cancel the data because the data itself is False Data.

  1. Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow it.

I would never follow it or force anyone else to read it. I don’t need to follow this issue’s series of rules to try to “figure out” whether that “data” is “legitimate” or not. It is not legitimate because it is not legitimate.

In fact, most people who attempt to apply this issue to the reference in question will somehow end up “verifying” that the “data” is legitimate. That is quite scary, but it is no longer unusual to me. I have seen different staff members and different versions of the Church interpret many different references in many conflicting ways over the years. People in the Church like to believe and encourage others to believe that the subject is so very straightforward and rigidly fixed. It is that, but the people involved misinterpret it too frequently, and in these cases it becomes meaningless whether the subject is exact or not. It can’t be correct to do FPRD as part of 6-month Sec Checks one month, and then for it not be correct the next month. The “data” stays the same while people’s interpretations of the data change. That is the fact of the matter. It may be unpopular to know or say this, but it is true nonetheless. There is only one correct application for any set of LRH data.

People like to claim that it is all so simple and clear, and that one needs just “apply it standardly”. That may be true with sane beings, but the fact of the matter, if anyone takes the time to look at the history of the Church and also remain honest with themselves, is that there is a huge degree of interpretation involved in the materials the Church is based upon. Application has been and is now greatly dependent upon interpretation. Sadly, this manifests at times as misinterpretation. If the reader doesn’t see this, understand or agree with this, and instead believes I am some nasty bad person trying to confuse and upset everybody, well, what else can I say? People tend to see and believe what they want to see and believe, and it often has very little to do with the “facts” of the matter. My communication is an attempt to bring about understanding so that this sort of nonsense can be corrected for the benefit of everybody concerned. A proper understanding of this could result in an even stronger Church of Scientology. Refusing to confront what I describe here will simply allow more of the same. That is a road to failure, not to freedom. What I describe will not go away by ignoring it or attacking me. It will only go away through understanding and correct handling.

I don’t need or want an explanation or some concatenation of logic that attempts to encourage me to be reasonable and accept this second dynamic definition nonsense as true. I won’t accept it.

In a Nutshell

Here is the simplicity of it all. If something shows up in print, issued legally by the Church, having passed all verification steps along the way, and is false, it is nearly impossible to apply the usual procedures to “handle it”. Most of Scientology administrative procedures involving the legitimacy of orders and issues are based upon the premise that “everything in print is on-policy and written by LRH”. The Verbal Tech Checklist takes that for granted and assumes that to be true, so it is ineffective as a tool to detect and handle such situations. Most people assume that “such a thing could never occur”. Most people assume that “everything in print is always and must always be by LRH”. I am not able to exercise my faith so absolutely, especially when it contradicts directly with observable evidence. These aforementioned fixed ideas, of course, prevent anyone from correctly noticing such an event when it does occur.

My personal integrity demands that I know what is true based on what I observe to be true. Hopefully, this honesty will not be attacked because it is somehow incorrectly misinterpreted or misrepresented as contrary to Church views and opinions.

The only solution is for aware and responsible Sea Org executives to duplicate this and handle it. If the Church instead chooses to rotely “handle” this and similar problems, by attacking the person who points the data out, without intelligent thought, observation or judgment, then we will all be lost, because the subject will eventually decay and disappear. Because, if this one example slides by and stays as it is, the subject will eventually deteriorate as more alterations are added over time.

Keeping Scientology Working Series 1

Note: Neglect of this PL has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out, international effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this policy letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not “entirely a tech matter,” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSI­NESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.










Now, after reading this entire compilation of data, you will either:

  1. Agree and know the definition referred to is false, or

  1. Continue to agree and assert that the definition is accurate and somehow aligned with the rest of LRH data involving the same area. Or you may not agree with that at all, but still accept it due to your inability to hold a position, faulty logic or poor thinking.

If you do number one, that is great!

If you do number two, then I encourage everyone to get up the Bridge as fast as you possibly can, because within 100-500 years there will no longer be a Bridge for anyone to take advantage of. This would occur because the thetans on this planet were simply too dull and/or stupid to be able to duplicate and understand much of anything (while pretending and claiming to be doing otherwise). This would be because they were too lacking in ability to keep the technology pure. This would be because nobody cared enough to take a stand for what they knew to true, and instead, allowed the viewpoints of others to overwhelm them.

Please agree with number 1 and get this corrected. The other option will lead only to failure and disaster.

Keeping Scientology Working

LRH had to strongly intervene in Church affairs three times according to the preface in KSW issue number one. He found it necessary to do this because staff members in organizations repeatedly allowed the technology to become altered and misapplied to such a great degree that it no longer was able to produce adequate results.

LRH states:

Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs.

Well, LRH has now been off the lines more than 15 years. This can and will easily happen again if this report is not taken seriously and acted upon ruthlessly. Staff and public were incapable of taking responsibility for the technology back then. There is really no great difference in the quality of the thetans now compared to then. The tendency to alteration is equally as great. Thetans are pretty much in exactly the same, or worse, condition as they were then. The only difference between then and now is that since then LRH took the time to write all the KSW issues and tried to get enough people to understand the KSW data so that future disasters might be avoided.

If LRH hadn’t stepped in with the situations he described back then, nobody would have caught on to anything. Everybody, bar none, would have continued to accept and misapply the technology unless LRH had intervened. Please duplicate what that means. It means exactly what LRH says in KSW.

  1. . . .the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatizations of the bank called ‘new ides’ would have wiped it out”, and

  1. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable technology”.

What any group of people will do hasn’t changed one iota. People cannot ever be trusted with the technology. LRH was completely correct when he said that the only thing a group would accept is unworkable technology. Due to the bank, no human group has ever evolved workable technology. The bank makes it utterly impossible for any group of people to adjudicate what is “good” technology or what is “bad technology”.

That is the problem here. People are completely unable to use judgment in this area. So, if and when an alteration appears, nobody seems to be able to differentiate what is actually going on. LRH evolved the technology by himself. Because people have obviously since gotten on the lines and have “rewritten" various LRH data, first they will only do what LRH says and evolve destructive technology by altering his exact data, and second, nobody can perceive this when it occurs due to group agreement.

If you ignore this report, you will be acting like those who caused the near collapses of Scientology in the 1960s and 1970s. Please lose all concern for politeness, being nice, invalidating what you know to be true, trusting authorities, being complicated and doing what you are told.

KSW Issue Number One was primarily concerned with misapplication. It had to do mainly with failure to apply the correct data in a proper manner.

The situation I describe here is MUCH WORSE and potentially more disastrous, because the alterations are not simply of application, but attack the quality of the data itself. The actual data itself has been altered. In that case, ALL related application will be “wrong”.

The basic idea in KSW Issue Number One is that the subject material is here and that the subject material is secure. LRH says:

One above has been done.”

He was referring to, “One: Having the correct technology”. That is taken for granted. It is assumed that the only thing necessary past that point is to get the correct technology duplicated, understood and applied. In other words, we can all happily forget about point number one, because it has been done, and solely concern ourselves with points 2-10.

The worst case scenario for a KSW failure would be the case where the technology itself was altered along on-policy, correct channel, in-tech lines, and published and disseminated broadly. This would be very hard to detect and incredibly difficult to correct as indicated by the facts of this report.

Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from noncomprehesion.” (KSW Series No. 1)

This is a case of squirreling because Scientology has been altered. There is no doubt that this alteration occurred because of someone’s failure to comprehend legitimate LRH data, and that it has existed so long because various staff and public also failed to comprehend legitimate LRH data. I know this will not be easy to accept and confront, but it is true.

Additionally, per LRH:

The most trouble in the past two years came from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate straight Scientology. Under instruction in Scientology, they were unable to define terms or demonstrate examples of principles.” (KSW Series Number 1)

A failure to comprehend caused the situation in the first place – the placing of non-LRH material into printed and widely disseminated Scientology books. The situation continued because of further failures of comprehension by the staff members and public reading it and other data. If people understood the original correct LRH data, it would have been impossible for the false data to ever appear as an idea or in print. But also, if people completely understood the original correct LRH data, they would never accept the false data when they encountered it.

Scientology” is the “subject” of data left to us by LRH. Nobody, not the group, not RTC, not the Chairman of the Board, NOBODY has the right or even the ability to mess with the “subject”. Nobody has the understanding LRH had. “Scientology” does NOT MEAN, and IS NOT whatever the current version of the organization happens to exist as at the moment. That is NOT “Scientology”. The “organization of Scientology” is simply a group of people, all working together and attempting to duplicate, understand and apply the “subject” of Scientology materials as best they can. That thing, the organization of Scientology, changes every second of every day. So just because the Church may desire to and claim to maintain perfect technology does not mean they are actually doing so.

Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, misinterpreted on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. (KSW Series No. 1)

The point of this quote is that errors in instruction are so much worse because the errors get passed on to many more people. In the case I describe, you have a situation even worse than that, because the altered Scientology is in print, and passed along to every person who reads it. Even worse yet, the structure of Scientology is such that it acts to demand acceptance and application of the incorrect, non-Scientology False Data. Why? People generally assume that if it is written then it must be true. And then the entire structure of Scientology acts to handle the misunderstood words, barriers to study, crashing misunderstood words and false data that is assumed to exist that is blocking correct duplication and understanding. The only problem is that the data is false and off the wall.

Please realize that every time things went off the rails before, as described by LRH in KSW Series Number One, the entirety of staff had absolutely no clue that anything was wrong. EVERYONE was quite confident in the fact that they were doing just dandy. They were under the impression that they were applying standard Scientology in a perfect manner. They were wrong. It took one man, LRH, to stand there and clearly point out the faults to the entire existing structure of Scientology. Of course, they listened to him.

I don’t currently enjoy anywhere near the same degree of respect or unwavering confidence from any of you. But, you do need to pay attention in the same way, because what I describe is exactly true.

If LRH were here right now, he would say exactly the same thing. Of course, he would not have to write over 200 pages, because he would simply issue orders and would be listened to. I have to take a much longer route, and try to get you to understand, so that you can act willingly on your own self-determinism to address this. With LRH, he would simply order it and there would not be any need to appeal to your “understanding”.

Please confront this situation and act according, or we are all doomed. It is exactly that serious. Please don’t delude yourself, excuse the situation described here, or imagine it to be anything other than what is described here.

I understand that there may be a defensive reaction by some to attack, criticize and belittle what I say here and the person who is stating it (me). Please, I encourage you to try to minimize any such reactions and simply look and understand the facts of the data. I am not a PR expert and I lack tact severely, and knowing that, I hope you will keep the factual data of this report separate from my less than perfect presentation of the data.

This report describes a gross alteration of a basic Scientology concept and definition. That is exactly and only what this is all about.