Scientology pages index | Contact

L. Ron Hubbard vs Pricing policies or

How much should a Scientology service cost?

(to other Scientology pages)

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

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

“(a) Cheap, broad services for everyone. Cheap, broad services for everyone. (b) (b) Personal services at a much higher (but cheaper than any other field) price.” Personal services at a much higher (but cheaper than any other field) price.” L. Ron Hubbard (from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)



Index:

General historical overview, calculations & 1965 discount plan

Introduction & General overview

“As financial planning sees that pricing of everything sold is not too high to discourage the public and not too low to make the org insolvent.” LRH

(from HCO PL 20 Nov 65 “Promotional Actions of an Organization”)

Pricings for services asked within the Church of Scientology this day could be said to be rather controversial, and they have been like that for quite some time now. Indeed one can not go around that it does cost you a considerable amount of money. Things however were not always like that. Up to the year 1976 the pricings were more than just affordable. So what opted this change and why was it resorted to? These are some of the questions that are being examined on this page.

A finger rather evidently can be pointed at the release of ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation”. This reference laid down a basis from which the pricings for services were able to literally skyrocket during the later ’70s and early ’80s.

First it should be considered how exactly the pricings come about. So which formula was used for calculating these? The 2 main criteria are set as follows:

“(a) Cheap, broad services for everyone. (b) Personal services at a much higher (but cheaper than any other field) price.” LRH

(from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”) (from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)

Further considerations could affect cost-effectiveness and viability in regards to expansion. Thus the focus is set for (1) many trained auditors and (2) many persons on auditing lines, in a relatively short period of time. Thus if you interfere with pricings asked for services by considerably raising them, then obviously it will also result in additional consequences.



Keeping in mind that there exist 2 ways to go about receiving auditing:

1. On a Co-Audit basis. Two people twin up and after studying each level they audit each other on that level, this all the way up to Clear. The co-audit route would include HQS , Student Hat, E-Meter Course, Dianetics Course, and all the Academy Levels.

* HQS, Hubbard Qualified Scientologist. Basic course in the fundamentals of Scientology technology.

2. Being audited up to Clear (by professional auditor). The amount of hours needed to obtain the state of Clear roughly could be set at about 250 hours depending on the individual. (This would amount to 10 intensives of each 25 hours, in where one intensive is run each week on weekdays. Comes to 2½ months.)

* Note: In the earlier days there were 12½ hour and 25 hours intensives, today in the present Church of Scientology as it appears only the 12½ hour intensive appears to be referred to.

Each have their advantages and also their disadvantages. Being audited by a professional auditor naturally will cost, but will be fast and generally will run rather smooth. Whereas co-auditing would become rather cheap, and will consume time and effort, but here you will get trained at the same time. It should be taken in consideration as well that L. Ron Hubbard repeatedly has been very clear about that 50% of the advantages lie in the field of training, so that a purely audited person who does not appear in the course-room would have much less of his/her auditing. Naturally you may also choose to receive professional auditing and do your training alongside it.

In an interview from May 1966 produced by Rhodesian Television L. Ron Hubbard responded as follows to the question “Is Scientology processing expensive?”:

“You can—it all depends—it all depends on who you go to, where you go to, and so on. For instance in the small village of East Grinstead there are tremendous numbers of people there who have been processed. Its citizens. They know nothing much about Scientology, they know that I live down at Saint Hill, and they come down, and they get processed, and it does not cost them anything at all. But on the other hand, somebody who wants a standard run of processing and demands it along his—at his time and hours and so fort, and he demands the very best technical assistance and so on, naturally cost him money. Processing goes for free, or for very much higher prices. But, in any event it is far, far cheaper than any psychotherapy where we assisted.” LRH

(extracted from interview made for broadcast on Rhodesian Television and later released as “L. Ron Hubbard: An Introduction to Scientology”, taken place in May 1966, Salisbury, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)) (extracted from interview made for broadcast on Rhodesian Television and later released as “L. Ron Hubbard: An Introduction to Scientology”, taken place in May 1966, Salisbury, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe))

Sound snippet

Notice: This question and its answer have been removed in its entirety from the 2006 DVD release.

How are pricings for services calculated?



Calculation rules as per L. Ron Hubbard

Courses

“THE COST OF A CERTIFICATE COURSE MAY NOT BE LESS THAN ONE MONTH'S AVERAGE PAY FOR THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS GIVEN AND MUST BE IN CASH. By average pay is meant the average upper lower class or lower middle class pay scale. (Example guesses: U.K. about £50. U.S. about $500. Australia about $75. South Africa about £80.) HIGHER LEVEL COURSES CAN BE CHARGED FOR AT HIGHER RATES.” LRH

(from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”) (from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)

Auditing

“ONE WEEK'S PROCESS (25 HOURS) SHOULD COST AN AVERAGE MONTH'S PAY (AS IN TRAINING). But processing of a special nature at higher levels can be charged at higher rates.” LRH

(from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”) (from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)

One month after date this was adjusted to:

“The price of a 25 hour intensive or any one course above the level of HAS shall be computed as costing the same as three months’ pay for the average middle class working individual.” LRH

(from HCO PL 19 Oct 64 “Pricing Formulas”) (from HCO PL 19 Oct 64 “Pricing Formulas”)

That's a 3 times raise. Considering though that this raise came together with a rather extensive and complicated discount system, “EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1965”. (For details see my later chapter on this page entitled “Discount systems vs Creating a boom (early 1965 discount plan)”.)

This got reverted again already a couple of months later:

“And all prices and sign up procedures revert to 1964 levels and conditions. ... The higher prices and discount plan of early 1965 are rendered unnecessary because of technical and organizational advances.” LRH

(from HCO PL 18 Apr 65 “Prices Lowered Because of New Organization Streamline; Cost of Training, Processing and Books lowered by New Discoveries”) (from HCO PL 18 Apr 65 “Prices Lowered Because of New Organization Streamline; Cost of Training, Processing and Books lowered by New Discoveries”)

This calculation rule in essence was never superseded nor replaced by some other formula.



(a) Advance payments

“Any payment which results in the student having unused credit in his account can be considered an advance payment, whether the student qualifies for a 5% discount or not. For the 5% discount to apply, the student makes his payment well in advance of using the service, usually prior to his arrival at the org.”

(from ‘FO 1828’, 18 Feb 69 “Definitions”; see ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976) , page 13)

I don't find many references about this 5% discount advance payment which was in use for at least a reasonably long time. The above reference dates to February 1969. In periodical ‘Advance! 3’, [early 69] is the first implementation of use that it could find. It was then in use at least during the whole of the ’70s. It was advertised as such in Advance!. Discounts may not be mixed with other discount offers. HCO PL 19 Jan 79 “Scholarships, No Discounts” directs that “A scholarship award may not include package price, membership discount, advance payment discount, professional discount or any other discount.”. I am not sure when exactly the advance payments line was abolished.



(b) HASI/IAS membership

Membership in the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International (HASI), later since 7 October 1984 replaced with the International Association of Scientologists (IAS) entitled you to certain discounts on services and/or materials.

HASI: The HASI membership primarily focused on discounts on certain materials such as books and E-Meters, but not on actual services such as courses and auditing. Discounts (for materials) were varying from 10%-30%.

Note: Temporarily for a brief period during early 1965 there was a different approach. Prices were raised 3 times, instead a discount system was implemented depending on what kind of membership you had. This however appears quickly abolished. Reason given was: “The higher prices and discount plan of early 1965 are rendered unnecessary because of technical and organizational advances.” LRH (from HCO PL 18 Apr 65 “Prices Lowered Because of New Organization Streamline; Cost of Training, Processing and Books Lowered by New Discoveries”). For details see my later chapter on this page entitled “Discount systems vs Creating a boom (early 1965 discount plan)”.

IAS: The IAS established in October 1984 provided for a steady 20% discount for basically all materials and services. It consequently effectively put an end to the persistent changes in the pricings asked for services that had been going on for a period of 9 years since September 1976.

A brief overview of HASI/IAS discounts, advantages and other in different time periods can be consulted here (separate window).



(c) ‘Professional rates’



(1) Professional/certified auditor rule (1961-65)

“Effective on Receipt, all persons holding a valid, in force, and in hand professional certificate in Dianetics or Scientology shall be entitled to a 50% discount on all HGC processing. This will be mandatory of acceptance by all HGCs.” LRH

(from HCO PL 27 Oct 61 “Professional Rates Restored”) (from HCO PL 27 Oct 61 “Professional Rates Restored”)

“Professional Rates for auditing in the HGC are hereby restored to the immediate families of professional auditors, as formerly. Registrars should use their discretion as to what constitutes ‘Immediate family’, though normally it is taken to mean wife, husband or children of the professional auditor. All professional rates apply only to auditing in the HGC. The rate is 50% of the full rate for the first 25 hours, without any membership or Shareholder discount. There is no reduction by reason of buying more than one week.” LRH

(from HCO PL 29 May 62 “Professional Rates (Adds to HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1961, Professional Rates Restored)”) (from HCO PL 29 May 62 “Professional Rates (Adds to HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1961, Professional Rates Restored)”)

Briefly abolished in October 1964:

“Professional rates are abolished as they are cared for by membership discounts.” LRH

(from HCO PL 19 Oct 64 “Pricing Formulas”) (from HCO PL 19 Oct 64 “Pricing Formulas”)

Take note though that these “PRICES AND DISCOUNTS ARE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1965”.

Professional rates then were already reinstated in late March 1965:

“Old time Professional Rates are back for the HPA/HCA* or above (classed or unclassed).” LRH

(from HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary”) (from HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary”)

(accordingly HCO PL 19 Oct 64 “Pricing Formulas” was cancelled a month later by HCO PL 18 Apr 65 II “Prices Lowered Because of New Organization Streamline”)

Per the previous a Class II or Class III trained auditor should be entitled to receive professional rates (50% off).

All the references HCO PL 27 Oct 61 “Professional Rates Restored” , HCO PL 29 May 62 “Professional Rates” and HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary” are this day listed as valid although the rules have been changed since.



(2) Method One’ at professional rates (Oct 76/Jun 77)

BPL 18 Oct 76 “Successful Training Lineup” lists the rules for Fast Flow Training, in #7 it makes mention of something interesting: (underlining is mine)

“Method 1 * may be done either on a Student Co-Audit or in the HGC. If purchased in the HGC, professional rates apply for those students who have purchased the full Academy 0-IV. If done on a student Co-Audit, the Method 1 Co-Audit Course must be completed and is free for those students who have purchased the full Academy 0-IV.” This BPL indicated in the signatory area: “As ordered & approved by L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER”.

It appears to say here that you are eligible to receive professional rates (50% off) for Method 1 which is an auditing action. Here it seems to only affect the Method 1 auditing. Either way this is the earliest mention that I could find in where professional rates are being offered for students (yet-to-become auditor) instead of already certified auditors. This notice is not found anymore at least since the revision of this BPL dated 14 June 1977 (RC-version). A reference in regards to this however is made in the RC & RD-version of the BPL to HCO PL 13 Nov 76 “Professional Rates” that makes no notice of this. Then since September 1979 this BPL was superseded by HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I “Successful Training Lineup” which does not make any mention of HCO PL 13 Nov 76 “Professional Rates”. HCO PL 13 Nov 76 “Professional Rates” in its turn was revised reissued on 14 March 1980 (R-version) which does make no mention of Method 1.



(3) Changing the rules (since Nov 76)

[anyone has a copy of the original first release of HCO PL 13 Nov 76 “Professional Rates” for me? Please contact me!]

A significant change of rules was established with the release of HCO PL 13 Nov 76 “Professional Rates”. Its issuance was a result of the investigation performed as laid out in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, the section “O: Professional Rates” further explains: “It was found in some cases that pcs would enroll on courses and then never take them just so they could have professional rates in their auditing.”. As in attempt to handle various matters it then announces the release of that aforementioned HCO PL.

HCO PL 13 Nov 76 “Professional Rates” established:

“1. To obtain professional rates, the auditor's certificate must be valid and in full force. ... 2. The professional rate is only granted to an auditor who is fully classed to the class of that org from which he is seeking service. In other words a Class IV certificate in full force would be required in order to grant a professional discount in a Class IV Org, an SH would require a Class IV certificate in full force to grant a professional discount. An Advanced would require a Class VIII in full force to grant a professional discount. ... 3. Families of auditors (or staff members) are not entitled to free processing in an org.”

Compared to the rules that were in effect directly prior to that we find that “1.” is the same:

“..., all persons holding a valid, in force, and in hand professional certificate in Dianetics or Scientology ... ” LRH

(from HCO PL 27 Oct 61 “Professional Rates Restored”) (from HCO PL 27 Oct 61 “Professional Rates Restored”)

That “2.” had changed from:

“Old time Professional Rates are back for the HPA/HCA* or above (classed or unclassed).” LRH

(from HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary”)

(from HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary”)

That “3.” had changed from:

“Professional Rates for auditing in the HGC are hereby restored to the immediate families of professional auditors, as formerly. Registrars should use their discretion as to what constitutes ‘Immediate family’, though normally it is taken to mean wife, husband or children of the professional auditor.” LRH

(from HCO PL 29 May 62 “Professional Rates (Adds to HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1961, Professional Rates Restored)”) (from HCO PL 29 May 62 “Professional Rates (Adds to HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1961, Professional Rates Restored)”)

I guess we have to regard these 3 references as having been superceded as all of them are considered till this day as valid references. They have not been cancelled nor revised since.



(4) Scholarships and 50% professional rates (since Jul 79)

“Scholarships & Discounts Partial cash scholarships are being offered to public which count on their course fees. Its purpose is to remedy the scarcity of trained auditors”

(from HCO PL 24 Oct 76RD (Revised 4 Dec 79) “Ex-Staff Free Service”) (from HCO PL 24 Oct 76RD (Revised 4 Dec 79) “Ex-Staff Free Service”)

HCO PL 19 Jan 79 I “Scholarships, No Discounts” informs about “scholarship award” and “professional discount” and that no other discounts can be taken if one chooses to take advantage of these.

Programs that “authorized 50% professional rates for students on major Academy Courses of Interneships, or for full graduates of one of these major courses or a Field Auditor” were available “In July 1979, such issues as the Academy Boom Program in SO EDs 1280R (Saint Hills), 1281R (Europe) and 1282R (Class IV Orgs) came out in July 1979.” (from HCO PL 13 Nov 76R (Revised 4 Dec 79) “Professional Rates”).

HCO PL 13 Nov 76R[A] (Revised 14 Mar 80) “Professional Rates” was “Revised to include recent data concerning Scholarships programs and professional rates”. Scholarships at professional rates could be granted “from Flag as authorized by AVC International and approved by the International management Executive Committee. Such programs remain in force only until further notice and are subject to change or cancellation.”.

* Please take note that there exist 2 revision dates for the R-release of this HCO PL. Obviously in error. There are 4 December 1979 and 14 March 1980, the latter should have been released as RA.

We also find this reflected in HCO PL 24 Oct 76RD (Revised 14 Mar 80) I “Ex-Staff Free Service” that thus was revised on the very same day due to adding “recent data concerning Scholarship Programs and professional rates.”. It reads: “A person must demonstrate that he has a valid, in-force certificate from a major Academy Course or Interneship, or be a bona fide student currently on a major Academy Course or Interneship in order to obtain professional rates.”.

Both these revisions were, as both indicated, as “assisted by Lt. Cmdr. Phyll Stevens, CSC (Commodore Staff Captain)”, composer initials given are“PS”. This basically means that this person worked out the whole thing. He is also indicated as the reviser of all the 4 December 1979 revisions of HCO PL 24 Oct 76RD “Ex-Staff Free Service”, HCO PL 13 Nov 76R “Professional Rates” & HCO PL 19 Jan 79R I “Scholarships, No Discounts”.



(5) Professional rates for all (Jul 84-present)

The next notice in regards to students in relation to professional rates we find in HCO PL 15 Jul 84 “Professional Rates” that says “to encourage auditor training and to assist auditors in getting their own processing, special rates for HGC processing exist for auditors and student auditors.”:

“Professional rates are defined as: 50% OFF THE FULL PUBLIC PRICE OF THE HGC SERVICES PURCHASED. Professional rates for HGC services, including the Purification Rundown, are available to anyone who holds a valid professional auditor certificate to the highest level of auditor training available at the organization or if paid for and currently enrolled on and attending any professional auditor training course in the org's Academy (HRD Course, Academy Levels 0–IV, NED, Hubbard Specialist Auditor Course). A short break between courses for the purpose of receiving some HGC service does not disqualify someone from obtaining Professional rates as long as the person has enrolled on his next course and has the approval of the Director of Training for such. Professional rates only apply when full cash payment is made for the HGC service(s).” (signed: LRH) (underlining is mine) (signed:) (underlining is mine)

This rule we find reflected in the November 1985 revision of HCO PL 24 Oct 76RE (Revised 24 Nov 85) I “Ex-Staff Free Service” and the November 1989 revision of HCO PL 13 Nov 76RA (Revised 9 Nov 89) “Professional Rates”. Odd enough though this HCO PL 15 Jul 84 “Professional Rates” was cancelled by the aforementioned HCO PL 13 Nov 76RA (Revised 9 Nov 89) “Professional Rates”. Reason given was that it “was not written by LRH”. Further revision notes found in HCO PL 13 Nov 76RA confide “Revised to restore the original LRH policy letter and to update the issue per additional LRH references on the subject of professional rates.”. Now, this 1984 HCO PL actually had introduced the student addition. I find no mention of this any place else. So what “LRH references” does it refer to in regards to the student addition? What actually justifies it being there, as evidently L. Ron Hubbard did not write these revision notes. It is observed that HCO PL 15 Jul 84 “Professional Rates” was actually falsely attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. It gets then odd when we realize that HCO PL 13 Nov 76RA (Revised 9 Nov 89) “Professional Rates” actually adopted the rule that it had introduced!

The versions of these references that at present are used within the Church of Scientology are: HCO PL 24 Oct 76RF (Revised 2 Aug 90) I “Ex-Staff Free Service” HCO PL 13 Nov 76RA (Revised 9 Nov 89) “Professional Rates”

Either of them enforce the student addition. But the rules they lay out are rather different from the original 1961-65 outset.



(d) Completion awards

I know this being in use at Amsterdam org and also at Flag during the late ’80s. After the completion of some intensive (12½ hour auditing), a course or other service, then 12½% of what was paid for the completed service was returned to your account. Would you choose to have it back in cash the percentage would then be a little lower (10%). During the years there have been various kinds of discounts offers. As I found out this particular 12½% completion award had been abolished somewhere during the ’90s.

I have either way been unable to find any exact references about this. Not that what instigated it, nor that what abolished it. And this may very well have been an SO ED or some other issue-type. Anyone knows some exact reference?



How does this work out in reality this day?

In the same way as wages have gone up since 1964, certain adjustments have to be made in the rates given in the original HCO PL from 1964. After all this was more than 40 years ago.

The basic formula:

“ONE WEEK'S PROCESS (25 HOURS) SHOULD COST AN AVERAGE MONTH'S PAY (AS IN TRAINING).” LRH

(from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”) (from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)

Statistics for average income for example for the Netherlands can be found on the website for Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS). On the table Average Income for Persons you could see at Spendable Income of Persons (net) listed for the year 2005: €22.100. (Note, the CBS website only lists in Dutch language, website is not the same either, today it does not list average income anymore, but the income is instead divided up in categories of employment, direct link to present page here (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). You can also look here: Income in the United Kingdom, at Median: Income (07-08) it gives £18,500 = ca €20,861 per year. See also Median household income that gives a complete list per country in $.) The monthly income (if we take €22.100 / 12) would then be €1.840 (ca $2,700), which would be the approximate rate for one 25 hour intensive. Per hour this gets to €74 (ca $108). Note that today's intensives are generally counted as 12½ hours. A 12½ hour intensive then would amount to €920 (ca $1,350).

Professional rates (at least for Class II & Class III auditors) then would cut this in half ($675 per intensive) for professional auditing. Please do keep in mind here that at the time this implied that you also had done the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course (HSDC)!

Please mind that these rates depend on where you are located! There are some countries that have a higher average level of income, this in essence would justify to ask for higher rates. In the same way as a country with a lower average income level would make services cheaper.

Discount systems vs Creating a boom (early 1965 discount plan) (early 1965 discount plan)

(Includes: Early 1965 discount plan (effective: 1 Jan 65; abandoned: mid-Apr 65) & What about HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary”?) (Includes: Early 1965 discount plan (effective: 1 Jan 65; abandoned: mid-Apr 65) & What about HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary”?)

There was this plan from early 1965 that was instigated in an effort to address and handle an existing situation. The result was a rather complicated discount plan. It was also abandoned very quickly. Then we see that the Church of Scientology since have used and is using similar approaches. We have for example the 20% IAS discount, and there have been 12½% completion awards and a variety of other coming and going. A simple observation is that if L. Ron Hubbard abandoned such an approach in late 1965 then why has the Church of Scientology been occupied with various discount procedures during the years? This would be a somewhat interesting question to ask. Still we have to realize that the discounts procedures that have been used since are in no real comparison with the early 1965 discount plan. That plan made it rather difficult to determine how much the cost of services actually would be. Different rules applied to the various different kinds of memberships and so on. Therefore the later used IAS discount and some completion award system may not cause a problem. Nonetheless I do recall that during the late ’80s at Amsterdam org that I was subjected to various calculation routines that I did not always took kindly of. Also we should take in consideration the somewhat extreme shifting in rates in particular during 1976-85 (see the table in section further down this page entitled “A schematic overview of the increased rates 1976-1985 per periodical ‘Advance!’”). I would guess that most people would want straight rates that easily can be calculated, and that are not subject to sudden shifts.



Early 1965 discount plan (effective: 1 Jan 65; abandoned: mid-Apr 65)

The reference HCO PL 19 Oct 64 “Pricing Formulas” introduced a plan in where prices were raised 3 times, instead a rather extensive discount system was implemented depending on what kind of membership you had. It says: “three months’ average income, instead of one month's as the average price for training and processing” LRH. Thus this was adjusting the rule found in HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”.

“PRICES AND DISCOUNTS ARE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1965, (but must be prepared for and announced as contained herein.) ... The needs for new pricing formulas are required by: 1. Inflating currencies in all countries. 2. Low units in many orgs. 3. No flexibility.” LRH

(from HCO PL 19 Oct 64 “Pricing Formulas”) (from HCO PL 19 Oct 64 “Pricing Formulas”)

The series of references that laid out how to go about this plan are listed here below. They are all listed in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Treasury Division 3’ (1971 release) on pages 95-134 as follows:

Reference Title Pages HCO PL 19 Oct 64 “Pricing Formulas” 95-101 HCO PL 30 Oct AD14 “Mailing Lists for Franchise Holders” 102-105 HCO PL 31 Oct 64 II “Current Policies Orgs & Franchise” 106-108 HCO PL 3 Dec 64 “Pricing Meetings Final Policy” 109-116 HCO PL 23 Dec 64 “Field and Public Programming” 117-119 HCO PL 15 Mar 65 II “Only Accounts Talks Money” 120-126 HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Saint Hill Services, Prices and Discounts” 127 HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary” 128-134

For those who wish to have a closer look at them may do so as they are available. Then at the bottom of each and every one of these references as found in this book volume we find the notice: “[Important. See also HCO P/L 18 April 1965, page 93.]”. This reference referred to in fact cancelled the bulk of them (excepting only the last one listed). Thus the reference cancelling them was simply placed directly foregoing them. Why is this like that? Simply because these volumes intend to provide for information, but also tell the history of things. Even cancelled references may contain information that could become of use later on when conditions and circumstances changed.

Publication notice: The version of this HCO PL 18 April 1965 that is found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes omitted to cancel HCO PL 30 Oct AD14 “Mailing Lists for Franchise Holders” & HCO PL 31 Oct 64 II “Current Policies Orgs & Franchise”. It is unclear to me why this had been omitted from the cancellation list as they are not included in these volumes anyway.

Why was the plan abandoned and the subsequent references that gave the specifics of the plan? This is quite clearly explained in the cancelling reference:

“The higher prices and discount plan of early 1965 are rendered unnecessary because of technical and organizational advances.” LRH

And a little further it says:

“I've been working to remove any obstacles in the way of the training or processing of any old time Scientologist. If we can get all our present people well up while we still have breathing space, their help will be invaluable as we spread out. Therefore, consider the 1965 discount programme run out and erased. We don't need it and you found it hard to understand. Things are as they were in 1964—same prices, same services, same courses—same people, but the orgs with a new streamlined pattern based on technology taken from the high levels above clear.” LRH

(from HCO PL 18 Apr 65 “Prices Lowered Because of New Organization Streamline; Cost of Training, Processing and Books Lowered by New Discoveries”) (from HCO PL 18 Apr 65 “Prices Lowered Because of New Organization Streamline; Cost of Training, Processing and Books Lowered by New Discoveries”)

Further details may be found in this HCO PL that is included also in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes.



What about HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary”?

Now we have this reference that was listed on pages 128-134: HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary”

This reference did also carry the notice at the bottom: “[Important. See also HCO P/L 18 April 1965, page 93.]”. It does appear to affect this early 1965 discount plan and such. Nonetheless it is not listed as cancelled in HCO PL 18 Apr 65 “Prices Lowered Because of New Organization Streamline; Cost of Training, Processing and Books Lowered by New Discoveries”. In fact it appears also still included in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. This is actually odd as the information found in this reference is not current information being in use. It is obviously relating to this discount plan from early 1965. And in these new volumes from 1991 these things usually get omitted (as opposed to the 1970-74 release of these volumes).

Then we find that there are 2 references listed as HCO PL 22 Mar 65: HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Saint Hill Services, Prices and Discounts” (page 127) HCO PL 22 Mar 65 “Current Promotion and Org Programme Summary” (page 128-134)

Neither of them even carry an indication of it being Issue I or II. It seems quite plausible that because of this, and them carrying the same date, that it had been missed to include it as cancelled in HCO PL 18 Apr 65 “Prices Lowered Because of New Organization Streamline; Cost of Training, Processing and Books Lowered by New Discoveries”. If I am correct then to date this as yet has not been discovered and corrected. But, you may oppose, the other 7 references that got cancelled back in April 1965 then may be were not written by L. Ron Hubbard! In fact 6 of them were LRH originals, only a 7th reference, HCO PL 15 Mar 65 II “Only Accounts Talks Money”, was ‘Written by: Marilynn Routsong’ after ‘Design by: L. Ron Hubbard’.

The simple reality is that the 1965 discount plan was composed, tried and it failed. That these references in spite of them being cancelled already in 1965 still were included in the 1970-74 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, why would that be? A lesson can be drawn from failures. Fact is that these references are excluded from the 1991 release of these same volumes. This is actually something that could bother me. Although this may not be the issue here. My real bother is actually that old materials are not even found in the present Qual Libraries . Generally only the very latest versions and releases are found there. This however is not how it should be as per guide lines from L. Ron Hubbard. At least instances of history should be preserved, and one should be able to consult if one wishes to do so. An additional point can also be made that the actual reference that cancelled the bulk of the references that laid out the early 1965 discount plan (HCO PL 18 Apr 65) still lists the references that it cancelled . So where to consult these if you do not have access to a standard Qual Library?

1976 plan: “The Solution to Inflation” and its repercussions

(1a) ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation” vs An escalation of rates during the early ’80s

An initiative from September 1976 with the issuance of ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation” that intended to solve, or so it said, the inflation in regards to the cost of living:

“For many years now our donations have remained at a set figure, In actual fact we have not substantially changed our price list in a quarter of a century. Wishing to give all possible service, we have not changed our set donation figures. Yet the cost of furnishing those services has staggeringly increased. Therefore at this time, we have no choice but to adjust set donation figures. But to do so suddenly would work great hardship on and deny those services to our public and parishioners. Accordingly, henceforth, beginning at midnight 31 October 1976 the requested donations of all services, books, meters, courses and processing, will increase 5%. Thereafter, at midnight on the last day of each month, the expected donations will increase 5% over the past month. All persons donating for services should be given the full reasons for this slight increase: so that our staffs can live, so that we can take better care of our buildings and so that we can give better service.” LRH “for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”, initials “BDCS” , initials

Be it noted that the ED issue-type format in essence only had a 12-month validity after which they automatically expired!

Only one day apart from the release of ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation” we see being released BPL 17 Sept 76 “Handling Inflation”. Does anyone have a copy of this for me, then please contact me!



(a) The continued use of ‘The Solution to Inflation’ or the LRH ED 284 series (1977-81)

“LRH EDs, L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directives, earlier called SEC EDs. These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)” (from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976))

As noted the ED issue-type does expire after 12 months, that is if it not had been cancelled prior to expiring. EDs are primarily issued for handling and addressing temporary situations. After this 12-month period it only may work as an advice of how to go about something. It appears that it was found necessary to continue this Solution to Inflation, i.e. raising pricings of the previous month with 5%, 6% or 10% (later years 2%).

This was solved by simply rekindling the initiative by issuing additions to the original LRH ED 284 that can be referred to as the LRH ED 284 series as follows:

‘LRH ED 284-1 Int’, 3 Jul 77 “The Solution to Inflation - Amendment” “The increase on book prices is suspended as of 14 Jul 77.” Attributed to L. Ron Hubbard ‘LRH ED 284-2 Int’, 28 Oct 77 “The Solution to Inflation - Amendment for UK” “There are still many services being delivered in the United Kingdom that are still far less than that of the other parts of the world and the requested donations will continue to increase at 10% per month.” Attributed to L. Ron Hubbard; “Assisted by CS-3”, initials “FF”; “for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”, initials “BDCS” ‘LRH ED 284-3 Int’, 9 Jun 78 (Reissued 13 Jun 78) “Processing Cost Increases” “Further increases in Contributions and Donations for Sea Org, Scientology Orgs, Missions and Field Auditors are hereby suspended. ... This is at the request of the public and my request to the Board of Directors.” Attributed to L. Ron Hubbard; “for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”, initials “BDCS” ‘LRH ED 284-4 Int’, 20 Nov 78 “LRH ED 284 Int Reinstated” “Processing will continue to increase 5% for all orgs except UK where it will be 10% per month. The increase is effective on the last day of each month at midnight. ” Attributed to L. Ron Hubbard ‘LRH ED 284-5 Int’, 8 May 79 “Book Price Increases” “Beginning 1 Jun 1979, the prices of all Dianetic and Scientology books, course packs and other materials, including meters, will increase at the rate of 10% per month, effective at midnight on the last day of the preceding month.” Attributed to L. Ron Hubbard; “at the request of the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”, initials “BDCS” ‘LRH ED 284-6 Int’, 30 Jun 79 “The Solution to Inflation - Flag Service Org” “Due to the current rate of inflation and to enable FSO (Flag Service Org) to continue to deliver the superlative service they are renowned for, FSO services will increase 6 percent of the requested donation per month.” Attributed to L. Ron Hubbard; “Assisted by FBO Int”, initials “BMO”, “for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”, initials “BDCS” ‘LRH ED 284-7 Int’, 30 Jun 79 “The Solution to Inflation - United Kingdom” “As donation figures for the United Kingdom have now reached the equivalent level of other continents, the 10 percent increase for services is hereby lowered to a 5 percent increase of the requested donation monthly. This does not include Dianetics and Scientology books, course packs and other materials, including meters which, as stated in LRH ED 284-5 will continue to increase at the rate of 10 percent per month.” Attributed to L. Ron Hubbard; “Assisted by FBO Int”, initials “BMO”, “for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”, initials “BDCS” ‘LRH ED 284-8 Int’, 18 Mar 80 “Book Prices Increases” ‘LRH ED 284-9 Int’, 30 Apr 80 “The Solution to Inflation” ‘LRH ED 284-10 Int’, 17 Sept 80 “Book Prices Increases” ‘LRH ED 284-11 Int’, 15 Oct 80 “Solution to Inflation” ‘LRH ED 284-11 Int’, 1 Feb 81 for France “Solution to Inflation”

I have not been able to consult full copies of LRH ED 284-8, 284-9, 284-10, 284-11 & 284-11 for France. Would you have copies of any of these, please contact me!

The LRH ED series stopped right there. Theoretically ‘LRH ED 284-11 Int’, 15 Oct 80 would have expired 12 months later on 15 October 1981. And ‘LRH ED 284-11 Int for France’, 1 Feb 81 would have expired on 1 February 1982. Per what I have confirmed from price lists the rates then got significantly lowered and appear stabilized at least during March-December 1982 (see price inserts included in ‘Advance! 74’, [ca Mar 82] to ‘Advance! 78’, [ca Dec 82]). Then the original initiative got rekindled with the issuance of:

‘SO ED 2143 Int’, 21 Dec 82 “Current Handling for Inflation”

This SO ED would in its turn have expired on 21 December 1983. Nonetheless we see in the announcements and price lists in amongst Advance! that the 5% monthly raise that was reinstated since January 1983 continued in the following year 1984. The magazine Advance! shows that it continued to at least August 1984.

I assume there would exist at least one additional SO ED that enforced the continued implementation of the 5% monthly increase during the period December 1983-August 1984. There also may exist references that informed about its discontinuation. Do you have more data or any SO EDs or other regarding this, please contact me!

Then since April 1985 the pricings appear once again stabilized and they continued to be that for at least the next 10 years. Nonetheless as I personally experienced at Amsterdam org monthly increases were implemented at least as late as early 1987. I recall very clearly that the reference they said they operated on was LRH ED 284. It appears that different approaches were taken to this concept of this Solution to Inflation and how to actually interpret long since expired LRH EDs in the various local orgs and/or countries! There does appear to exist some misconception or rather misduplication in regards to the actual validity of LRH EDs. It should be clearly understood that in essence these only have a 12-month validity! It can be seen as temporary policy to address some particular situation. After this 12-month period if fully complied with it simply expires. And they actually were complied with. In that respect it is noteworthy that ‘LRH ED 345 Int’, 11 Jan 83 “LRH ED Line Use” got issued, as this lists LRH EDs that had been cancelled. It lists amongst other: LRH ED 284-2, 284-6, 284-7, 284-8, 284-9, 284-10, 284-11 & 284-11 for France. For which there was no need, as each and everyone of these already had expired!

The problem we are facing here is that the prices continued to be raising with 2% or 5% (with some interruptions) month after month in all these years. Would the initiative not have sufficed with only to implement this initiative with the original LRH ED 284 that then automatically would have expired after 12 months? How much pricings correction after claimed inflation is actually justifiable? Pricings for services easily 5-10 folded (and more) compared to the 1976 rates. In present times (2012), the Advanced Organizations (AOs) are still pretty much on that high pricing level, for the ordinary Class V organizations however it appears just have doubled the pricings or just about. Is it however likely that the inflation required such a drastic action? It is not very likely that it does at all.



(b) ‘SO ED 2143 Int’, 21 Dec 82 “Current Handling for Inflation”

(Includes: A different phrasing of this datum in the AOSH EU & AF in Denmark)

This SO ED –issued and written by ‘International Watchdog Committee’– informs us that “Inflation is still with us. In most countries it is running double digit and in some even over 100% annually.”.

This SO ED also gave a brief overview and interpretation of the situation in previous years:

“When LRH ED 284 was issued in 1976 there was a situation that existed of soaring inflation in most countries which had gone on for years while at the same time donation rates for Scientology and Dianetics services had not substantially changed. The situation this created was one of great hardship on our staffs as individuals and it reflected in the sometimes poor image of an org's quarters. And in some cases had influenced the quality of delivery.”

And some further explanation in this SO ED:

“While we don't raise prices simply to make them appear more valuable (factually the services available in Scientology and Dianetics are priceless and anyone who has experienced the full gains attainable would donate any amount to receive them) we are faced with the realities of the society in which we must function. And one of those realities is that one must receive enough in exchange for what he delivers to support the organization and the individuals who work in it plus support the management that gives it direction and backup and tuck away some reserve for possible hard times and for us in broad dissemination. It has always been intended that staff make a decent wage. They should not have to moonlight and extensive surveys have shown that staff would much prefer earning enough on staff to do away with outside jobs that distract them from their basic purposes. Staff as a whole are not money motivated but one must pay the rent and so forth. Extensive study of org prices and the current economic situation has shown that we are again in a position where we either have to make a sudden huge price increase to bring things into alignment or we can gradiently increase these donations. To make a sudden huge increase puts a hardship on the public and in some cases can deny them services.”

And thus:

“Therefore, the solution, as in 1976, is to gradiently increase donation rates at a rate which is easily confronted. Accordingly, as of midnight 1 January 1983, the requested donations of all services, courses and processing, will increase 5%. On 31 January 1983 at midnight, the requested donations will increase by 5% over 15 January. On 28 February 1983 at midnight all these donations will increase by 5% over February. Thereafter, at midnight on the last day of each month, the expected donations will increase 5% over the past month.”

It does note “to gradiently increase donation rates at a rate which is easily confronted”, however the reality is that these pricings may be hard to raise nonetheless in the end. A simple way to calculate if these raising in pricings were truly justified is to apply the original formula “ONE WEEK'S PROCESS (25 HOURS) SHOULD COST AN AVERAGE MONTH'S PAY ... .” LRH (from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”). It should be realized that this calculation will allow you to determine exactly if donations requested for services actually do match pricings in accordance to actual inflation. So are these raises in pricings in alignment with this rule? A quick check does not give the impression that they actually are.



A different phrasing of this datum in the AOSH EU & AF (Denmark)

A slightly different phrasing is found on a little News Insert that accompanied the periodical ‘The Auditor 181 (EU & AF)’, [late 1982] issued from Denmark. It reads as follows:

“Inflation is still with us. In most countries it is running at a very high rate. Extensive study of the contributions of the church and the current economic situation has shown that we are again in a position where we have to make a huge increase of contributions to bring things into alignment or we can gradiently increase these contributions.

To make a sudden huge increase puts a hardship on the public. Therefore, the solution, as in 1976, is to gradiently increase contribution rates. Therefore on 15 January 1983 midnight, the requested contributions will increase 5% over 1 January.

On 31 January at midnight all these contributions will increase by 5% over 15 January.

Thereafter, at midnight on the last day of each month, the expected contribution will increase 5% over the previous month.”

No reference is made here to ‘SO ED 2143 Int’, 21 Dec 82 “Current Handling for Inflation” though. It just informs about this datum.



(c) The ‘Solution to Inflation’ still going strong in 1987 in the Netherlands

A valid question to ask is why the practice continued during so very many years. I remember for example from Amsterdam org that at least as late as early 1987 that these monthly raise of rates steadily were exercised. One was persistently faced with the message: “Get this months rates, next month it will be raised. Your last chance to get this months rates.”. In ‘Clear News 179 (AOLA edition)’ [ca Feb 84] for example it says on page 2: “All service donations are increasing monthly, so buy now!!!”. This all in spite of:

“Merchandising by advertising that prices are going up soon is forbidden.” LRH

(from HCO PL 27 Apr 65 II “Price Engram”) (from HCO PL 27 Apr 65 II “Price Engram”)

Anyway, the monthly rates continued to increase each month at least for a while longer in the Netherlands. I recall very clearly that the Treasury Secretary of this organization made reference to LRH ED 284. Nonetheless this LRH ED and its subsequent series had already long since expired. (LRH EDs have only a 12-month validity)



A plausible explanation for the ‘why’ of the heavily increased rates of the early ’80s

A consideration could be forwarded about that during 1982-83 many were not considered welcome in the Church of Scientology and ended up on lists that made this clear to them and for all others. Many also appear to have simply left during this time with the intent to practice Scientology outside of the control of the Church. This could be for various reasons. Altogether this would mean a significant fall in income that had to be compensated with funds from elsewhere. The solution could have been that those that remained with the Church had to pay increased rates to make up for this loss of income. We are then left with the answer that fewer public had to raise the same funds. This would be an easy and logical way to at least explain the issuance of ‘SO ED 2143 Int’, 21 Dec 82 “Current Handling for Inflation”. If so, the problem is then that the rates did not in particular lower again in later years. It is noted that the rates at the end of 1982 were already quite sufficient (if not already overrated), adding a 5% increase over each following month would easily escalate it.



A schematic overview of the increased rates 1976-1985 per periodical ‘Advance!’

This table presents a rough selection of various services during noted time periods. The pricings are primarily taken from price inserts that came with the periodical Advance!. This is actually the periodical for the Advanced Organization. Rates at the Class IV-V organizations could be slightly less to these listed here. Also take in account that for example the OT-levels and some other services can only be received at the Advanced Organization. Either way this table will give a factual insight in how the monthly 2%-5% raise actually effected the rates.

The pricings in this table have no discounts applied on them. Prior to at least 1977 a 5% advanced payment discount was in effect. Starting in 1985 we have the IAS 20% discount. Various other special discounts may have been in effect although they have not been applied here.

early 68-

Oct 76 Jun 78 (Nov 76-Jun 78, 5% monthly raises) Jul 78-

Dec 78 (price freeze) Apr 80 (Jan 79-Apr 80, 5% monthly raises) Oct 80 (May 80-Oct 80, 2% monthly raises) Mar 82-

Dec 82 (new pricings) Aug 84 (Jan 83-Aug 84, 5% monthly raises) Apr 85-

Jun 96 (stabilized pricings, IAS 20% discounts) HGC Auditing (12½ hours) $ 625.00* $1,650.00 (price freeze, except for Solo Auditor Course) $3,601.73 $4,056.13 $2,100.00 $5,574.93 $5,300.00 Solo Auditor Course $ 775.00 $2,056.31 $6,015.23† $3,843.55* $1,815.00* $2,561.11 $2,440.00 Solo Auditor Course pt2 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,401.00* $1,707.77 $1,600.00 Clearing Course $ 800.00 $2,122.64 $4,633.45 $5,218.04 $1,560.00 $4,139.69 $4,000.00 OT I $ 75.00 $ 199.00 $ 434.39 $ 489.28 $ 390.00 $1,039.85 $1,800.00 OT II $ 500.00 $1,326.65 $2,895.91 $3,261.26 $1,380.00 $3,659.87 $3,500.00 OT III $ 875.00 $2,321.64 $5,067.84 $5,707.24 $3,500.00 $9,288.27 $5,900.00 OT IV $ 75.00 $ 180.05 $ 393.02 $ 489.28 $2,600.00* $6,900.42 $6,600.00 OT V $ 875.00 $2,321.64 $5,067.84 $5,707.24 $3,000.00* $7,961.37 $7,600.00 OT VI $ 350.00 $ 928.65 $2,027.14 $2,282.88 Flag only* Flag only Flag only OT VII $ 75.00 $ 199.00 $ 434.39 $ 489.28 Flag only* Flag only Flag only OT VIII $ 500.00* $1,326.65 $2,895.91 $3,261.26 not given* not given Ship only* Jul 79 Apr 80 Sept 80 Oct 80 OT Drug Rundown n/a n/a n/a $4,869.00 $4,966.38 see OT IV* NED for OTs n/a $3,482.57 $5,402.61 $5,326.46 $5,432.99 see OT V*

† Exact pricing given for month not confirmed, but it does lie in this range and is very close * Ability #249 & #252 (early 1972) note a sliding scale 25 hours $1,250.00 100 hours $4,250.00 50 hours $2,350.00 125 hours $5,050.00 75 hours $3,350.00 * Prepaid, OT VIII was never officially released * Suddenly lowered price between Apr-Oct 80 for Solo Auditor Course, this may have been for compensating that the price for this course was not frozen between Jul-Oct 80 as all other services were * Solo Auditor Course split in 2 parts * Original OT IV-VIII had been dropped, this is ‘New’ OT IV-VII: New OT IV = OT Drug Rundown, New OT V = NED for OTs, New OT VI-VII = Solo NED for OTs; New OT IV-V are priced per 12½ hour intensive, final price depends on how many intensives are required (also for OT VII): - Prior to 1982 packages could be purchased for 25 or 50 hours of NED for OTs auditing (see Advance!); - For New OT VII (=Solo NOTs): “An educated guess and very wise prediction would be in the vicinity of around 100 hours.” (see ‘Source 30’, [Jan/Feb 81] in article “The Special Release Briefings for NOTs & Solo NOTs”) , this would amount to 8 intensives; - New OT IV, V & VII continue to be paid for per intensive to this day, various sliding scales for packages of intensives are being offered * New OT VIII had been released in 1988, only delivered on the ship Freewinds

Cost of various main auditor training courses (1969-Sept 76): Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course $ 500.00 HSDC Internship $ 125.00 Scientology levels 0-IV (each $ 250.00) $1,250.00 Levels 0-IV Internship $ 250.00 Class VI Auditor's Course (SHSBC) $1,750.00 Class VIII Auditor's Course $1,500.00 See also HCO PL 13 Nov 69 I “Internships and Case Supervisors”.

(1b) An LRH observation about fees from 1952 ... deleted in 1991 from lecture

Something that was started in 1976 with the release of the LRH ED 284 series, the “The Solution to Inflation”, was prolonged and this finally seriously escalated during the early ’80s, and that was still exercised at some places during the late ’80s. Now, is anything relating here to an actual deletion of a rather interesting observation about fees shared with us by L. Ron Hubbard and captured on tape on the Philadelphia Doctorate Course tape lectures given in 1952, ... and that got wiped out of existence about 40 years later in 1991? A piece of information from L. Ron Hubbard thus dating back to 1952, deriving from a lecture series that during its consecutive almost 40 years was available in its original and unaltered form. It was still unaltered in the 1986 re-release of this series. But not so anymore in its 1991 re-release. Various chunks of rather interesting information simply disappeared and were seamlessly edited out. We received no explanation for this happening, more importantly however it is not condoned by existing policies regarding tape editing. I address and analyze this in rather great detail in my article series concerning “The position of Scientology towards a New World Order”, see chapter “‘Philadelphia Doctorate Course’ Lectures (PDC) & ‘Black Dianetics’”, visit here (separate window).

The text here below that is printed in purple is not found anymore in the present set of the tape lectures series for sale. I will let this speak for itself.

“They [psychiatry] deepen one's agreement with the MEST universe. You just tell these people to face reality now. Now I'll tell you what's wrong with you, you just have not faced reality. Now you must face the reality of your problem. The day you face the reality of this problem you will then be able – then you will be able at last to be better off. And this fellow goes into apathy and he goes further and further and further. And of course, he goes more and more under control and I am sure that the fee has nothing to do with it whatsoever. You can get a much better fee—I tell you as auditors* quite frankly—it's... it's much easier to get a great deal of money out of somebody who's on a down spiral into becoming MEST* than it is to get money out of somebody who is going on an up spiral toward becoming theta*.” LRH

(from Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture #15 “The Logics, Infinity Valued Logic”, given on 4 Dec 52) (from Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture #15 “The Logics, Infinity Valued Logic”, given on 4 Dec 52)

Sound snippet

Now, why was this edited out of there? Indeed this sounds being rather suspect. Was it a money earning consideration? Do we need to people to sink into this MEST (physical universe) in order to be able to make more money out of them? And of course if this is your goal you don't want them to know this datum. Here there is also an obvious time coincidence.

(1c) LRH about pricings in an interview from 1966 ... deleted in 2006 from film

Here we have another deletion relating to money, this time from an interview with L. Ron Hubbard dating to 1966. I discuss this interview and what happened with it in great detail here (separate window).

Either way I quote the section relating to money in full here below. Printed here in purple as this data is not available anymore in present materials on sale in the church of Scientology.

Interviewer Tony Hitchman:

“Is Scientology processing expensive?”

L. Ron Hubbard:

“You can—it all depends—it all depends on who you go to, where you go to, and so on. For instance in the small village of East Grinstead there are tremendous numbers of people there who have been processed. Its citizens. They know nothing much about Scientology, they know that I live down at Saint Hill, and they come down, and they get processed, and it does not cost them anything at all. But on the other hand, somebody who wants a standard run of processing and demands it along his—at his time and hours and so fort, and he demands the very best technical assistance and so on, naturally cost him money. Processing goes for free, or for very much higher prices. But, in any event it is far, far cheaper than any psychotherapy where we assisted.”

Sound snippet

Probably the last 2 lines are the particularly relevant ones: “Processing goes for free, or for very much higher prices. But, in any event it is far, far cheaper than any psychotherapy where we assisted.”. Was the reason for deletion may be the charged subject of money? Another argument could be that the question may be raised if in fact it is still “far, far cheaper than any psychotherapy”? But if so it would have sufficed to only delete this last line. Thus one would assume here that it has been removed to shift the focus away from cost or money, or the lack of need for that. Another motivation for deletion partly could be because the historical notices from Saint Hill and East Grinstead which may be deemed superfluous for today's public according to present-day Scientology management.

(2) LRH ED 284 outruled? - Who actually is ultimately responsible for setting the pricings?



(a) Advisory Council (AC), Executive Council (EC) & Financial Planning (FP) by-passed

There is this unit in the Scientology organization that is referred to as the Advisory Council (AC) that was indirectly responsible for the Financial Planning (FP):

“The Financial Planning Hat is worn by the Advisory Council. Financial Planning means—How to handle the money and assets of an org so as to maintain outgo below income. The actions of Financial Planning are as follows: (lists 1-12) (lists 1-12) ... 8. Fixing prices;” LRH

(from HCO PL 26 Nov 65 “Financial Planning”) (from HCO PL 26 Nov 65 “Financial Planning”)

Then we have this Executive Council (EC):

“This is the highest governing body of an organization. It is assisted by an Advisory Council which meets at a time of week prior to the Executive Council meeting. PURPOSE The Executive Council has the purpose of conducting a successful organization. ... POWERS Financial Planning ... is a primary duty of the Executive Council.” LRH

(from HCO PL 21 Dec 66 II “Executive Council”) (from HCO PL 21 Dec 66 II “Executive Council”)

This adds an interesting twist. Indirectly we are facing then that LRH ED 284 could be considered being off-policy as it directly outruled the org's FP and Exec Council. To adjust to inflation it would have sufficed to apply this average income calculation rule. After all HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs” was already there! It did not require the unusual solution implemented by LRH ED 284. Why have the pricings not been adjusted previously at various intervals at times that it would have been required? Instead of that we received a monthly raise system that went on and on and on for years. Purely theoretically could LRH ED 284 be considered as a by-pass. It literally by-passed the Exec Council. It was acting against the policy that any individual org itself was responsible to “8. Fixing prices”. It finally got legalized when HCO PL 26 Nov 65 “Financial Planning” was rewritten reissued as late as 1982! #8 as found in the original HCO PL 26 Nov 65 “Financial Planning” turned #11 in its rewrite from 1982: (underlining is mine)

“11. Reviewing prices, to ensure all the org's services are priced and priced properly and where any adjustments are needed, getting authorization for such from top management . ( Prices may not be set locally in orgs without top management authorization .)”

(from HCO PL 26 Nov 65R (Rewritten 31 Oct 82) “Financial Planning”) (from HCO PL 26 Nov 65R (Rewritten 31 Oct 82) “Financial Planning”)

At the bottom of this rewrite it says: “Rewritten at the request of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL”.

Therefore it can be perceived that individual Scientology organizations (or rather its AC and EC) had been robbed from their means to “handle the money and assets of an org so as to maintain outgo below income.” LRH (from HCO PL 26 Nov 65 “Financial Planning”).

The thing that is really wrong here is the altered sequence. LRH ED 284 that was issued in September 1976 ruled that suddenly not the individual org would be fully responsible anymore for setting prices. The policy letter supporting and condoning such was not issued until a whole 6 years later! All that which it really required was a simple reference made to HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs” and order a recalculation as per the present average income. Instead a basis was laid for a price raising system that seriously escalated and actually got misused.



(b) Inflation (cost of living) vs Income

The ‘Webster's New World Dictionary for Young Readers (1989 edition)’ provides for a clear-cut definition: ‘income’ (n) “the money that one gets as wages, salary, rent, interest, profit, etc.” ‘inflation’ (n) “an increase in the amount of money in circulation. It makes the money less valuable and brings prices up.”

The original HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs” talks about “AN AVERAGE MONTH'S PAY” whereas ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation” is all about inflation. In fact there is no relation between the 2, they are very different things!

‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation” clearly responds (or so it says) to inflation and not to a possible increased income. Therefore this LRH ED acts against the original policy of how to calculate rates! In addition this change created a new problem that was addressed and handled with the issuance of HCO PL 26 Oct 80 “Advanced Org/Saint Hill Prices - What the Public Pays”.

“These are times of fluctuating currency values and although prices at the different AOs and Saint Hills are initially set to be equal in all currencies, they can be quickly thrown out of balance due to a sudden change in the value of one currency against another. In the past, this has sometimes led to a loss of public for some AO/SHs due to these differences in prices. To keep prices fair between the Advanced Orgs/Saint Hills and to prevent distractions to the orgs and their publics due to price differences the following provision is made: Public paying for Advanced Org or Saint Hill services pay the price in the currency of their own home country regardless of which AO/SH they go to for service.”

It may be noteworthy that this HCO PL was indicated as having been written and compiled by ‘THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY’. If the original set up of HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs” (that calculates with an average income) would not have been violated, it would not likely have caused the need for this HCO PL 26 Oct 80 to have been issued. Since this HCO PL 26 Oct 80 “Advanced Org/Saint Hill Prices - What the Public Pays” has been reissued as ‘SPD 60’, 21 Dec 82 “same title” .



(c) Early 1965 discount plan vs Sudden shifts in rates

The outcome of the failed discount plan from early 1965 should indicate that people would prefer a rather stable rating system that is easily calculated. One would not in particular be interested in surprises in where one would find out that one could have saved a considerable amount of money due to not have waited long enough or have acted too quickly. There are occurrences in the period 1976-85 where exactly this was happening.

If we look at the below reproduced extract of the earlier listed table we notice a sudden overall lowering of pricings to about 50% when we compare October 1980 with March 1982. Then when we in turn compare December 1982 rates with August 1984 we see again a considerable increase from 50% and more.

Oct 80 (May 80-Oct 80,

2% monthly raises) Mar 82-Dec 82 (new pricings) Aug 84 (Jan 83-Aug 84,

5% monthly raises) HGC Auditing (12½ hours) $4,056.13 $2,100.00 $5,574.93 Clearing Course $5,218.04 $1,560.00 $4,139.69 OT I $ 489.28 $ 390.00 $1,039.85 OT II $3,261.26 $1,380.00 $3,659.87 OT III $5,707.24 $3,500.00 $9,288.27

When we consider this then it appears from this quite clearly that actual inflation does not seem to have had much to do with it! Or are we going to believe that general cost of living suddenly had dropped with 50% also? The question then emerges why we actually had these LRH ED 284 series and its Solution to Inflation as its continued use does not seem to have been for the claimed reason?

The below extract from the table also confirms that. For what reason were all pricings frozen but not for the Solo Auditor Course? In October 1980 we that the price of this course is leveled again with cost for the other services as it was in December 1978. Pricings for services appear fluctuating just like that and even independently from costs for other services as it seems at a whim.

Jun 78 (Nov 76-Jun 78, 5% monthly raises) Dec 78 (Jul 78-Dec 78,

price freeze, except for Solo Auditor Course) Apr 80 (Jan 79-Apr 80,

5% monthly raises) Oct 80 (May 80-Oct 80,

2% monthly raises) HGC Auditing (12½ hours) $1,650.00 $1,650.00 $3,601.73 $4,056.13 Solo Auditor Course $2,056.31 $2,755.65 $6,015.23 $3,843.55 Clearing Course $2,122.64 $2,122.64 $4,633.45 $5,218.04

Services at Advanced Organizations (AOs)

“HIGHER LEVEL COURSES CAN BE CHARGED FOR AT HIGHER RATES.” LRH

(from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)

“Any upper org on the Bridge may deliver any and all of the services of the lower org providing the prices charged are at least 10% higher than the same service in the next lower org. ... An upper org must deliver better service to justify the increase over the lower org for the same service.” LRH

(from HCO PL 29 Jan AD29 “Prices, Upper Org”) (from HCO PL 29 Jan AD29“Prices, Upper Org”)

Advanced Organizations (AOs) are the so-called Saint Hill Organizations. In these you do Advanced Courses and receive advanced services (auditing). There are various services that can only be obtained from such organizations. The first Advanced Organization was begun aboard the ship Royal Scotman (later rechristened Apollo) in December 1967. Then in May 1968 the Advanced Organization Edinburgh was established, that got relocated in August 1970 to Saint Hill in England to become the Advanced Organization United Kingdom. In USA the Advanced Organization Los Angeles (AOLA) opened its doors in August 1968. Followed by the Advanced Saint Hill Organization for Europe/Africa (ASHO EU/AF) in July 1969. These remained for quite a while the only Advanced Organizations, today we find them in various additional countries.

There is also HCO PL 26 Oct 80 “Advanced Org/Saint Hill Prices - What the Public Pays” that simply regulated that “Public paying for Advanced Org or Saint Hill services pay the price in the currency of their own home country regardless of which AO/SH they go to for service.”. This policy letter had been written and issued by ‘THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY’ and has since been reissued as ‘SPD 60’, 21 Dec 82 “same title”.

Separate from this and standing all by itself is the Advanced Organization that generally is referred to as Flag (Flag Land Base) which is located in Clearwater, FL., USA. Since 1975 we have here the Flag Service Org (FSO). An extension to this is the Flag Ship Service Org (FSSO) which is located on the ship Freewinds since 1988. Here the highest levels of Scientology are delivered.



‘Upper Bridge prices 1974 and 1996’

We find an interesting and relevant posting on some newsgroup on the Internet on 24 October 1996. A message that was clear and rather strong-voiced. See here below:

“Upper Bridge prices 1974 and 1996. I got out some old Advance! Mags looking for silly wins, and was astonished to see the change in prices. Yes, the bridge has been reorganized, probably more than once, but my point is that old 10% per month increase game really has boosted the prices. If my wages had only done as well.... (1974 data: Advance #14 page 9.

1996: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/misc/pricelst.txt (thanks Marina)). 1974 1996 Solo Course Part 1 $775.00 $ 3,200 Clearing Course $800.00 $ 2,800 *OT Preparations n/a $ 6,600 *Solo Course Part 2 n/a $ 1,900 *OT Eligibility n/a $ 6,600 *OT I $ 75.00 $ 2,000 *OT II $500.00 $ 3,800 *OT III $875.00 $ 6,500 In 1974 Section III Expanded was free to anyone who completed OT VII. OT IV $ 75.00 $13,000 OT V $875.00 $29,600 OT VI setups $200.00 $18,500 OT VI $875.00 $12,800 Pledge Intensive n/a $ 9,250 OT VII $ 75.00 $ 3,500 OT VII C/Sing $ 6,400 OT VIII $500.00 $10,000 OT VIII auditing $14,800 Totals:

(before any discounts) $5,625.00 $151,250.00 Can you say r-a-p-a-c-i-o-u-s? RAPACIOUS. Get it? Good.”

We can further break it down to: 1974: $5,625.00 -5% advance payment discount = $5,343.75 1996: $151,250.00 -20% IAS discount = $121,000.00

Per the above it involved quite an increase of costs. In fact a 2,264% of increase. Roughly then you paid 23 times as much. How accurate is this actually? The mention of “10% per month increase game” is actually incorrect. It was either a 5% or a 2% monthly increase at various intervals. Either way the mention of 10% does not affect the rates as presented in this table. Also a note has to be made about the OT levels IV-VIII. In 1974 we had the original OT levels. In 1982 they were replaced with the New OT levels IV-VIII which were something different. Then whereas the original OT levels were sold as a package with a fixed price, various of the New OT levels were sold per intensive. It may therefore vary from person to person what the final cost would have been for these services. The calculation is probably fairly realistic and correct.



Donations requested at Flag Service Org (FSO) at Flag (Clearwater, Fl.)

Flag always has had given itself this repute to give services that are not comparable with the quality of services received at any other place, but the donation requested also reflected that. In addition Flag offers various special rundowns and services not delivered anywhere else. Amongst other we have the so-called L10, L11 & L12 rundowns (released 1971). Do realize though that you don't have to take these services at Flag, they should be more reasonably priced at local organizations or even the Advanced St-Hill organizations. Although, as is repeatedly claimed, you will receive better service and guidance at Flag as after all this is the mecca of technical perfection.

And indeed the costs at this Flag are on a much higher level then these that are being asked at the local organization or even the Advanced St-Hill organizations. One may also wonder why Flag finds that it should not subject itself to the rules as laid out in the earlier quoted HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs” that said:

“(a) Cheap, broad services for everyone. (b) Personal services at a much higher (but cheaper than any other field) price.” LRH

The same policy letter did account for some of that with:

“HIGHER LEVEL COURSES CAN BE CHARGED FOR AT HIGHER RATES.” LRH

Keeping in mind though that this effects only “HIGHER LEVEL COURSES”.

The next question would be till what price level HCO PL 29 Jan AD29“Prices, Upper Org” may interfere?

“Any upper org on the Bridge may deliver any and all of the services of the lower org providing the prices charged are at least 10% higher than the same service in the next lower org. ... An upper org must deliver better service to justify the increase over the lower org for the same service.” LRH

The problem is that in regards to Flag pricings there seem to exist no boundaries whatsoever. This was already the case during the second half of the ’70s, but even more today.

Please take notice: The prices given in this section are ALL including the 20% IAS discounts! In reality Full Rate pricings are never paid for as a yearly membership, which will give any person these 20% discounts, are today available for just $450 (Life Time membership would be $3,000).



L-Rundowns (Flag only)

Special auditing lists that have achieved quite some repute and are advertised as such since many years. In 1975 these (L10) were already priced at $3,750 per intensive (12½ hours), but then you had to buy them in a package of a minimum of 25 hours (see ‘Advance! 33-36’, Jul-Nov 75). Today they will cost you $12,100 per 12½ hours, with the notice that L11 and L12 require each a minimum of 25 hours, and L10 a minimum of 50 hours. You can do your own calculation (see ‘FSO, Requested Donation Rates’ list ©2004). Don't let this scare you off too much though. This is about as exclusive the auditing can get, only the highest level trained auditors can deliver these (Class X, XI & XII auditors). I can be noted here also that regular auditing, that normally would cost $ 6,776.00 per intensive at Flag, could also be received by a Class XII auditor at the rate of $16,335.00 per intensive.



Regular services at Flag

There are various sliding scales wherein one can receive package discounts and so on. The main services (ordinary route to Clear and OT) have been listed. There exist a variety of additional services, special rundowns that can be delivered if you would choose so. All pricings taken from ‘FSO, Requested Donation Rates’ list ©2004 & ‘Advance Scheduling Registration Packet’ brochure ©2005. (for comparison various Flag pricings for 1977 are given, these are taken from Flag Land Base promo ©1977, take note that New OT 4-8 were different services in 1977, also various services were implemented after 1977)

The Processing Route (compare with 1977) Regular Auditing Rates (Objectives, Grades, NED, etc.)

(per 12½ hour intensive) $ 6,776.00 (in 1977: $ 2,500.00) Clear Certainty Rundown

(per 5 hours) (includes Sunshine Rundown) $ 3,388.00 New Hubbard Solo Auditor Course, Part One $ 4,622.40 New Hubbard Solo Auditor Course, Part Two $ 2,000.00 OT Preparations & Eligibility $ 6,776.00 There are sliding scales for discounts in case you would buy packages of auditing and or other services. For example if you would purchase 150 hours of regular auditing you get a 45% discount off full donation rate. Thus if you purchase 12 intensives (150 hours) you get it for $ 3,811.50 per intensive. You may need a total of about 200-250 hours of regular auditing.



Alternate Route to Clear Grades V & VA (25 hours)

(Power and Power Plus) $15,730.00 Grade VI–R6EW $ 4,312.00 Clearing Course $ 6,777.00 If Grades V, VA, VI, VII, Solo Auditor Course Part Two, New OT I, OT II & OT III are purchased as a package you receive a 35% discount off full donation rate.



Advanced levels OT Eligibility $ 7,865.00 New OT I $ 2,661.60 OT II $ 5,081.60 OT III–The Wall of Fire $ 8,712.00 New OT IV–OT Drug Rundown

(per 12½ hour intensive) $ 7,865.00 New OT V Audited NOTs

(per 12½ hour intensive) $ 7,865.00 New OT VI

(rate pending if you are a Class IV, V or VI auditor) $13,600.00

($ 3,408.00–$10,221.00) New OT VII $ 2,800.00 New OT VII – Six months C/S time $ 1,703.20 New OT VII Eligibility

(per 12½ hour intensive) $ 7,865.00 Solo NOTs Auditor Certainty Course

(rate is pending) $ 4,080.00–$ 6,800.00 New OT VIII Set-ups and Eligibility

(per 12½ hour intensive) $ 7,865.00 Clear to Eternity package: (Solo Part One to New OT VII) at 40% off full donation: $71,360.10

(there exist also package prices –30% off full donation– for Solo to OT III or OT V, all these packages exclude Alternate Route to Clear)



The Auditor Training Route (brief selection) Academy starter package: New Student Hat, Flag Metering Course, Professional TR Course, Professional Upper Indoc TR Course package price: $ 6,749.71 Academy levels 0–IV (per level) or as a package all

Academy levels & Method One Co-Audit Course $ 3,200.00

package price: $13,500 (in 1977: $ 1,000.00)

(in 1977: $ 4,000.00) New Era Dianetics Course (in 1977 this was HSDC*) $ 4,800.00 (in 1977: $ 2,000.00) Class VI Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (all levels) $35,000.00 (in 1977: $ 9,000.00) Class VIII Auditor Course $13,200.00 (in 1977: $ 2,500.00) The various internships for the various auditor courses (IV, V, VI & VIII) will add another $11,860.00.



Main administrative courses: Organization Executive Course (OEC 0-7) $25,600.00 (in 1977: $ 4,000.00) Flag Executive Briefing Course (FEBC) $21,600.00 (in 1977: $ 5,000.00) Hubbard Executive Data Series Evaluator's Course $12,000.00 (in 1977: $10,000.00)

Consequences ...

Today's situation

We have to ask ourselves the question if the services as offered by the Church of Scientology are reasonable and thus if available for any common person. This then is depending on if they are in concordance with (for courses): “THE COST OF A CERTIFICATE COURSE MAY NOT BE LESS THAN ONE MONTH'S AVERAGE PAY ...” and (for auditing) “ONE WEEK'S PROCESS (25 HOURS) SHOULD COST AN AVERAGE MONTH'S PAY”? and if the prices for services are “cheaper than any other field”? (Ref.: HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)

Do your calculation and decide for yourself.

However there is one comment that I wish to make here which is: “If it is your intention to get as many people as possible in shortest time possible on this road then what are we to think about placing it out of reach for many or scare people off with asking such high rates?”. We repeatedly hear these phrases about Clearing this Planet, nonetheless these services need to be paid for. Time will be consumed raising such amounts. The question that comes to mind is: “Is it all about the money or is it about some higher purpose as we are told?”. I find that far too many people in the Scientology community have their attention on money. How to raise funds for this and for that. And then, if it is not enough already, repeatedly donations are requested for all kinds of projects that need funding and so on. At present it is mostly about purchasing and raising funds for Ideal Orgs. (for this and related issues see my page “Scientology Membership: HASI vs IAS - A Comparison”)

Once Dianetics and Scientology and all that was pretty much in reach financially. Today the rates have skyrocketed and our attention is distracted to financing such things as Ideal Orgs & IAS projects, and not our own personal progress. We may have lost perspective about something here? Whatever happened with that which L. Ron Hubbard told in the article ‘Five Years’ from August 1965 (pop-up window).

Scientology: A religion created for the sake of making money?

If it was not for ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation” and its persistent reinstatement we simply would not have had this escalation of pricings for services during the early ’80s. That what follows due to that is that the discussion of Scientology, as if having been created solely for the sake of making money, may not have had that much significance as it has received today. But what are the facts about all that actually?

You may consult the details about that in my analysis found in the link here below: (separate window) “Scientology: A religion created for the sake of making money?”

The (un)significance of the citation “ MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY. ”

This is another of such instances which has received at least some significance because of these heavy escalations of pricings during these early ’80s. This phrase is frequently used in particular by those persons that advocate against the subject of Scientology in general. Claiming that Scientology is pretty much all about the money. Now, how true appears that statement to be if examined in its original context?

This is addressed this in the link here below: (separate window) “ MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY. ”

Vocabulary:

..R, ..RA, .. RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):

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

AD..:

‘After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979.

Advanced Org ( anization ) (AO):

The denominates a Scientology organization which delivers higher level auditing and training. The first Advanced Organization was located in Saint Hill, England. The initials AO will appear somewhere in the name for the various AOs. For example: AOLA, ASHO, AOSH EU, etc.. This may also be referred to as a Saint-Hill organization.

AOLA:

‘Advanced Organization Los Angeles’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training, located in Los Angeles, USA.

audit, auditing, auditor:

The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.

floating needle (F/N):

The idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial (of an E-meter) without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as one inch or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-meter calibrated with the TA (Tone Arm) between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs (Good Indicators) in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition, blowdown of the TA (Tone Arm) or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition. (HCOB 7 May 69 V)

FEBC:

‘Flag Executive Briefing Course’. Consists of high level administration technology.

F/N:

‘floating needle’. See at that entry in vocabulary.

HCO PL:

‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).

HGC:

‘Hubbard Guidance Center’. The department of the technical division of a Scientology organization which sets you up for and delivers auditing.

HPA/HCA:

‘Hubbard Professional Auditor/Hubbard Certified Auditor’. An early course taught in Scientology Churches only. At one time HCA and HPA were equivalent certificates, HCA being the American designation and HPA, the British.

HSDC:

‘Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course’. This was replaced in July 1978 with ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED).

LRH:

An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.

MEST:

A coined word, meaning matter, energy, space and time, the physical universe. All physical phenomena may be considered as energy operating in space and time. The movement of matter or energy in time is the measure of space. All things are mest except theta.

Method 1 (Method One Word Clearing):

1. by meter in session. A full assessment of many, many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N*. 2. assess, take the reading items from the best read on down and with E/S (earlier similar) pull each one to F/N. Get each word you find to F/N. There can be many F/Ns per subject. End off with a win on the subject. 3. the action taken to clean up all misunderstoods in every subject one has studied. It is done by a word clearing auditor. The result of a properly done Method One word clearing is the recovery of one's education. Abbr. M1.

‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):

This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.

Objectives:

Refers to a package of processes which are part of a step found somewhere at the bottom of the Grade Chart or Bridge (Classification Gradation and Awareness Chart of Levels and Certificates). Generally this consists of the CCH processes I-IV (see HCOB 1 Dec 65 “CCHs”).

(CCH: Control, Communication & Havingness. Several associated processes which bring a person into better control of his body and surroundings, put him into better communication with his surroundings and outer people, and increase his ability to have things for himself. They bring him into the present, away from his past problems.)

OEC:

‘Organization Executive Course’. Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. See at that entry in vocabulary.

‘The Organization Executive Course’:

Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).

org ( s ) :

Short for ‘organization(s)’.

Qual Library:

‘Qualifications Library’. Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction). 1. There is a Qual Librarian, whose duties are essentially those of a librarian, collecting up the materials, logging and storing them safely, making up cross reference files so that the material can be easily located. (BPL 21 Jan 73R, Use the Library to Restore Lost Technology) 2. Now that takes an interesting librarian because he's the Technical Information Center. (7109C05 SO, A Talk on a Basic Qual) 3. Qual is in the business of finding and restoring lost tech. (BPL 22 Nov 71R, Qual Org Officer/Esto)

Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):

This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor.

Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):

Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PLs and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)

SHSBC:

‘Saint Hill Special Briefing Course’. See at that entry in vocabulary.

SO ED:

‘Sea Org(anization) Executive Directive’. This is basically an ED (temporary policy) issued by the senior echelon within the Church of Scientology.

SPD:

‘Scientology Policy Directive’. See at that entry in vocabulary.

theta:

Thought, life force, the spirit or the soul.



