– References you should have…

These quotes were received by german guy.

Common Questions and Answers

Question #1:  What really is “using policy to stop”?

If a staff or a senior ask you to do something odd, you refer him/her to LRH references and he/she claims that you are “using policy to stop.”  But, what exactly does LRH mean by using policy to stop?  The reference says:

ESTO Series Lecture
“F/Ning Staff Members”
A lecture given on 6 March 1972

“If you have hatted according to policy and not hatted off a lot of squirrel, offbeat actions; if you have made sure that you don’t have using policy to stop; they can do that by the way by always applying the wrong policy letter.  All you’ve got to do is take the policy letter that applies to A and instead of following that, find another one that really doesn’t really apply to A but find something in it that can be construed as to apply to this and they say, ‘Well, you see we can’t do that.’”’

(This lecture also discusses production and exchange and is very well worth listening to.  Another great quote from this lecture is “Regardless of whether there is money, there must be exchange.”)

HCOPL 16 July 1965 Issue I
“Policy, How to Handle People Who Quote Policy to Show You They Can’t Follow It”
OEC Vol. 0, page 526

“Some orgs will find that certain personnel will use policy to stop action.

When these just don’t want to do their job, although it’s easily understood in policy letters, they tell you certain policies are wrong or can’t be followed.”

HCOPL 13 January 1979
“Orders, Illegal and Cross”
OEC Vol. 0, page 538
Note – This whole reference is vital to read.

“But how about the situation of this junior who stands up and says, ‘I can’t do it.  It’s against policy,’ or ‘I won’t use that verbal tech as it’s contrary to HCOB’s’?  In his timid way, he could feel this was very adventurous.  He could get personally harassed.  The first thing he might hear is, ‘You are using policy to stop!’  Well, if the order he is receiving is off-policy or out-tech, he very well better stop it?  Otherwise, sooner or later, his own neck and those of the group will be in the noose from the pure pressure of the give and take of life.”

Question #2:  Does green on white only apply to an org, not to an individual?
If you tell an IAS reg that you would not give more money because it violates LRH finance policy and the reg says, “Finance policy doesn’t apply to the IAS.”

HCOPL 8 September 1969

“The Org Exec Course Introduction”
OEC Vol 0, page 3

“…Primarily intended for Scientology organization executives, its policy letters are slanted toward a Scientology org (short for organization).  However, it covers any organization and contains fundamentals vital to any successful or profitable activity.

This course also applies to the individual… Where any one or more of these is missing in his conduct of life he will be to that degree an unsuccessful individual.”

Question #3 – Do we need a beautiful building to be an “ideal org”?  What exactly is an ideal org?

HCOPL 14 January 1969 Issue I
Target Series 1
“OT Orgs”
OEC Vol 0, page 756

“What it takes to make an org go right is the intelligent assessment of what really needs to be done, setting these as targets and then getting them actually fully DONE.

Here’s some MUST targets as examples:

J.  Deliver fantastic service.
K.  Get enough tech people in training to handle the flows.
L.  Find bigger, poshier quarters to handle the flow when it occurs.”

20 May 1970
“The Ideal Org”
OEC Vol 0, page 763

“The ideal org would be an activity where people came to achieve freedom and where they had confidence they would attain it.

It would have enough space in which to train, process and administrate without crowding.

It would be located where the public could identify and find it.

It would be busy looking, with staff in motion not standing about.

It would be clean and attractive enough not to repel its public.”

Question #4:  Do we need posh space to project a good image?  The public knows us by our MEST, don’t they?

HCOPL 2 November 1970 Issue II
Org Series 12
“The Theory of Scientology Organizations”
OEC Vol. 0, page 115



A part of everyone’s hats is keeping a good mock-up in people, offices, classrooms, quarters.

Keep your desk and your MEST neat and orderly.  It helps.

And whey you see things getting broken down or run down or dirty, fix them or clean them or if you can’t, yell like hell on the right comm line.”

Note – This whole reference is applicable.
HCOPL 23 September 1970
“Quarters, Policy Regarding Historical”
OEC Vol. 7, page 1394

The definition for “quarters” that LRH uses is: “A proper or assigned station or place, as for officers and crew on a warship.” (American Heritage Dictionary)  Or, “(3) the rooms, housing, or residence occupied by an individual, a family, or some other group.  Example: ‘club quarters’.”  (Webster’s 3rd Unabridged)  In this sense, you could refer to “org quarters” or “office quarters”.
A good definition of “quarters” exists in the new OEC Vol. 0, page 123, paragraph 3 that aligns with the above.

“In twenty years an enormous amount of experience has been gained regarding the quarters and housing of orgs.

From this experience there are only a few clear-cut lessons.  These follow:


Example:  Elizabeth, New Jersey 1950… Nothing was posh.  Everything noisy.  The org was very viable and had streams of people.

C.  Image is secondary consideration.

Staff pay and food and cheap student housing do more for an org than a posh building.”

HCOPL 24 August 1965
“Cleanliness of Quarters and Staff Improve Our Image”
OEC Vol. 0, page 139

“An org, to get anywhere at all, has to look like a real org and its staff must look like professionals.  Until they can be uniformed, they can be clean.

Similarly, until you can have really swanky quarters you can at least have clean quarters, walls, WCs and things picked up.

A clean set of quarters and a neat, professional-looking staff can increase your income by about 500 percent.”

Question #5:  What exactly is “Command Intention”?

HCOPL 12 March 1971 Issue II
“Command Intention and Your Post”
OEC Vol. 0, page 536

“Have you worked out what command intention (not orders but intention) is for your post?

If you’ve done this, then work out – do the orders you give line up with command intention?

And then if you have worked that out, are the products you produce acceptable in volume, quality and viability to others of the group and command?

If so you’ll have pushed it through the whole cycle

1.     Command intention for your post.
2.     Do you push command intention forward from your post?
3.     Are the products of your post acceptable to others and command?”

Old Tech Dictionary
Definition of “intention”
Page 212

“2. intention is the command factor as much as anything else.  If you intend something to happen it happens if you intend it to happen.  Verbalization is not the intention.  The intention is the carrier wave which takes the verbalization along with it.”

New Pilot Dictionary

command intention:  n. the broad targets set for the whole group by the executives over the group; either such targets set and known, heads of divisions and departments can back up command intention by pushing the main programs heavily in addition to routine actions.  “Have you worked out what command intention (not orders but intention) is for your post?”  [HCOPL 12 Mar 71 II; FO 3793-8, 21 Sept 80]

Note – The definition above is from a FO.  A “Flag Order” is per the Admin Dictionary, “1. this is the equivalent to a policy letter in the Sea Org.  Contains policy and sea technical materials.” … “2.  hereafter there will be the following types of Flag Orders: (1) Flag Orders, usually written by LRH or directly approved by the Commodore as heretofore. (2) Flag Mission Orders, written as always but now always referred to Program and Project orders as below.  (3) Flag Program Order, refers to long range programs which were formerly called “Flag Targets” or were part of “Target Boards”.  (4) Flag Project Order, which always refer to a program in (3) above…

The point of all of this is that not all Flag Orders were written by LRH himself, and any Flag Order or interpretation thereof that is contrary to HCOPL’s, HCOB’s, books, tapes, etc. from LRH is not valid.

HCOPL 16 April 1965
Keeping Scientology Working Series 22
“The ‘Hidden Data Line’”

“And on tech and policy, it’s equally true.  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.”

HCOB 1 September 1971
C/S Series 57
OEC Vol. 5, page 694
“A C/S as a Training Officer, A Program for Flubless Auditing”

“12.  Hidden data line trouble can wreck an HGC (and the org and field).

A “hidden data line” is a pretense that certain data exists outside of HCOBs, books and tapes.”

There is a definition from the new tech

Question #6:  Isn’t it a good idea to donate books to VIP’s?  This is great for PR, isn’t it?

It was explained to a friend at Flag that donating books to government officials creates goodwill for the Church and is an effective promotional activity.

HCOPL 21 January 1965R Issue I
“Vital Data on Promotion, The Fundamentals of Promotion”
OEC Vol. 2, page 120

“a. Never seek public or group repute or contest it or get involved in it.  It’s only collective bank.  You do not do ‘goodwill’ advertising or try to get the name about.  You only accumulate identities as per (3) Dissemination and use them for (4) Salesmanship—offering them something they will buy.

d. Never seek a subsidy for what you are doing as at once you or any subsidized office will cease to promote to the public individuals.  You throw out anything or anyone who is working to make you get a subsidy or who demands a subsidy to operate an office, as there goes your public contact.  It ceases to have point as there’s no dependence on the public individual so he ceases to be served.  Subsidy is a fine way to fail and always leads to a dead end.”

subsidy – “> a sum of money granted to support an undertaking held to be in the public interest.  > a grant or contribution of money.”  (Oxford Concise Dictionary)  “2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.” (American Heritage Dictionary)

Question #7:  What is the policy on donating books to libraries?
The cost of the books is at full retail price, should we pay half price (the price her org got the books from Bridge from), if those are bought for donation?

HCOB 15 September 1959
“Dissemination Tips”
OEC Vol. 2, page 60

“Books:  Personal contact usually requires books to back it up.  But books make a personal contact all by themselves if they can be put in the right places.  If the library nearest you had some book about Dianetics and Scientology granted by you to them and your name and address was in the front as donor, you would get people calling on you.  HCO WW Book Admin recently made books available for this purpose at a very reduced cost.”

This was written at a time when people were auditing in the field, and putting books in a library would be a promotional activity of a field auditor to gain paying pc’s.  There is an exchange to the field auditor for this promotional activity.  As the reference states, these books were sold “at a very reduced cost”.

Question # 8:  A person who gives more money is more of a member of the group, isn’t he?  What exactly does it mean to be a member?

It is explained to many that the funds for various IAS activities are to support various social causes.  Several IAS regges stated that IAS contributions go towards OT eligibility.  It is even implied that not giving to the IAS will make a person ineligible to do the OT levels.

HCOPL 3 December 1968
“Gung-Ho Groups, Policy Letter #2”
OEC Vol. 6, page 854

“Gung-ho Groups introduce a new idea into social or civic groups.

The essences of a true group are participation and contribution.

Group members must be able to participate in action to become a true team.

And each must be permitted to contribute to the action for a group to generate a life of its own.

Giving money or things to a group are both a form of participation and contribution.  But while this is an important matter, it does not involve actual action. Thus, a contributor of money or objects to a group is yet withholding himself and his time.  One should seek contribution of money and things.  But the status granted for this is that of patron or associate, not of a true member of the group.

HCOPL 1 May 1965 Issue I
“Staff Member Reports”
OEC Vol. 0, page 620
“A donation or fine would not be acceptable amends.”

Question #9:  I should give money towards “planetary clearing” shouldn’t I?  Everyone owes to the cause, don’t they?  Isn’t sacrifice to the Aims of Scientology what it is all about?

There are all kinds of variations on this one.  A staff member told a friend that he should buy books because the money were going towards future things to come out – the money were being used for further expansion.  This violates the references on product and exchange.

At an LA Org OT Committee meeting last year, he was told that starts on course did not count as stats for the OT Committee.  Only Books & Lectures packages sold counted towards stats.  Clearly, there is an MU on what the product of Scientology is.

Product – “a product is a finished high quality service or article, in the hands of the being or group it serves, as an exchange for a valuable.  That’s a product.  It is a finished high quality service or article in the hands of the consumer as an exchange for a valuable.  In other words it isn’t a product at all unless it’s exchanged.  Unless it’s exchangeable it’s not a product at all.  Even the individual has to put his service or article in the hands of some other staff member before it could be called a product.  Product is exchange, exchange is product.” (ESTO 10, 7203C05 SO II – definition of “product” in the Management Dictionary.)

But what is the product of an org?

HCOPL 17 June 1970R Issue I
KSW Series 5R
“Technical Degrades”
OEC Vol. 0, page 19

“The product of an org is well-taught students and thoroughly audited pcs.  When the product vanishes, so does the org.  The orgs must survive for the sake of this planet.”

Note – This entire reference is a must read.
HCOPL 11 November 1969 Issue II
“Promotion and Motivation”
OEC Vol. 6, page 758

“The weakest motivation is money.  People and businesses that are motivated only by money are wobbly people.

The primary cause of mission failure is money motivation.

Money is important in the world.  But it is the grease on the machinery, not the motors.

So money is a tool, a gas tank.  It is a MEANS of getting something done.  It is no valid end in itself.

Thus, a mission motivated only by money will eventually fail.  For it depends more on the goodwill and personal conviction of Scientologists and the public more than it does on cash. Thus, there will come about a ridge between a money motivated mission and a public motivated by personal conviction or even personal gain.  The potential agreement between the mission and the public is therefore a disagreement.  The reality, the R, is out and so the ARC is out and so there is an interruption of flows.

A mission or an org must flow out service, help, wisdom, useful data.  These strengthen personal conviction and result in personal gain for the public.  Processing is a personal gain that heads to personal conviction.  Money therefore flows back in AS A MEANS OF KEEPING THINGS GOING.  As you will see on the above scale, money is junior to personal conviction and personal gain and so is dominated by them or vanishes when personal conviction or personal gain are absent.

The public understands that an org or mission must have money to keep the wheels going.  They look on anyone using such wisdom and tech only for money with a kind of horror.  They see it as an invalidation or a declaration that the material is worthless.

The public even understands an org or mission needing or having a lot of money only so long as money is used to improve the product, spread the word, provide facilities and support the people doing the work.

Therefore, to obtain operating funds you have to give real service, real training, real wisdom.  You have to lead the field toward personal gain like health, and personal wisdom.  You have to lead the field toward personal gain like health, and personal conviction, like a better society.  If you lead very well and actually deliver, you will be paid proportionately and will have security and longevity.  You have to be interested in what the clientele is interested in, not only in their pocketbooks.”
Problems of Work

New Edition

Chapter 4 “The Secret of Efficiency”

Second to last paragraph of chapter

“…We discover, in examining control, that the limits of control should be extended only across one’s actual sphere of operation.  When an individual attempts to extend control far beyond this active interest, in a job or in life, he encounters difficulty.  Thus there is a limit to the ‘area of control’ which, if violated, violates many things.  It is almost a maxim that if an individual consistently seeks to operate outside his own department, he will not take care of his own department.  As a matter of fact, in Scientology organizations it has been discovered that a person who is consistently involving himself with things far beyond his actual scope of interest is not covering his actual scope of interest.”

Reference in OEC 0 about how the group is everything and the

Last KSW reference

Question #10:  Why do we get attacked?  It’s the SP’s isn’t it?  Shouldn’t we go after the psychs, pharmaceutical companies, international banks, etc?


“Trouble spots occur only where there are ‘no results’.  Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are ‘no results’ or ‘bad results’.”

Question #11:  Should I follow anything given to me because it is from “upper management” and is “command intention”?
Note – This whole reference is vital to read.
HCOPL 13 January 1979
“Orders, Illegal and Cross”
OEC Vol. 0, page 538



But if one is too timid to outright refuse to comply, there are other ways.  The easiest is to say ‘yes sir’ and then just don’t do it.  One can’t be hit for NOT doing it.  He can only be hit for doing it.

1.  If it seems kind of stupid it is probably off-policy or out-tech.  Both tech and policy are anything but stupid.  Most off-policy and out-tech orders are stupid because they are at a glance contrasurvival.”

Question #12:  It is OK to “break the rules” to get a product?
This one has been used to coax someone into doing something off policy or contrasurvival.

HCOPL 9 August 1972
“Seniority of Orders”
OEC Vol. 0, page 537

“HCO PLs and HCOB’s are proven by time and are the senior data on which we operate.”

HCOPL 12 February 1971
“Hat Knock Off”
OEC Vol. 1, page 285

“Your functions will be found in PLs and HCOBs.

If anyone tells you your job is different than stated in such issues, please realize that there are no orders senior to such issues and an ‘illegal order’ is defined as one contrary to existing issues.  Accepting an illegal order is actionable.

What one gets comm eved for is in the PLs and HCOBs.”

HCOPL 29 October 1959
OEC Vol. 0, page 795

“We will win if we are Scientology, not a lot of isolated groups.

The watchword is SERVICE.

I don’t care how many rules you break if they’re broken to give unselfish service to one another and the public.  We live for service not for rules.

Where there’s a group to be helped or a preclear to be processed or a student to be trained, see that it’s done; and if it gets done, don’t count the costs in broken rules.

Question #12:  Is it OK to borrow?
HCOPL 28 January 1965
“How to Maintain Credit Standing and Solvency”
OEC Vol. 3, page 245

“3. Make it before you have to spend it.

4. Gather bit by bit a cushion of cash to fall back on and don’t ever fall back on it.

5. Keep your credit excellent as a second cushion.”

HCOPL 10 November 1966
Admin Know-How Series 6
“Good Versus Bad Management”
OEC Vol. 7, page 340

“Bad management is therefore detectable on these points:

  1. The bills-cash ration will be high in bills and low in cash.
  2. There is an effort to borrow money rather than earn it.

5.   There will be an effort to be supported.

HCOPL 26 October 1975
“Gross Income/Corrected Gross Income Ratio, Failed Cases and Failed Students”
OEC Vol. 7, page 862

“Dishonest regging can cover anything from crazy loans to telling the pc he will be able to remove his head after a two minute HAS Course taught be an ex-psychologist.”

There are several other references regarding not borrowing money that I need to find.

Question #13:  The able owe everything to handle the 4th dynamic, don’t they?
One of my friends was ranting once about how out FP it was to donate a lot of money.  He explained that it was the least he could do for all of the “overts he had committed on the whole track.”  I believe that this idea was pushed on him by the IAS reg who spoke at an event.

HCOPL 6 March 1966 Issue I
“Rewards and Penalties, How to Handle Personnel and Ethics Matter”

“We are not an Earthwide amends project.

No good worker owes his work.  That’s slavery.

We don’t owe because we do better. One would only owe if one did worse.

Charity is charity.  It benefits the donor, giving him a sense of superiority and status.  It is a liability to the receiver but he accepts it as he must and vows (if he has any pride) to cease being poor and get to work.

Charity cannot be enforced by law and arrest for them is extortion.

The Aims of Scientology
OEC Vol. 7, page 1021

“Scientology does not owe its help.  We have done nothing to cause us to propitiate.  Had we done so, we would not now be bright enough to do what we are doing.”

HCOB 23 June 1960
“The Special Zone Plan”
OEC Vol. 6, page 831

“And toward the end of June in 1950, I first sensed the truth.  And the maxim – bring order to your own house before you attempt to order next door.

Until we had the third and fourth dynamics demonstrably in hand technically, we could not answer the question.  We’ve each had his own idea of what we should be doing with it and each of these ideas is right to the degree that it’s right for each of us.

The third and fourth dynamics subdivide.  Any third breaks down into many activities and professions, a neighborhood, a business concern, a military group, a city government, etc., etc.  The fourth dynamic breaks down just now mainly to races and nations.

Now, just suppose a Scientologist were to consider himself a professional only for the purposes of treating and repairing or even starting again these third and fourth zones?

See this: A housewife, already successfully employing Scientology in her own home, trained to professional level, takes over a woman’s club as secretary or some key position. She straightens up the club affairs by applying comm practice and making peace and then, incidental to the club’s main function, pushes Scientology into a zone of special interest in the club—children, straightening up marriages, whatever comes to hand and even taking fees for it—meanwhile, of course, going on being a successful and contributing wife.

Or this: A Scientologist, a lesser executive or even a clerk in a company, trains as a professional auditor and, seeing where the company is heading, begins to pick up its loose ends by strengthening its comm lines or its personnel abilities.  Without “selling” anybody Scientology, just studies out the bogs and remedies them.  If only as “an able person” he would rapidly expand a zone of control, to say nothing of his personal standing in the company.  This has been and is being done steadily across the world.  Now that we have presessioning it’s easy to straighten up other people.  Our unreleased technology on handing third dynamic business situations is staggeringly large.

And see this: A race is staggering along making difficulties for itself.  Locate its leaders.  Get a paid post as a secretary or officer of the staff of the leaders of that race.  And by any means, audit them into ability and handle their affairs to bring cooperation not trouble.  Every race that is in turmoil in a nation has quasi-social groups around its leaders.

Note – This remainder of this reference is very applicable.

Question #14 – Do we have to get ethics in on the entire planet before any tech can go in?
A reg for Bridge once tried to make a friend guilty for “not giving enough [money] to 4th dynamic activities.”

He responded, “You want me to contribute money towards the entire planet, and we have a lot of people HERE off of the bridge?  Why don’t we focus on them first?!?  That’s the 4th dynamic isn’t it?”

HCOPL 2 June 1965 Issue III
“Org Ethics and Tech”
OEC Vol. 7, page 845

“1. Get in ethics hard in your org and area.  Raise hell with it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: