Lurkers: RE: alterations to The Book of Case Remedies
Virginia McClaughry
SQUIRRELING IN THE BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES
It has come to my attention that there has been some squirreling of the tech
in The Book of Case Remedies. I am comparing two different versions of this
book. The first version is copyright by L. Ron Hubbard, revised in August
of 1975; the second version is copyright 1991 by L. Ron Hubbard Library.
In my squirreled 1991 version, in the Preface it says:
"…In this new edition, the chapters found in the original appear as Book
One. The opening chapter has been revised according to notes written by Ron
in 1968, including update of its chart of gradients of case advancement per
the modern Grade Chart."
In my 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard version it says in the Preface:
"…THE BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES becomes, with Ron's H.C.O. Bulletins of 9
November 1967 and 13 January 1968, a new book and a new technical
breakthrough. This expanded edition contains all the material of 1964. It
also releases new technology resulting from upper level discoveries by L.
Ron Hubbard."
So, according to the preface in BOTH books, my earlier version (1975 by L.
Ron Hubbard) should contain all of the updates and revisions that Ron
specified.
The first chapter of both books is entitled "The Tradition of Scientology".
On page 10 of my squirreled 1991 version, the heading at the top of the page
says "Release Differs from Clear". On page 12 of my 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard,
the same section is entitled "CLEAR DIFFERS FROM O.T." Just a minor detail
you say? Read on…
Here's the squirreled 1991 version:
"Release Differs from Clear
So OT was the state of beingness.
Release was a gradient condition. (A gradual bettering.) During studies of
the past year, all this disentangled and became understood, and for the
first time was easy to express.
Release is not a gradient up to OT. Release is a gradient up to Homo novis
only. Homo (man) novis (new). This is a desirable improvement. Very
desirable for anyone.
An entirely new thing has to be done to make an Operating Thetan.
But one had to know how to make one to find out about one. And Routine 6,
the process that makes Clear, starts, really, at Homo novis. Certainly
Routine 6 runs best on a Homo novis. The proof is that those Scientologists
who have been pretty well released don't have any trouble at all with
Routine 6; and those who haven't been released, and particularly those who
have had few gains in processing, have a pretty awful time of it with
Routine 6. They get a bit along with it, but it's like watching a pygmy
wrestle with an elephant."
Ok, now let's compare the "same" section in my 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard
version:
"CLEAR DIFFERS FROM O.T.
So O.T. was the state of beingness.
Clear was a gradient condition. (A gradual bettering.) During studies of
the past year, all this disentangled and became understood, and for the
first time was easy to express.
Clear is not a gradient up to O.T. Clear is a gradient up to Homo Novis
only. Homo (man) Novis (new). This is a desirable improvement. Very
desirable for anyone.
An entirely new thing has to be done to make an Operating Thetan.
But one had to know how to make one to find out about one. And Routine 6,
the process that makes an O.T., starts, really, at Homo Novis. Certainly
Routine 6 runs best on a Homo Novis. The proof is that those Scientologists
who have been pretty well cleared don't have any trouble at all with Routine
6; and those who haven't been cleared, and particularly those who have had
few gains in processing, have a pretty awful time of it with Routine 6.
They get a bit along with it, but it's like watching a pygmy wrestle with an
elephant.
Thus, although we have Routine 6, my task has been to bring preclears up to
clear and then send them onward to O.T."
Hmmm, just a slight alteration there… There's more, much more.
Just following the above section in the new and improved squirrel version is
another short section entitled "Release" which ISN'T in my 1975 version, and
then the section entitled "The Levels to OT".
Here's the 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library squirreled version:
"The Levels to OT
This is done - and very doable it is - by moving the being up to a few basic
wins with ordinary processing (up to Grade IV) and then moving the preclear
up to Clear and then going for OT.
To stretch a point, one is really clearing from ARC Straightwire to Grade
VI; but clearing, now that I've had a chance to refine it, is itself a
process that takes skill and ability both to run and receive. And one has
to get the being up to doing that. So a being who can do that is a
"Release," which reaches up to Grade VI…"
All right, now let's take a look at my 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard version:
"THE LEVELS TO O.T.
This is done - and very do-able it is - by moving the being up to a few
basic wins with ordinary processing (up to Level III) and then moving the
preclear up to clear (Level IV) and then going for O.T. which is Level VI (V
being skipped, but left in place because it contains a known type of
technology, not needed, but necessary to know the existence of).
To stretch a point, one is really clearing from Level I to Level IV; but
clearing, now that I've had a chance to refine it, is itself a process that
takes skill and ability both to run and receive. And one has to get the
being up to doing that. So a being who can do that is a "Release," which
reaches up to Level II…"
Besides the rather gross and obvious changes, I've also noticed some very
subtle alterations as well. For example, Ron always referred to the state
of Operating Thetan as "O.T." (notice the period after each letter), whereas
C.S.T. dba L. Ron Hubbard Library always uses just "OT", without the
periods. Ron says "clear" (without caps), RTC/CST say "Clear"
(capitalized). Ron says "Homo Novis" (novis capitalized), RTC/CST say "Homo
novis" (novis is not capitalized, and the entire phrase is ALWAYS
italicized). Look at the last sentence of the squirreled "The Levels to OT"
above, and look at where it says "Release," No, that's not my typo, the com
ma and end quote have actually switched places from the original version.
Let's be VERY GENEROUS here (but certainly not REASONABLE), and let's just
say that all these alterations are NOT intentional, and that someone just
made some INNOCENT mistakes here. Gee, I wonder what Ron would have to say
about that?
"In the presence of suppression, mistakes occur. That is another factor in
suppression and an indicator of someone who is a potential trouble source -
they will make mistakes. People making mistakes or doing stupid things is
evidence that a suppressive person exists in that vicinity.
All illness, in greater or lesser degree, and all foul-ups stem directly and
only from a PTS condition."
Gee, it looks like Ron was pretty specific about this point - he didn't
leave too much wiggle room did he Robert? Just a minor detail here, but…
"It is a high crime to permit suppressive and PTS people in Publications
Orgs or departments or in Department 16 (Division 6, advertising) as these
will starve both the public and the org."
Well, maybe the above listed outpoints are the only ones in the book. Maybe
the rest of the book is pure, on-source LRH tech, let’s see………
Well… on page 28 of my squirreled version under the heading of "The Main
Point", the last part of the sentence says:
"…to be successful in releasing, clearing or making OTs."
In my 1975 version it says:
"…to be successful in releasing, healing, clearing or making O.T.'s."
Just below at the end of the same section, it says (squirreled version):
"So, to release, clear or make OTs one has to be an expert on blows, their
cause and cure."
1975 version:
"So, to release, heal, clear or make O.T.'s one has to be an expert on
blows, their cause and cure."
Oops, the words HEAL and HEALING were taken out. Were there some LEGAL
ramifications to leaving those words in? Perhaps that is the justification
for altering LRH’s words here.
Ok, let's get into the meat and potatoes of the book, the actual remedies
themselves. Well, let's just start at the beginning of the remedies, which
is chapter six, Table of Remedies.
On page 38 of my 1991 squirreled version, is the first actual remedy -
Remedy A. At the bottom of the page is a small note. It says:
"*Procedure modified per HCOB 9 Nov. 67, REVISION OF REMEDY A, REMEDY B, AND
S AND Ds."
On page A-1 of my 1975 is the actual HCOB itself. Great! Now we can VERIFY
whether the 1991 version is accurate or not.
So let’s see, all of Remedy A is perfect, just exactly the way it is in my
older 1975 version. Ok, let's look at Remedy B. Beautiful! No changes at
all. Ok now let's check S & D - oh-oh…
In HCOB 9 Nov. 67, REVISION OF REMEDY A, REMEDY B, AND S AND Ds (which is
contained in my 1975 L. Ron Hubbard version but not my 1991 squirreled
version) it has Remedy A, Remedy B, and then right after Remedy B it has S &
D - just like the title of the HCOB. But in my 1991 squirreled version, the
section on S & D is completely missing. Well, maybe it just wasn't
important. Let's see what it says:
"S & D
Search and Discovery of Suppression is called an "S and D." It locates the
suppressives on the case…"
Whoops… how did THIS get left out? Well, let's see what else is in there.
"…Therefore I researched further and developed what we will now use as an S
& D.
It is one of these killer processes. It is VERY strong. So it isn't to be
carelessly done.
…The real question for an S & D was established only when I found a purpose
all Suppressives have in common and is a very fundamental effort in
suppressives. This effort by suppressives, when found, then permitted me to
form the question.
The key S & D question is:
"Who or what has attempted to unmock you?"
Unmocking (an effort to reduce or make disappear) is the primary effort of
suppressives."
Wow! How did THAT get left out? Interestingly enough, in new tech volume 8,
p 131, this same HCOB carries a special note
“(Note: To be reprinted for insertion in every copy of The Book of Case
Remedies)”
Obviously LRH wanted ALL of this data in The Book of Case Remedies, so how
come not ALL of it made it in the book?
I just noticed that on the very next page of my 1975 L. Ron Hubbard version
is ANOTHER HCOB. It is HCOB 13 January 1968, S & Ds. Wow! Another HCOB
dealing with S & Ds, that isn't in my new and improved squirrel version.
Maybe it contains some more useful data. Let's look, shall we:
"There are three types of S & D (Search and Discovery). These are used to
nullify the influence of Suppressive persons or things on a case so the
person will be able to be processed and will no longer be P.T.S. (a
Potential Trouble Source). People who are P.T.S. became that way because of
suppression by persons or objects. Insanity is also remediable by S & Ds
where the person can be processed.
In the body of the HCOB, Ron describes three types of S & D, each with it's
own specific question:
S & D TYPE U - "Who or what has attempted to unmock you?"
S & D TYPE S - "Who or what are you trying to stop?"
S & D TYPE W - "Who or what are you trying to withdraw from?"
Then near the bottom it says:
"…Properly listed the results are magical. If they are not magical, then
listing tech is badly out and should be re-studied from ALL materials and
tapes on the subject."
How did all of these vital pieces of Ron's tech get left out of a New &
Improved version of The Book of Case Remedies? One would hope that these
alterations were not intentional, because if they were, they would of-course
fall into the following Suppressive Acts:
Using Scientology (or perverted and alter-ised tech and calling it
Scientology) harmfully so as to bring about disrepute to an org, group or
Scientology itself.
Issuing alter-ised Scientology technical data or information or
instructional or admin procedures, calling it Scientology or calling it
something else to confuse or deceive people as to the true source, beliefs
and practices of Scientology.
Acts calculated to misuse, invalidate or alter-is legally or in any other
way the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology.
Intentional and unauthorized alteration of LRH technology, policy, issues or
checksheets.
Developing and/or using squirrel processes and checksheets.
Severe breach of ecclesiastical and/or fiduciary duty as an executive or
corporate official of any Scientology or Dianetics organization which has
resulted in severe harm, loss or disrepute for Scientology or the
organization.
Violation or neglect of any of the ten points of Keeping Scientology
Working, as listed here:
One: Having the correct technology.
Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.
Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.
Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.
Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.
Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and
Scientology to use or impede it's use or shorten it's materials or it's
application.
Withhold of vital information. Obstruction of vital technical or management
information lines in such a way as to deny people tech data, prevent
students and pcs moving up the Bridge, or obstructing the relay, disclosure
or free distribution of vital information so as to prevent it's arriving
amongst the public and orgs in terms of results.
Suppressive acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated
to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent
case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a
Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of
self-interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted
the rights ordinarily accorded rational beings.
In closing, I would like to quote one final thing from my 1991 RTC/CST
version of The Book of Case Remedies.
"It is with great pride that we present this new edition of The Book of Case
Remedies.
The Editors, 1991"
(Notice that the title of the book is now italicized)
Virginia
One_of_those_lurkers
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:24:52 GMT, "Safe ... www.fza.org"
<Sa...@fza.org> wrote:
<snip>
Safe, what was your training level?
--
Anon news web interface. FAQ available for review at:
http://packetderm.cotse.com/cgi-bin/blockit.cgi
Safe ... www.fza.org
squirrel organization in scientology history. That RTC/CST/CofS, Inc.
pretend to deliver pure LRH and so dupe trusting scientologists sounds like
fraud to me. I imagine there is enough info already to make a pretty good
case here, huh?
It's time for Public Relations to explain why this squirreling is going on,
don't you think.
Robert?
Safe
"Virginia McClaughry" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:38c9e...@news2.lightlink.com...
Safe ... www.fza.org
news:2000031203...@cotse.com...
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:24:52 GMT, "Safe ... www.fza.org"
> <Sa...@fza.org> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Safe, what was your training level?
I find it a bit disappointing that Virginia and I talk about clear facts of
the Miscaviage Monopoly squirreling LRH works and yet your only comment as a
lurking scientologist is to ask a "sniff question" about my personal
background.
Doesn't this squirreling of RTC, Inc. bother you at all? Did you really get
what Virginia is saying here?
I surely figured that would be a more important item for a concerned
scientologists than what CofS, Inc. authoritive certificate I carry. What do
my certs have anything to do with the facts presented in this thread?
Perhaps you're just trying to start some friendly casual conversation. If
so, my apologies. But I've become a bit jaded about curt non-replies that
don't address the issue in the thread. Usually, it's a church member doing
their introversion and black ops.
Safe
Enturbulated
modification of the tech??
enturbulated
enturb...@hotmail.com
Safe ... www.fza.org <Sa...@fza.org> wrote in message
news:UdDy4.6230$Q76.4...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Thank you very much Virginia for showing more squirreling of the biggest
> squirrel organization in scientology history. That RTC/CST/CofS, Inc.
> pretend to deliver pure LRH and so dupe trusting scientologists sounds
like
> fraud to me. I imagine there is enough info already to make a pretty good
> case here, huh?
>
> It's time for Public Relations to explain why this squirreling is going
on,
> don't you think.
>
> Robert?
>
> Safe
>
>
> "Virginia McClaughry" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> news:38c9e...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > SQUIRRELING IN THE BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES
> >
> > It has come to my attention that there has been some squirreling of the
> tech
> > in The Book of Case Remedies. I am comparing two different versions of
> this
> > book. The first version is copyright by L. Ron Hubbard, revised in
August
> > of 1975; the second version is copyright 1991 by L. Ron Hubbard Library.
> >
> > In my squirreled 1991 version, in the Preface it says:
> >
> > ".In this new edition, the chapters found in the original appear as Book
> > One. The opening chapter has been revised according to notes written by
> Ron
> > in 1968, including update of its chart of gradients of case advancement
> per
> > the modern Grade Chart."
> >
> >
> > In my 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard version it says in the Preface:
> >
> > ".THE BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES becomes, with Ron's H.C.O. Bulletins of 9
> > November 1967 and 13 January 1968, a new book and a new technical
> > breakthrough. This expanded edition contains all the material of 1964.
> It
> > also releases new technology resulting from upper level discoveries by
L.
> > Ron Hubbard."
> >
> > So, according to the preface in BOTH books, my earlier version (1975 by
L.
> > Ron Hubbard) should contain all of the updates and revisions that Ron
> > specified.
> >
> > The first chapter of both books is entitled "The Tradition of
> Scientology".
> > On page 10 of my squirreled 1991 version, the heading at the top of the
> page
> > says "Release Differs from Clear". On page 12 of my 1975 by L. Ron
> Hubbard,
> > the same section is entitled "CLEAR DIFFERS FROM O.T." Just a minor
> detail
> > you say? Read on.
> > Hmmm, just a slight alteration there. There's more, much more.
> >
> > Just following the above section in the new and improved squirrel
version
> is
> > another short section entitled "Release" which ISN'T in my 1975 version,
> and
> > then the section entitled "The Levels to OT".
> >
> > Here's the 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library squirreled version:
> >
> > "The Levels to OT
> >
> > This is done - and very doable it is - by moving the being up to a few
> basic
> > wins with ordinary processing (up to Grade IV) and then moving the
> preclear
> > up to Clear and then going for OT.
> >
> > To stretch a point, one is really clearing from ARC Straightwire to
Grade
> > VI; but clearing, now that I've had a chance to refine it, is itself a
> > process that takes skill and ability both to run and receive. And one
has
> > to get the being up to doing that. So a being who can do that is a
> > "Release," which reaches up to Grade VI."
> >
> >
> > All right, now let's take a look at my 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard version:
> >
> > "THE LEVELS TO O.T.
> >
> > This is done - and very do-able it is - by moving the being up to a few
> > basic wins with ordinary processing (up to Level III) and then moving
the
> > preclear up to clear (Level IV) and then going for O.T. which is Level
VI
> (V
> > being skipped, but left in place because it contains a known type of
> > technology, not needed, but necessary to know the existence of).
> >
> > To stretch a point, one is really clearing from Level I to Level IV; but
> > clearing, now that I've had a chance to refine it, is itself a process
> that
> > takes skill and ability both to run and receive. And one has to get the
> > being up to doing that. So a being who can do that is a "Release,"
which
> > reaches up to Level II."
but.
> > "It is a high crime to permit suppressive and PTS people in Publications
> > Orgs or departments or in Department 16 (Division 6, advertising) as
these
> > will starve both the public and the org."
> >
> >
> > Well, maybe the above listed outpoints are the only ones in the book.
> Maybe
> > the rest of the book is pure, on-source LRH tech, let's see...
> >
> > Well. on page 28 of my squirreled version under the heading of "The Main
> > Point", the last part of the sentence says:
> > ".to be successful in releasing, clearing or making OTs."
> >
> > In my 1975 version it says:
> > ".to be successful in releasing, healing, clearing or making O.T.'s."
> > all. Ok now let's check S & D - oh-oh.
> >
> > In HCOB 9 Nov. 67, REVISION OF REMEDY A, REMEDY B, AND S AND Ds (which
is
> > contained in my 1975 L. Ron Hubbard version but not my 1991 squirreled
> > version) it has Remedy A, Remedy B, and then right after Remedy B it has
S
> &
> > D - just like the title of the HCOB. But in my 1991 squirreled version,
> the
> > section on S & D is completely missing. Well, maybe it just wasn't
> > important. Let's see what it says:
> >
> > "S & D
> >
> > Search and Discovery of Suppression is called an "S and D." It locates
> the
> > suppressives on the case."
> >
> > Whoops. how did THIS get left out? Well, let's see what else is in
there.
> >
> > ".Therefore I researched further and developed what we will now use as
an
> S
> > & D.
> > It is one of these killer processes. It is VERY strong. So it isn't to
> be
> > carelessly done.
> >
> > .The real question for an S & D was established only when I found a
> > ".Properly listed the results are magical. If they are not magical,
kaae...@yahoo.com
Just FYI, usage in the United States (Universal American English) has periods and commas INSIDE of quotation marks.
British usage changes depending on the sentence and context.