Freezone on the Web:


Holy Cows
in Scientology™

w Cowvorkian.jpg (16158 bytes)

hcow.gif (6326 bytes)

w Rabbi Holstein.jpg (15744 bytes)

E meter Cow

Admin Cow

Holy Cow

Tech Cow

Public Cow

Freezone on the Web

Holy Cow Series 1

Group Engrams and
Holy Cows

"What do we mean by a Holy Cow? It is an ‘everybody knows’ or don’t touch - it’s holy!
It is an idea in a subject somewhat similar to a religious dogma."

Content:

   Full Content Pg

HolyCow Series:

   Group Engrams
        and Holy Cows

    Is KSW a 
       Holy Cow?

   Don't Speak
       about the Tech!

  Ron's Many 
      Hats

  Homepage

  Web Content Page


 

 


Group engrams was first described by Hubbard in 1951. Since then different approaches have existed to try to handle them. None of them have apparently been effective. In this first article of a series we are taking a new look at the different approaches, and what the possible shortcomings were; plus we have a new approach to the problem: the Holy Cow Run Down, a controversial procedure the Church of Scientology™ don’t want you to see.

The Freezone is historically the result of a group engram. Most significant was the Mission Holder Conference October 17, 1982 that led to it's birth. It was almost as painful as a birth engram that day in San Francisco, now over 20 years ago.

A lot have been written and spoken about this; yet little seem to have changed. I would like to use this past anniversary to look back on what happened, what was done and what wasn't done. But let us first cover the bases with some definitions and theory.

Group Engrams was first defined in a Bulletin, called Group Dianetics™ (DAB, Jan 1951). It loosely refers to a group in a state of chock. Something traumatic happens and the group goes hay wire. Hubbard describes it as the effects of arbitrary orders, that appear contrary to the group's ideals and ethics. From the Technical Dictionary:

Group Engram, 1. each time instantaneous action is demanded of the group by compressed time situations, and commands are given by the selected individual or individuals to cope with those moments of emergency, it can be observed that an engram has been implanted in the group. The instantaneous orders and commands (arbitraries) are indicators of an engram. The engram actually was received during a moment of shock when the ideals, ethics, rationale and general thought and energy of the group collided forcefully with mest.

What happened in San Francisco was not an isolated incident. The whole ordeal started about 10 years earlier. Here is a summary as far as we have well documented facts : In the early 70'ies it was decided to execute a secret operation called Snow White. It was executed by Guardians Office under Mary Sue Hubbard's and Jane Kemper's leadership. Many reports suggest, that the idea was conceived by Hubbard himself, while he was staying in New York in 1972-73. The plan was to infiltrate government offices and get copies of all reports they possessed about Church of Scientology™ and Hubbard. It was a highly risky and illegal operation. It was resorted to after it became clear, that the Freedom of Information Act was being obstructed by government officials. They were supposed to provide these documents to Church of Scientology™, but didn't. These reports had special interest, because they could help to pin down who was behind attacks. For a while GO had remarkable success with their covert operation. But as time went on greater and greater risks were taken. Finally the whole thing blew up.

In July 1977 FBI staged a big raid on the Guardian's Offices  in LA and Washington DC simultaneously. As a result the leadership of Church of Scientology™ and GO was rattled and it ended up in a big court case, where Mary Sue Hubbard, Jane Kemper and seven other GO execs were sentenced to jail.

In the wake of this, Hubbard decided to live and work out of sight, so he couldn't be summoned to court or indicted. The GO was disbanded and 'cleaned up'. A new network called OSA was to take its place. It was not an independent network as GO had been, but officially under the local orgs authority. Otherwise little had changed.

However with GO and Mary Sue out of the picture and Hubbard's position weakened, it was still only the beginning of the incident. In 1979-80 Hubbard disappeared completely from sight and wasn't seen publicly again. He died in 1986. Again it seemed to be to avoid summons and trials.

While Hubbard was still on the scene, he had built up his Commodore Messengers Org (CMO) to assist him to execute his leadership and orders. As Hubbard's position weakened, CMO got more and more powerful in his place. When he disappeared they managed to take control after several battles. It was a time of great turmoil and numerous group engrams. There was a transition period of restructuring and power struggle. But out of this came the new leadership under Religious Technology Center and David Miscavige. It appears DM had won the fight internally. He was still an unknown to the orgs and the public at large. There have been many allegations and reports of off policy activities, dirty tricks and outright criminal activities that was used in that power struggle. It has even been suggested, that  Hubbard's will they built their authority on was a forgery. There are still many holes of weak or lacking evidence, allegations and counter allegations.

David Miscavige was a little known entity to the orgs, missions and public at large, but that was about to change. The leadership had set its sights on the affluent and autonome mission network as a target. It took a lot of legal ground work and corporate restructuring to prepare their next major move. The key was, that Religious Technology Center (RTC) was given direct control of copyrighted materials, a new structure of the mission network (SMI) and mission holders having to sign new contracts with SMI with all the carefully crafted small print. Theoretically RTC could now walk in the door and in effect close down any org or mission at their discretion.

At the infamous Mission Holder meeting Oct 17, 1982 the new leadership made their move. It was an ultimatum to the mission holders to surrender and pay up or close up.

The new leaderships 'vision' for Scientology™ was, that it should be promoted and marketed in a slick corporate fashion. They compared their vision with the Coca Cola Company.

The outrage and impact from this meeting spread rapidly into the field. Many powerful missions went independent, some closed. But a baby was born. It was a painful engram to the group. But as the baby had arrived, it needed a name. One year later it was baptized by Captain Bill Robertson. The name was: Freezone.

There were many attempts to clear the mess up and mend the wounds. One reference that applied was from the Group Dianetics™ Bulletin:

The clearing of this engram consists of an examination by the whole group of the arbitraries, which is to say the orders and commands which were issued without explanation and which demanded instantaneous action on the part of other individuals in the group. The person issuing these orders, or persons issuing them, should demonstrate how the situation existed and the why and wherefore of these orders. In this way the engram is cleared out of the group. Rational discussion of this situation and communication of the situation restores the ideals and ethics of the group.

Here is another quote from Notes on the Lectures (1951):

They (the processors) then proceed to discover the basic-basic on the chain of engrams (turmoils) and, after due examination, not only of the arbitrary orders but of the entire status of the turmoil, publish for discussion and information of all the members of the group everything which can be discovered about the situation and with all evidence which can be collected.

In other words according to these references a brutally honest and detailed account of the events is the first step to run out a group engram.

Now over 20 years later many accounts exist. But all of them are emotional and slanted, either for the mission holders or for management. There are many unexplained motives and actions. Although RTC has released a doctored transcript of the event itself, it does not shed light on anything behind the scenes.  In other words there still isn't a reliable, detailed and full account in existence nor a safe environment for this to be sorted out. RTC does not repent their actions and the mission holders don't have access to the whole story. Accounts from Bent Corydon (a mission holder and participant in the meeting) and others is only half of the story.

There were attempts by CMO to arrange meetings and 'talk it out'. But since they were sitting on a big withhold it went nowhere and was considered a smoke screen.

 

Data Series Approach

Another approach to handling Group Engrams is contained in the Establishment Officer Tapes:

From the admin dictionary:

3. It's a wrong why that causes a group engram, and to de-engramize a group all you have to do is a complete competent evaluation and find the right why and handle it correctly and the group will disemote. In other words data analysis is third dynamic de-aberration. (ESTO 2, 7203C01 SO II) (listed under: Third Dynamic Deabberation).

If we try to apply this to the situation we soon run into problems. To do an evaluation you start with defining the Ideal Scene. From there you spot divergences, called out points. By following the trail of out points you arrive at the biggest one: The Real Why.

Obviously for this to work, the group has to agree on an Ideal Scene. RTC's 'vision' for Scientology™ was apparently to exclude independent missions and turn the whole network into a slick multinational corporation completely under their control. The mission holders ideal scene was to disseminate to the public, deliver good service to them, be profitable and of help and eventually send their public on to orgs. That was pretty much how it was laid out in policy.

RTC was obviously turning the meeting into a 'severe reality adjustment'. It has been suggested they were in financial troubles as a result of the Snow White scandal and the 'solution' was to slaughter the mission holders. The leadership outlined a dramatic change of course and didn't care for the consequences. In other words, there were two completely different 'Ideal' Scenes. One laid out in policy for missions and one consisting of management's corporate dreams of money and power.

The Ethics Approach

Around 1969 Hubbard launched a number of issues about Ethics. The ethics officer was portrayed as the auditor of the group or the auditor of the 3rd dynamic. By investigating for suppressive persons and potential trouble sources and handle them or declare them he would archieve his purpose (from admin dictionary):

4. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scn can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65).

This has some workability. But as we have seen, Ethics is no easy matter to administrate. It takes a high skill level, which usually has been neglected. It all too easily gets corrupted by special interests of powerful execs. So until you have a completely independent branch of highly trained specialists, like the courts are supposed to be, it does not stand much of a chance. Ethics has become a very humanoid tool to enforce higher production, get rid of opponents or 'downstats' and sometimes as sheer harassment.

Although I have seen numerous successes where ethics was applied by and to individuals, I can't say the history of the subject as a whole has convinced me about anything except that it's a two edged sword that few have the skill and integrity to use.

As far as the Group Engram in question is concerned Ethics was grossly misused as the 'weapon of choice' to purge out anybody, that was in disagreement with the new management. I doubt if any amount of investigation and use of Repair of Past Ethics Conditions etc. can ever straighten that mess out and heal the group.

One of the major weaknesses of the Ethics system is, in my opinion, that there are absolutely no rights or protection for the defendant. Burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty, Miranda rights, independent judges etc. are just not there. In other words, if somebody in power says you are guilty, you are sunk! The only thing that can save you is, if you are a heck of a talker and somebody choose to listen. In other words, a subject with a lot of power to it has all too often been turned into a loaded gun with no safety mechanism installed.

Also an ethics system will only handle a third dynamic, that has a stable frame of reference. When you talk about the whole group which is in a battle with FBI, IRS, its own field and own members and which leadership has been found guilty of crimes, this frame of reference goes out the window. This is a condition of war. We saw an ugly power struggle, that totally set aside the rationale of the group in the early 1980'ies. In that situation Ethics was the weapon of choice in a partisan fight for control and power; not a serene quest for the greatest good by a blindfolded lady.

What Can Be Done


After studying these various approaches that has been developed over the years, only this stands out as a workable and doable approach: Having an independent and hopefully unbiased 'historian' write the whole time track of the events. I am sure that would have a tremendous impact in terms ‘reducing the engram’ - even 20 years later. A group has its own memory banks and even with change of personnel, the engram is still there. It would help reconciliate the Freezone and the Church of Scientology™ into at least to be able to coexist. It could have a reforming influence on the Church of Scientology™ and possibly help remind them of their true responsibilities.

I can't say I am sure it will ever be written. The Church of Scientology™'s' line seems so set on being right and presenting things as being perfect or at least necessary and rational. They are not likely to permit access to needed documents nor allow key personnel to testify.

Arbitraries is at the Root

There is a personal approach to straightening out group engrams and problems. Basically it's based on what we know from the above definitions; but there is a second definition in the Technical Dictionary we need:

2. a group is composed of individuals. If they have a group engram, it only has force because of basics on that subject in their banks. Thus, if they are cleaned up on the general subject, the general group engram should blow off and disappear. (HCOB 27 Feb 70).

This contains the additional truth, that we all have a hand in perpetuating a bad situation. The group engram is based on our individual abberations coming into play. The arbitrary commands have set our case whistling and a way to stop it is to look at our part. It can be understood in terms of By-passed Charge (BPC). BPC means charge that was restimulated but not picked up or handled. So we push this theory a little further and address areas that contain BPC on the third dynamic. We want to address this common BPC on the individual group member.

When we look over Group Dianetics, the book Notes on the Lectures and another early Bulletin called An Essay on Authoritanism, we find this factor mentioned again and again: Arbitraries. In the book  it is defined as: An order or command which was issued without explanation, and demanded instantaneous action on the part of other members of the group.

That's the group dynamic definition.

The general definition is: Something which is introduced into the situation without regard to the data of the situation
Introduction of these arbitraries cause BPC in the group.

 

If we isolate and address areas, that contain arbitraries we can certainly help group members to become stronger and less prone to group upsets, mob mentality or mass hysteria. In terms of BPC the rule is, the moment the correct by-passed charge is found and indicated the person feels much better.

If our analysis is good and we have many group members using the data, it will have a definite impact on the group's rationale and help deaberrate the group.

Let me give an example: Let’s say we have a group of five years old kids playing peacefully. Suddenly you scream: Watch out the Boogie man is coming! They will start to cry and run around in panic. That’s a group engram.

Then you educate them and teach them, that boogie men doesn’t exist. A year later you repeat the experiment. You scream: Watch out, the Boogie man is coming! Now they know that it’s a complete arbitrary and they will laugh and start making jokes about it.

Because they knew it was just a silly arbitrary, they acted calmly and rational in the situation and after a few jokes (a form of rejection), they went on with their business of playing.

In this series of articles we will chase arbitraries and ‘boogie men’ and the like. There is one type of arbitrary we especially find interesting to look for: Holy Cows. These are the arbitraries, that everybody seem to agree upon, yet they don’t hold up to rational inspection. By finding arbitraries, boogie men and holy cows and educate ourselves through study, drills and processing our whole outlook as group members will change and so will the group.

Our quest here, is to take the many aspects of organized Scientology™ apart and put the pure auditing tech in one bin and and mark it "Good". Then examine other parts for possible recycling.

Sincerely,                      
Holy Cow!                     

Group Engrams and Holy Cows      (HSC 1)
Is KSW a  Holy Cow?                        (HCS 2)
Don't Speak about the Tech!           (HCS 3)
Ron's Many  Hats                               (HCS 4)
Homepage                                           (Click)

   Check our Content Page

Article from IVy - the WW print magazine
 - get your free copy (click)

© 2002 by Holy Cows. All rights reserved. 

 

  

   Check our Content Page

 

"Let me give an example: Let’s say we have a group of five years old kids playing peacefully. Suddenly you scream: Watch out the Boogie man is coming! They will start to cry and run around in panic. That’s a group engram"

"What happened in San Francisco was not an isolated incident. The whole ordeal started about 10 years earlier."

"In July 1977 FBI staged a big raid on the Guardian's Offices  in LA and Washington DC simultaneously. As a result the leadership of Church of Scientology™ and GO was rattled"

 

"As Hubbard's position weakened, CMO got more and more powerful in his place. When he disappeared they managed to take control after several battles"

   
 

"At the infamous Mission Holder meeting Oct 17, 1982 the new leadership made their move. It was an ultimatum to the mission holders to surrender and pay up or close up."

 

"The new leaderships 'vision' for Scientology™ was, that it should be promoted and marketed in a slick corporate fashion. They compared their vision with the Coca Cola Company."

   
 

"In other words according to these references a brutally honest and detailed account of the events is the first step to run out a group engram"

   
   
   
 

"RTC was obviously turning the meeting into a 'severe reality adjustment'. They outlined a dramatic change of course and didn't care for the consequences. In other words, there were two completely different 'Ideal' Scenes"

   
 

"Ethics has become a very humanoid tool to enforce higher production, get rid of opponents or 'downstats' and sometimes as sheer harassment"

   
   
   
 

"After studying these various approaches that has been developed over the years, only this stands out as a workable and doable contribution: Having an independent and hopefully unbiased 'historian' write the whole time track of the events"

   
   
 

"This contains the additional truth, that we all have a hand in perpetuating a bad situation. The group engram is based on our individual abberations coming into play"

   
 

" the moment the correct by-passed charge is found and indicated the person feels much better"