Exploring auditing and training over the Internet

Standard Tech (Hooray!) and Squirrel Tech (boo hiss)

Everybody knows Standard Tech (–Hooray!) is good and Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss) is bad. Right?

Everyone who considers himself a Scientologist wants to be associated with Standard Tech (–Hooray!) as it is good for one’s repute and good for business. I mean, look at all those Hubbard quotes that litter such people’s writings. A Hubbard quote gets instant agreement with that audience.

So you would think Standard Tech (–Hooray!) — SHUT UP! — is easy to define. Well, let’s see.

Hubbard gave many definitions. I don’t want you to think I’m just cherry-picking some that support my point of view and ignore others more prominent that refute it. There are five definitions in the Tech Dictionary. A typical one there is

4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70).

Sounds great, doesn’t it? But WTF does it mean? What exactly are the rules of processing? Everything in the Tech Volumes and 3000 lectures? –No, no, one might say, don’t be an idiot! There are just a few core basics, like the axioms, the auditors code, auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, things like that. Is there a list anywhere? –Oh no, you have to do the Class VIII course in order to know them.

The Class VIII Course was developed in 1968. Its product per the pack is “A zealot for Standard Tech.” I used to supervise the Class VIII Course at Saint Hill in the early 80s. Anyway, let’s go to the Class VIII course, thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, and toss off some quotes from there. Here are a couple I think are pretty typical:

You say, “Yes, but this PC could sit there for a month without any auditing.” It’s god damn well better he did. If there’re two people who have entirely different opinions on what ought to be done with this case, then either one or the other of those two different people do not know standard tech, because if they knew standard tech they would not have any divergence of opinion.

Standard tech isn’t what I say it is. It’s what works. And what works has already been established. So it isn’t for me to say it’s different. And it isn’t for anybody else to say it’s different either, because we fought for it, and we won it the hard way. Now let’s consolidate it.

It sounds fine when put like that. I’ll use my own wording here, in keeping with the above. LRH had it all worked out by this time. And Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1968. Does that sound OK?


Here is one of the purposes of the International Freezone Association, a stalwart of Standard Tech:

IFA Purpose #1: Preserve, protect and promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.

That seems to go along with my definition there. Right?


Let’s zero in on “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH.” At various times over the years Hubbard would say that the technology is all wrapped up. One such time is on this very Class VIII Course. In tape 4 he said, “But Scientology has a very definite body of technical application, which is the only body of technical application in all of the data of Scientology. There are not two ways to do anything in Scientology. In 1966 this was totally summated.”

Oh, OK, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1966, not 1968. I’m sure you see where this is going.

After 1966 came things like F/N Everything, Running Quad Flows, Dianetic Clear, NED, NOTs, and so on. Should these be considered as Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss) because Standard Tech was all wrapped up in 1966? –Oh no, of course not, don’t be silly, they’re all Standard Tech (Hooray!) too.

All right, so it’s following his instructions exactly, after 1968 too. But Miscavige has brought out the Golden Age of Gack, saying it all follows Hubbard’s instructions, and yet everyone knows it is Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss). –Yeah, but we use 1982 as a cut-off point, as that is when DM got on the line.

I got it now, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1982 only.

–Yes! Hip Hip—


All right. But in 1950 he described all those marvellous attributes of Clear, including eidetic memory and so forth, and no-one knows anyone who got that out of going Clear. And there’s that stuff about “male clear read” and “female clear read” and a genuine F/N only occurs between TA 2.0 and 3.0, and in Method 4 Word Clearing if you disagree with anything Hubbard said you must have a misunderstood, and. . . . So some of what he wrote is just plain wrong.

–Yes, but everyone knows how to separate out the good bits from the bad bits. You’re just trying to obfuscate the issue.

Hmm. So Standard Tech would be exactly following his good instructions (and ignoring the bad) up to 1982 only?

–Yes. Right. Hooray!

Now, if you poke around online a bit, you’ll see that Hubbard didn’t originate it all. For example, the Berners developed Study Tech over many years and Hubbard just ripped it off, claimed ownership, and got rid of them fast. And Alan C. Walter developed the first correction list. In these cases, Hubbard just pretended he had originated the tech. There are other similar examples of basic tech developed by others, in distinct contrast to what Hubbard said in KSW about being the sole source.

Similarly, there were HCOBs written by others, supposedly with Hubbard’s approval, which were issued in his name. The old tech volumes showed the actual source of these issues, but the current tech volumes don’t.

So now Standard Tech has come down to exactly following the good instructions (and ignoring the bad), whoever was the actual source although it was called Hubbard, up to 1982 only.

It’s a long way from “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH,” isn’t it?

It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered “Standard Tech” is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?



March 20, 2010 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. Great article Paul. Enjoyed it a lot. Spot on from a scriptural assessment point of view IMHO.

    One thing I would like to ask. “Where do you see any cult dynamics within the pre-1982 bridge either in training or auditing?”

    I list these two models as reference data: the BITE model of mind control (Behavior, Information, Thoughts and Emotions), or Doctor Robert Lifton’s “8 Criteria for Defining a Cult.”

    I notice that some of the “new tech” almost completely get rid of the social elements that create a cult completely: The Pilot’s “Self Clearing Course,” and Dennis Steven’s “The Resolution of Mind” come to mind.

    For me, I see the dynamics appear in rules like that only the auditor can begin and end session, as well as in the way that the TRs and the Book and Bottle routines create instant obedience without thought through hours and hours of repetition.

    Comment by Bunkai | April 8, 2010 | Reply

    • Thank you.

      Re cult dynamics in training and auditing, I don’t know. I’ve never closely examined it. Often, the sight of a naked woman to a man creates instant obedience without thought. Traffic lights do too. Is there an academic thesis somewhere on the “Cult of the Traffic Light”?


      Comment by Paul Adams | April 8, 2010 | Reply

  2. Agreed. Nice post. 🙂

    Comment by thetanforever | October 31, 2010 | Reply

  3. Paul, Your light-hearted summation of the complexities surrounding adoption of “standard tech” is still the sanest view around. Each time I come back to it, I marvel at how you have captured the contradictions and complexities in a way that allows us to acknowledge the outpoints and get on with developing a workable technology that fits the situation at hand.

    Comment by David St Lawrence | October 29, 2011 | Reply

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: