POLICIES ON „SOURCES OF TROUBLE” - 7 MAY 1969

[auditor]

Auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 MAY 1969
(Revises HCO Policy Letter of 17 Oct. 1964)
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Staff
Dianetic Course


POLICIES ON „SOURCES OF TROUBLE”

See also HCO PL 6.4.69 II „DIANETIC REGISTRATION“

Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity exist for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble.
These persons can be grouped under „sources of trouble”. They include:

(a) Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in pro-cessing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.
They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condi-tion does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by any organization or auditor.

(b) Criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so many undetect-ed harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizations or auditors.

(c) Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or who have publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all their immediate families should never be accepted for processing by a Central Organization or auditor. They have a history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientology and are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help from those they have tried to injure.

(d) Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes for their con-dition too often to be acceptable. By responsible-for-condition cases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is „wholly responsible for the terrible condition I am in”. Such cases demand unusual favours, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are losing a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly.

(e) Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liability as they are forced into being processed by some other person and have no personal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary they usually want only to prove the person who wants them audit-ed wrong and so do not get better. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.

(f) Persons who „want to be processed to see if Scientology works” as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News re-porters fall into this category. They should not be audited.

(g) Persons who claim that „if you help such and such a case” (at great and your ex-pense) because somebody is rich and influential or the neighbors would be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for bettering individuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance. Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no ex-traordinary effort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for normal reasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it has the unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment.

(h) Persons who „have an open mind” but no personal hopes or desires for auditing of knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have all open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s efforts „to convince them”.

(i) Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have a purpose far being audited entirely contrary to the auditor’s and so in this conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained they use their training to degrade others. Thus they should not be ac-cepted for training or auditing.

(j) Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology in hearings or attempting to in-vestigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial as their first idea is a firm „I don’t know” and this usually ends with an equally firm „I don’t know”. If a person can’t see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps – carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worth while to give them any time contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that says much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.

To summarize troublesome persons, the policy in general is to cut communication as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no instance where the types of per-sons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction. I know of many instances where they were handled by just ignoring them until they change their minds or just turning one’s back.
In applying a policy of cut-communication one must also use judgement as there are ex-ceptions in all things and to fail to handle a person’s momentary upset in life or with us can be quite fatal. So these policies refer to non-Scientology persons in the main or persons who ap-pear on the outer fringes and push toward us. When such a person bears any of the above des-ignations we and the many are better off to ignore them.
Scientology works. You don’t have to prove it to everyone. People don’t deserve to have Scientology as a divine right, you know. They have to earn it. This has been true in every philosophy that sought to better man.
All the above „sources of trouble” are also forbidden training and when a person being trained or audited is detected to belong under the above headings (a) to (j) he or she should be advised to terminate and accept refund which must be paid at once and the full explanation should be given them at that time. Thus the few may not, in their own turmoil, impede service to and the advance of the many. And the less enturbulence you put on your lines, the better and the more people you will eventually help.



L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:cs.ei.rd