Dear Mr. Camacho:
I received your January 15, 2019 email response to my post “Batting for CENSUR”1 and I will reply more fully in due course. Right now, I am just following along Hubbard’s Personal Efficiency route.
Please see this version of his “PE Handout” published in Volume 6 of The Organization Executive Course © 1991. 2This publication is important in the immediate matter of Hubbard’s claim to be a civil engineer for several reasons.
It shows your assertion that Scientology’s final use of the CE title was in November 1963 to be false. It also shows your assertion that Scientology corrected the errors in Hubbard’s biography well before even Marquis Who’s Who did is false.
Why the Scientologists would publish this when cult head Miscavige and his whole regime know it is stuffed with lies they know to be lies — including C.E., nuclear physicist, educated in advanced physics and higher mathematics, a student of Sigmund Freud, inventor of the precision science of Scientoology, the first science to launch a thousand firsts – is not explained, but it is understandable. Some people will believe it, or shelve their good judgment or disbelief, and put themselves under Scientology control, pay money, help victimize others, and hate the wogs who remind them how bad their judgment has been and what evil they are supporting.
A factor in the Miscavige regime’s decision to keep telling these cruel lies they know to be lies in “PE Handout,” and elsewhere, is Miscavige and his co-conspirators’ psychological condition. They appear to love lying, love duping people, love bullying people, love destroying people. Miscavige, et al. manifest psychopathy, either organic or situational.
Your failure in your article to mention the Scientologists’ continuing use, indeed 1991 publication, of “PE Handout,” featuring Ron-the-CE, also shows that either you lied when you portrayed yourself as “evaluating” only after having “all the data,” or you knew about this publication and willfully omitted any reference to it in order to forward lies that whitewash Hubbard and disparage persons you identify as “critics” or “religious scholars.”
Even what you write in your article about the “PE Handout” version that the Scientologists published in Volume 6 of © 1970’s Organization Executive Course is dishonest. I will quote that section of your article and comment on some of your fake facts and poor scholarship.3
Similarly, a PE (Personal Efficiency) Handout from April 1961 apparently showed that Hubbard referred to himself as “C.E., PhD” (Hubbard 1974f, 196–99). Nevertheless, Hubbard having authored the PE Handout would appear virtually impossible.
The opposite is true. It appears virtually impossible that Hubbard did not write “PE Handout.”
Firstly, the parenthetical note before Hubbard’s name at the bottom stated:
The article ‘What Is Scientology?’ has been entirely re-written by Ron, and this one should be used in preference to the original one which was written in Johannesburg and issued there.
This article attributed changes to Hubbard without indicating any initial assistant or compiler and instead used only the typists’ initials “jl.rd.”
The logical conclusion is that there was no “initial assistant or compiler,” so there is no one for you to blame as source other than Hubbard.
“rd” is Rosemary Delderfield. She was not the typist, but one of the Scientologists responsible for “typesetting, proofreading and makeup” of the © 1970’s OEC Course volumes 0-7. Her husband Ken Delderfield could be called the compiler. 4
Yet, the original “What Is Scientology?” article first appeared in the April 1961 Ability issued from Washington D.C., not Johannesburg, as “Scientology”—again written by Eleanore Turner (née Eddy), without a “C.E.” title (Turner 1961a, 6).
You have provided no evidence that Eleanore Turner wrote the article “Scientology” that was published in Ability 127 in April 1961. She was then the editor of Ability. Hubbard gave her his articles to put in the magazine. He had the whole magazine copyrighted in his name.
The writing in “Scientology” is Hubbard’s. You have provided no evidence that Turner wrote like that; whereas there are millions of Hubbard’s words confirming he wrote like that, including the text in “PE Handout.”
It was Hubbard’s practice to write promotional articles about himself in the third person. This is an understandable practice because he was such a gargantuan self-glorifier and liar; indeed he ended up judicially ruled “virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements.” Your omission of this judgment about Hubbard’s lying, which was confirmed on appeal, while you are trying to whitewash his lying by trying to prove that he had also told the truth about some fact he lied about and made others lie about, evidences your knowledge both of Hubbard’s dishonesty and your own.
The fact that Ability was issued from DC, not Johannesburg, is irrelevant, although you appear to be attaching unwarranted relevance to this fact. You have provided no evidence that Hubbard did not write and issue in South Africa whatever article was later “entirely rewritten by Ron” to become “What Is Scientology” in “PE Handout.”
It is likely that what Hubbard wrote in South Africa was what he sent to Turner in DC to put in Ability 127. I do not have whatever that was, and you have not produced it.
It is reasonable that Hubbard did write and issue a handout about Scientology and himself in South Africa, because he was there in early 1961 to deliver the “Third South African ACC.” It is clear that he sent Turner his article “3rd South African ACC, Holding a Standard” for inclusion in Ability, so it is completely reasonable that he also sent her the article “Scientology.” It is unreasonable that Turner herself wrote this article.
Even if Turner had actually written the article, which she didn’t, it is irrelevant because of the assertion that “‘What Is Scientology?’ has been entirely re-written by Ron.” All available evidence shows that Hubbard did indeed entirely rewrite and publish “What is Scientology,” and did direct its dissemination and use in PE handouts.
Secondly, despite a bracketed note after Hubbard’s name which stated “Originally issued on 12 April 1961. The 14 April 1961 correction added paragraph 9,” no cancellation, revision, or Issue II appeared at the top—atypical for Hubbard Communications Office (HCO) documents.
This is irrelevant. The © 1970’s OEC volumes contain many such notes at the bottom of HCO-issued documents included in the volumes. It is obvious that these notes were added by the team headed by Ken Delderfield who was tasked with compiling these volumes. It is obvious that Delderfield and his team left in place the top notes that were in the individual issues indicating revisions, issue numbers, etc., and the team published additional notes that they deemed necessary to clarify or resolve contradictions or other problems they discovered in the process of assembling and publishing these OEC volumes.
In the © 1991 OEC volumes, the Miscavige regime has apparently removed the Delderfield team’s notes, including the note about the addition of “paragraph 9” at the bottom of “PE Handout.”
In fact, no 12 April 1961 HCO Information Letter had ever existed.
You cannot know this as a fact, and you cannot prove it. You can know where you looked for the subject documents, and you can know with whom you communicated in an effort to find or verify the document’s existence. But you cannot know that it never existed. Stating as proven facts you cannot possibly know are facts is a common error in scholarship in your logic and writing.
In addition to the lack of proper authorship, revisions and nonexistent references, a “Not HCO Correct” appeared as a small note at the top of this letter, which further indicated an incorrect, unofficial and misattributed status.
This is false, at least in the 1976 printing of OEC Volume 6 that I possess. 5 The note at the top of “PE Handout” actually states:
NOT HCO POLICY LETTER
CORRECT COLOUR FLASH
BLUE ON WHITE
This in no way indicated an incorrect, unofficial and misattributed status. It merely shows that “PE Handout” is not an HCO Policy Letter, and therefore should not be printed green on white, but should be blue on white. The © 1970’s OEC compilation/publishing team clearly had all the OEC volumes printed only with green ink on white paper regardless of the issue types in the volumes.
See, e.g., this image of page 208 in Volume 6. HCOB 18 June 1957 “People’s Questions” was printed red on white and published in the Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology © 1976. I haven’t found HCOB 29 January 1960 “Congresses,” but I haven’t searched very hard, and it isn’t necessary. 6
The point is that the clarification of the color flash of non-HCOPL issues in the © 1970’s OEC volumes does not indicate “an incorrect, unofficial and misattributed status” for the “PE Handout” Information Letter. Your claim is bogus.
Notice that the © 1991 OEC contains different color paper and inks for the various different issue types the volumes contain. “PE Handout is” printed blue on white.
Thirdly, Hubbard could not have written or issued the PE Handout from Johannesburg as he was in England during this time.
You have not shown where it is stated or even implied that Hubbard wrote or issued “PE Handout” from Johannesburg. You are either misreading the compilation team’s note that mentions Johannesburg, or you are being deliberately dense. (Pretended ignorance is one of the Scientologists’ most employed and important “beingnesses,” as they call them, by which they seek to control others.)
Read the note again:
(Please note: The article “What Is Scientology?” has been entirely re-written by Ron, and this one should be used in preference to the original one which was written in Johannesburg and issued there – HCO Sec WW)
You have obviously mixed up (deliberately or not) what Hubbard wrote and issued in Johannesburg with what he claimed was the “entirely re-written” “What is Scientology?” that he had published in April 1961. He probably was indeed in England at that time, and virtually all the Hubbard issues from that time period were printed as coming from the “Hubbard Communications Office, Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead Sussex, regardless of where Hubbard was physically.
Hubbard issued “S.O.P. Goals” from England in HCO Bulletins and Policy Letters between 18 February to 11 April. Additionally, the April 1961 Ability stated:
HCO Special Events Course, previously announced to begin on April 17th, HAS BEEN POSTPONED […] The reason for the postponement of this course is—instructors Dick and Jan Halpern are going to St. Hill [England] for a very thorough briefing from Ron on S.O.P. Goals (Turner 1961b, 10).
In fact, Hubbard abolished the PE Course on 23 January 1961 when the 3rd South African A.C.C. began (Hubbard 1974a, 191).
Irrelevant, but also a bit risible. What Hubbard actually stated in HCO PL 23 January 1961 was: “As exactly none are enrolling in HAS Co-Audit from PE after test, although the PE sells well it is experimentally abolished.” (Emphasis mine.) His experiment apparently didn’t last long, because on 14 February 1961 he published HCOPL “The Personal Efficiency Foundation,” on 18 February 1961 HCO IL “Magazines, Testing, PE,” on 24 March 1961 HCO PL “Status of PE Courses,” on 12 or 14 April “HCO IL “PE Handout,” and he continued for some years to write and publish about PE.
Hubbard also at some point renamed PE “BS,” or “Beginning Scientologist.” See, e.g., HCOPL 31 May 1965 “Mission Summary of Policy.”
He then appointed Peter Greene (1929–1991) as the Johannesburg HASI Association Secretary on 30 January 1961 (Hubbard 1974b, 146). Then on 15 February 1961, Greene wrote the HCO Policy Letter Evaluation Script, which stated, “Script written by Peter Greene on Experience with PE Foundation, Johannesburg, based on recent PE Policy Letters,” but never specified which letters they were based on, and instead attributed the authorship to Hubbard.
This is false. It is acknowledged that Greene wrote the script. The script is included in the policy letter. You have provided no evidence that Greene wrote the PL. The available evidence is that Greene wrote the script and Hubbard incorporated it into his PL. This was a common practice for Hubbard when other Scientologists made contributions like Greene’s.
Greene appeared neither as the originator (i.e. “For L. Ron Hubbard”), the compiler, the assistant (i.e. “PG”), nor even as the typist (i.e. “pg”) at the bottom (Hubbard 1974c, 169–71), which proved misleading.
How? Maybe it is misleading to you, but it is not to me. This is not to say that Hubbard was not a consummate misleader, nor that his underlings are not misleaders. They have mislead millions of people. They use “confusion tech” to mislead people. They lie to mislead. Hubbard intended and crafted his “PE Handout” to mislead people. But it is not misleading that Peter Greene was named at the top of the “Evaluation Script” PL as source of the script, and not named at the bottom as source of the PL.
Then, exactly one day after the last 3rd South African A.C.C. lecture of 17 February 1961, without any explanation HCO Information Letters—a type of HCO previously unseen—began to appear on 18 February once Hubbard returned to England (Hubbard 1974d, 193). Additionally, this first issue titled Magazines, Testing, PE stated “Not HCO Original,” which indicated authorship by someone other than Hubbard.
Irrelevant, and false. HCO Information Letter of 18 February 1961 actually states at the top:
NOT HCO POLICY LETTER
ORIGINAL COLOUR FLASH
BLUE ON WHITE
See my explanation above for what this means. It does not indicate authorship by someone other than Hubbard. It concerns only the color of the paper and the ink.
The 2 March 1961 HCO Policy Letter Automatic Evaluation Packet stated, “all sheets and plan of the Auto Evaluation itself now exist in Johannesburg,” which further indicated Greene’s authorship.
Authorship of what? This sounds irrelevant. Greene authored the script. Hubbard authored the PL containing Greene’s script.
The Automatic Evaluation Packet unveiled a plan to release eight items, which not only mentioned item number “3. What is Scientology?” but also stated that item “No. 7 State of Release has already appeared in this form. (HCO Info Letter of February 22nd, 1961).” The 22 February 1961 HCO Info Letter not only did not exist,
You cannot know that this HCO IL did not exist. There is more evidence that this HCO IL did exist than it did not.
You can honestly say that you could not find it. But you cannot honestly say it did not exist. I can think of all sorts of reasons why Hubbard could have issued it, referred to it, and then changed his mind, and even collected up any copies. Using such egocentric logic, which I imagine is very comforting, anything you can’t find didn’t or doesn’t exist as far as you are concerned. How that would work with your house keys could be comedic.
but created a major anachronism as it conflicted with the claims that these items would be written as per the Automatic Evaluation Packet: “As soon as I write these handouts mentioned in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 they will appear as HCO Information Letters for your getting them letter-pressed [emphasis added]” (Hubbard 1974e, 172).
What Hubbard wrote in HCO PL 2 March 1961 “Automatic Evaluation Packet” regarding item 7 “The State of Release” having already appeared does not create a major anachronism. Or even a minor anachronism.
What appears most likely to me is that between when Hubbard wrote and published “Automatic Evaluation Packet” and when he entirely re-wrote “What is Scientology?” (item 3) and published it in “PE Handout” on April 14, 1961, he changed his mind about item 7 “The State of Release.” He titled a section in “What is Scientology?” “The State of Release.” It is likely that if he ever did write “The State of Release” as an Information Letter, he withdrew or scrapped the IL in favor of including it in his “What is Scientology?” handout.
Hubbard also, by the way, included items 4, 5 and 6 from “Automatic Evaluation Packet” in “What is Scientology?:” “The Cheapest Way,” “The Fastest Way,” and “The Educational Way.”
Note that regarding “What is Scientology, Hubbard wrote, “As soon as I write [it, it] will appear as [an] Information Letter.” This is what happened, and is another confirmation that he wrote the article, not Greene, not Turner, not anyone but Hubbard.
Furthermore, the March 1961 Ability had first published “The State of Release” (Hubbard 1961b, 1), while an identical “State of Release” later appeared in the aforementioned 14 April 1961 PE Handout, thus contradicting the latter’s origination date, type and location claims of “No. 7 (The State of Release) has already come to you as part of a recent Info Ltr [the nonexistent one from 22 February 1961] and is repeated here.”
This actually supports the fact that Hubbard wrote “What is Scientology?” and “PE Handout,” rather than supporting the idea that someone else wrote these. What you have here is Hubbard contradicting himself and not correcting the record where he did so. He did this throughout his years inventing and running Dianetics and Scientology.
The fact that Hubbard, as you acknowledge, wrote “The State of Release” that was published in Ability 126, and the fact that this article was republished with only minor changes in “What is Scientology” in the “PE Handout” actually supports the conclusion that Hubbard wrote the whole of these, not Turner, not Greene.
Finally, item number “2. Form Letter giving IQ and Future” had already appeared in Greene’s 15 February 1961 Evaluation Script, although unnamed as such.
You can repeat this as many times as you want, and it still will not be true.
Per all of the available data, all evidence would indicate that Peter Greene wrote the HCO Information letters and thus misattributed authorship and thus the C.E. title to Hubbard.
False, and unproven. You have supplied no evidence, and your logic strings do not hold together. Greene wrote the script. Hubbard wrote the PL that included Greene’s script.
And Hubbard wrote “What is Scientology?” including calling himself “C.E., Ph.D., a nuclear physicist.”
For the record, the earliest reference I have found where Hubbard seems to have misrepresented himself as a CE was in a 1942 letter from John W. Campbell to Robert Heinlein, which predates the Who’s Who materials. I quoted this in an article I wrote in 2016, which really concerned Hubbard’s navy career and faking injuries, not his CE claim:
Even earlier, upon his ignominious return to the US from Australia, Hubbard communicated a far more heroic account to John W. Campbell, his science fiction editor, which Campbell wrote about in a letter dated May 13, 1942 to Robert Heinlein.
L. Ron Hubbard’s in town—temporarily confined to the Sick Officer’s Quarters. He’s angry, bitter, and very much afraid—afraid he’ll get assigned to some shore job, which he does not want, and kept from going to sea again.
Angry and bitter because, I suspect, he was among those licked. He collected a piece of Jap bomb in his thigh during the battle of the Java Sea, as far as I can make out. He was aboard ship at the time, apparently, and Allied air power was not giving adequate coverage.
He is a graduate C.E., but is also rather competent in several lines. He was barnstorming for a living for a while, and has a private pilot’s license. He did some fairly useful mapping along the Alaska coast by a new radio-beam survey method. And he has imagination, of course.
If the guy is hooked for shore duty—he’s got a limp; how permanent I don’t know, nor how bad—he might be useful. His own feeling is that his direct experience with Jap weapons, methods and tactics might be his prime asset.7
Campbell didn’t read that Hubbard was a graduate C.E. in Who’s Who, and I very much doubt Campbell had heard this from something a typist, secretary, or LRH PR had gotten wrong about Hubbard.
- Batting for CESNUR: Rookie Ian Camacho takes his swings for the team ↩
- HCO Info Letter PE Handout (PDF format) ↩
- Degrees of Truth: Engineering L. Ron Hubbard by Ian C. Camacho. (Download PDF: https://cesnur.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/tjoc_2_4_3_camacho.pdf ↩
- OEC Vol 7 Copyright page. (1st US Printing 1974) (PDF format) ↩
- HCO Information Letter PE Handout (2nd US printing) (1961-04-14) (PDF format) ↩
- OEC Vol 6 p. 208 (2nd US Printing 1976) (PDF format) ↩
- Sounding the Sheep Dip for Bubbles ↩