The Anderson Report


Over the past fifteen years Hubbard has developed a great variety of auditing processes. These have been tried for a time and then put aside when Hubbard has claimed some new dramatic ultimate breakthrough and has enthusiastically announced techniques considered appropriate to his new ideas, But seldom, if ever, have any of his processes been declared to be wrong or defective. Quite the reverse. Mrs. Williams was unable to recall any process which had been abandoned, though some may have been put into cold storage. In HCO Bull. of the 15th May AD 13 (1963), Hubbard wrote in relation to engram running that "all lectures and books on it are true", though subsequent HCO bulletins took precedence over earlier material. In HCO Bull. of the 9th July, 1963, Hubbard wrote, "Today we assume that every successful process we ever had is and was a valid process." And as late as the 26th November, 1963, in a policy letter of that date, he wrote, "It is evident that 13 years of research developed many processes and styles of auditing and that these are all useful and necessary to the successful progress of cases." Thus there are many processes developed by Hubbard which may be drawn upon according as his whim or that of the director of processing or an auditor directs. Both in relation to Hubbard's theories and his techniques, scientology witnesses experienced embarrassment. Notwithstanding that during 1963 Hubbard wrote a number of bulletins which in sheer fantasy at least equal or even surpass the contents of A History of Man, Williams and other witnesses sought to explain away the earlier fantastic theories by saying that, though not jettisoned, they did not play an active part in current scientology practice. This is not the case. The most fanciful nonsense about helatrobus implants and gorilla goals and much more besides dominated Hubbard's effusions of 1963 and made it a vintage year for absurdity.

The scientology witnesses also said that many of the techniques appearing in Hubbard's writings were not now used, at least, not in Victoria; but it was admitted that they could be reintroduced at any time. The evidence of scientology witnesses as to practices and processes used at the ETASI was generally unsatisfactory in that they endeavoured to play down the nature and extent of practices in use, the intensity with which they were practised and the apparently disturbing effects they had on preclears.

The HASI sought to present scientology as a benign regimen, broadcasting health, happiness and sanity in the most pleasant of ways, kindly, helpful, simple, easy, noble. It was none of these. The evidence the Board heard and the files it examined give the lie to such claims. The attempt to play down scientology became more apparent as the Inquiry proceeded, efforts being made to disguise or modify the various features and effects of processes, which were shown by expert psychiatric evidence to be detrimental to mental health. The Board was told that various procedures were not now used, that others were not as long or as intense as had earlier appeared, that exteriorization was not now an objective, that past lives were not of importance, even that the demonstration sessions which had been conducted at the beginning of the Inquiry were not now as fully representative as they had been because the emphasis was now more on "overt withholds" than on "straight wire ARC". The Board was not deceived by these attempts to present a "watered down" picture of scientology. Just around the corner are more of Hubbard's "breakthroughs", and more techniques and theories. The bulletins and other written material of 1963 and 1964 abound in details of engram running, goals-problems-mass and a multitude of other past life matters. The Board voiced the view during the Inquiry, as it does now, that once this Inquiry is finished there will be a resurgence of all the pernicious activity which marked the progress of scientology up to the appointment of this Board, if only it can find sufficient victims to exploit.


Many of Hubbard's processes, especially those developed in the 1950's, were deliberately designed to produce "exteriorization", a state or condition known to psychiatrists as "dissociation", which is produced by hypnotic means. Dissociation is an hallucinatory experience in which the subject believes that he is outside his body. Hubbard claimed that the thetan did in fact leave the body during "exteriorization" and go to some place outside it in obedience to the command of "Be three feet back of your head" and similar commands. One of Hubbard's books, The Creation of Human Ability, published in 1955, is largely devoted to techniques designed to produce exteriorization. In this book the command "Be three feet back of your head" is then followed by other commands to the preclear to be in various places alternatively pleasant and unpleasant, and "then in more and more dangerous places until he can sit in the centre of the Sun." These techniques are essentially hypnotic and repetitive.

Routine R1-13 directs that the preclear should "duplicate his body many, many times and push the mock-up into it." The auditor is then directed,

"Have him interiorize and exteriorize many times from his present body. Then have him mock-up the electronic structure of his body until he can see it easily. Now ask him 'Do you see any gold balls in your head?' If he does not, have him mock-up gold balls until his head's golden balls appear. Now have him move any golden balls he finds which are out of position in his head until they are in proper position."

And so it goes on. These are dangerous hypnotic procedures in unskilled hands. One of the routines, given the number and name "R2-17: Opening procedure by duplication until preclear feels good about it", involves the selection of two dissimilar objects such as a book and an ash tray or a book and a bottle. These are placed several feet apart. The auditor then commands the preclear, "Go over to that book", "Look at it", "Pick it up", "What is its colour?", "What is its weight?", "Put it down in exactly the same place". The same commands are given in respect of the ash tray or the bottle. Hubbard then writes, "The same word and the same formula are used over and over again until the preclear has had a sufficient number of hours of Opening Procedure by Duplication to enable him to do it without communication lag, without protest, without apathy, but only cheerfulness, each time seeing the items newly. This is a process which is done by the hour. The process is better when done consecutively for many hours rather than done an hour apiece each day for several days."

This process is in fact dangerous to the mental health of the preclear, who may be reduced to a state of insensible automation or may become deranged under the persistent commands of the auditor who is controlling him by hypnotic procedures. This process has been used in the Melbourne HASI until relatively recent times. One witness who for a time had been director of processing said that he had been run on this process for nine and a half hours without any breaks at all.

The Creation of Human Ability, a book of over 250 pages, is full of details of similar techniques for producing exteriorization. No good purpose would be served in detailing the other techniques, for all are condemned for the same reason.

Demonstration Sessions.

Certain processes admittedly in current use were demonstrated for the Board in specially arranged sessions. These demonstrations were presented for the information of the Board at the HGC premises in Coates Lane, Melbourne. The Board witnessed the sessions on a closed television circuit; in each of the demonstration sessions Tampion was the auditor. The preclears were selected by lot from a small group of scientologists who had volunteered for the purpose. The demonstrations, seven in number, were intended to be a cross section or sample of the processes then being currently used at the HASI. They were described as being processes from level 1 to level 4. The demonstrations were not full length auditing sessions, for the normal session is about 2½ hours in length and sessions are often conducted twice daily for several days, whereas most of the demonstrations took only from half an hour to an hour. Some were even shorter. Furthermore, the demonstrations suffered from the handicap that the preclears concerned were aware that they were being observed on television, and, while both the auditor and the preclears no doubt endeavoured to simulate an orthodox session, they may have been inhibited to some extent by the consciousness that they were on show.

These demonstrations, which were given at an early stage of the Inquiry, were probably conducted along efficient scientology lines as far as circumstances permitted. However, the scientologists themselves conceded that certain limitations should be placed upon their value and adequacy.

One important aspect of all the demonstrations was the strict routine followed by the auditor when he and the preclear went into session and when they came out of session.

Listen Style Auditing.

The first demonstration was of a process entitled "Listen Style auditing". This is a Class I process and engaged in at quite an elementary stage in scientology experience. It involved the auditor asking the preclear, "Tell me about the right decisions you have made", whereupon the preclear began to talk about her affairs without pause or interruption until after about half an hour the auditor stopped her as the allotted time had run out. At the beginning of the session the preclear had stated her goals as being that the session would be fantastic, that she should gets lots of wins, feel more positive about things, feel more relaxed, and feel more positive that she could handle things, situations at home "so that everybody is happy". At the end of the session she had her goals read out to her and enthusiastically said that she had had gains in them all. Nine days later she was admitted to hospital as a mental patient. Her tragic case is referred to in Chapter 23, where the fact that this apparently simple process can have dangerous consequences is discussed.

A.R.C. Straight Wire.

The second process demonstrated was called "ARC Straight wire". The auditor commanded the preclear repeatedly to "Recall an emotion", "Recall something real", "Recall a communication". The preclear complied with these commands by giving details of his experiences as a sailor, as a soldier and in other roles. The session was of nearly an hour's duration, but a normal session would be much longer. In this demonstration an E-meter was used, though it was said that this is often not the case. By this process the preclear was supposed to have


gains of increased affinity, reality and communication, to feel happier, have more agreement with people and communicate more easily and effectively. This, said Williams, is brought about by the preclear's re-evaluation of past experiences and changed attitudes towards people in the environment as well as the "release of emotional charge" .

As will be mentioned later in this Report, the repetitive commands which are designed to probe the preclear's past may have adverse effects on the mental health of particular individuals. In the demonstration session, the preclear, conscious of the audience, recalled innocuous emotions. There is clear evidence in the many processing files examined that, in the privacy of an ordinary session, emotionally disturbed preclears readily confess to their auditors matters of an intimate and shameful nature.

CCH 's.

The third demonstration session, a common form of process in which the preclear does not necessarily speak, was of the CCH's, meaning "Control-Communication-Havingness". The instructions for training students in the CCH's are contained in HCO Bull. of the 5th July, 1963. There appear to be four CCH's. Students are trained in these techniques by coaches. Thereafter, as auditors, they use them on preclears.

According to the bulletin, in CCH I and CCH 3 the student and the coach sit facing each other, the student's knees on the outside of both of the coach's knees.

The four CCH's were demonstrated to the Board. In CCH I the auditor asked the preclear for her hands alternately, repeating the command a number of times. Each time the preclear tendered a hand. In the demonstration session, the command was given three times for each hand, but in session and in training this process, either alone or in conjunction with others, can go on for hours.

In CCH 2, the auditor commanded the preclear "You look at that wall", "You walk over to that wall", "You touch that wall", "Turn around". The preclear did all these things, the auditor saying "Thank you" after each command was carried out and also asking the preclear some questions. The series of commands was repeated only three times, but in full session they may be repeated many times.

The third, CCH 3, is called "Hand Space Mimicry". In training, the student and coach sit facing each other. In the demonstration session the auditor asked the preclear to place her hands against his and to follow them and contribute to their motion. The auditor moved his hands around and the preclear's hands followed. This was repeated six times, but in full session may be repeated many times over a much longer period. Hubbard's instructions in relation to CCH 3 are that after the exercise as described above is done in training the command is then given, "Put your hands facing mine about a half an inch away, follow them and contribute to their motion." This exercise is then continued until it is "flat", that is, satisfactory, and then the "student does it with a wider space and so on until coach is able to follow motion a yard away."

In CCH 4, called "Book Mimicry", the auditor in the demonstration took up a book and made several movements with the book which the preclear imitated. The series of movements was repeated only a few times in the demonstration session but in full session the process is continued for much longer periods, until the process is "flat".

The purpose of these processes is said to be to develop in the preclear control of his body, to develop his reality on things and to improve his communication.

These processes are frequently very protracted in full session. When continued for a substantial time, the emotions of preclears may be taxed beyond endurance, so that they become hysterical, and symptoms of mental imbalance develop or are intensified. They frequently lead to discussion between the preclear and the auditor of the preclear's most intimate sexual secrets and behaviour, and at times to the preclear developing sexual urges towards the auditor, if of the opposite sex. These happenings are explained by the fact that these processes when practised for hours at a time almost invariably produce a state of hypnosis.

ARC straight wire and the CCH's are Class 2 processes, and proficiency in these is necessary to qualify for the HQS certificate.

Slow Assessment by Dynamics, Rudiments, Havingness.

Demonstration 4 was of a process entitled "R2C - slow assessment by dynamics plus rudiments, questions and havingness." This was a composite session of a number of processes. The auditor asked the preclear, a woman, "Since you were last audited has anything been suppressed?" She had been audited the previous evening and found some difficulty in finding anything which had been suppressed since then, but as the E-meter showed a reaction each time


the question was asked, she struggled to find an instance. She was then asked, "Since the last time you were audited is there anything you have been careful of?" to which she gave an oblique and rambling answer about care in taking her children to school that morning.

The circumstance that her last auditing session had ended at about ten o'clock the previous night probably inhibited this demonstration. The preclear was herself an experienced scientologist, who was evidently aware of the unseen audience in the room outside. In a full session, the questioning would continue for much longer and an already disturbed preclear would tend to see in everything which he had done a possible suppression or occasion to take care. This particular technique tends to mobilize guilt in the preclear, and, if continued for any appreciable length of time, could have harmful effects in particular cases. The auditor in this case asked and repeated only two questions, "Since the last time you were audited has anything been suppressed?" and "Since the last time you were audited is there anything you have been careful of?" However, in some processing when "an 18 Prep check" is embarked upon, the "Prep check buttons" are used, and the question, "Has anything been .... ?", or a similarly phrased question, is applied not only in respect of "suppressed" and "careful of", but also "failed to reveal", "invalidated", "suggested", "mistake been made", "protested", "anxious about", "decided", "withdrawn from", "reached", "ignored", "a failure", "helped", "hidden", "revealed", "asserted", "solved". In certain cases, Hubbard directs that the question must be preceded by "In this lifetime .... ", otherwise the preclear will become "over-restimulated".

Hours and even days could be spent on this phase of this process, for the questions are repeated until the E-meter does not "read". Though the question put in the demonstration was "Since you were last audited .... ", the "time limiter" may be some other point in time, thereby greatly widening the area which the preclear has to traverse in searching for all that he has suppressed, been careful of, failed to reveal, been anxious about, withdrawn from, or as the case may be. Sometimes, in running rudiments the preclear is checked on the E-meter with such questions as "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Expert evidence was that this is a question designed to worry the preclear because it presupposes that he is experiencing difficulties and it may stir up feelings of guilt and anxiety.

Returning to the fourth demonstration session, the auditor then proceeded with the routine of slow assessment by dynamics. In this process, the preclear is given the choice of the dynamic to be investigated. This preclear chose the first, or "self", dynamic. The auditor asked the preclear her name and then asked her to tell him, "What consideration have you had about your name?" The preclear then talked at length about thoughts she had on her name and other names by which she had been called. Most of this seemed innocuous, but the preclear had not liked her first Christian name and her maiden surname and the E-meter gave various reads. The conversation with the auditor drifted to various employments the preclear had had, and other similar matters. Each aspect was probed by questions till there was no reaction on the meter. This part of the session resembled in some ways the "listen style" process, but in this instance the auditor was positively in control and was directing and questioning and prompting the preclear.

This demonstration took only 35 minutes and bore little resemblance to a full session of perhaps 2½ hours (which in turn would normally be only one of several sessions in a course of processing). The particular process is well named "Slow assessment by dynamics", for, in respect of whatever dynamic the preclear may choose, there have been listed a great variety of topics to be discussed, and, if conducted in the manner and at the speed indicated in the demonstration session, would take months and even years to complete.

The final process demonstrated on this preclear in this session was "havingness", the preclear being asked to squeeze the cans of the E-meter and then to touch various objects such as the table, the top of her suit, her skirt, the table again. and her chair. She was then asked to squeeze the cans again, and was considered to have had some gain because the E-meter reading was then "up about half a dial".

In this session the auditor followed the strict route by ending the body of the session, but continuing for a short time discussing with the preclear the goals she had attained in the session, after which the "havingness" process was embarked upon. This was evidently a session in which the preclear in question had been subjected to a hypnotic process, and the "havingness" process was characteristic of hypnotic techniques wherein the patient is slowly brought back from the past to the present. Again, following strict routine, the auditor then loudly announced, "End of Session".

In HCO Technical Form of the 17th October AD 13 (1963), are set out "the breakdown of the first four dynamics", being the items or areas that may be dealt with when the preclear is being processed on the first four dynamics. HCO Bull. of the 31st October AD 13 (1963), sets out "breakdown of Dynamics Five through Eight". It is unnecessary to set out these "breakdowns" in full detail, but some of the particular matters dealt with are significant.


In relation to the first, or the self, dynamic, such things as the following are dealt with in detail: names, positions, pc's identity (what pc is mainly being, what pc would rather be. what pc would rather not be, other identities pc has been and is being, &c.), education, interests obsessive activity (things pc feels compelled to do, must prevent himself from doing, fears, bad habits, &c.), pc's doingness, body (genetic line, body defects, illness, initial care, relationship to body, ARC with body, birth, death, &c.), location, time sense, ownership (personal effects, property, business interests, stocks and bonds, handling and control over the dynamics, handling and control of mest, &c.), pc's havingness, unusual mental treatment (mental condition, mental defects, medical-psychiatric treatment, squirrel auditing, &c.), scientology processing.

In relation to the second or sex dynamic, the following matters (some of which are dealt with in considerable detail) are listed: parents, parents' family, own family, sexual relations (both marital and extra-marital), other sexual activity (types, homosexuality, sex with animals, fetishes, unusual sex, masturbation), procuration (contraception, sex for pleasure, abortion).

The third or group dynamic has listed, with many subdivisions, friends, enemies, groups, government.

The fourth or mankind dynamic deals with such areas as international relations, extra-terrestrial relations (intelligent life on other planets, Markab Federation, Galactic Federation, space travel, flying saucers), mass communication, homo sapiens (survival of the species, over-population, under-population, the New Man), scientology five (world dissemination, world clearing, mental healing methods, healing, operating thetans.).

Beyond the fourth dynamic there is almost limitless scope for auditing. The fifth or animal dynamic deals with all aspects of plants, animals, living things, nature, nature study, organic material, genetic line, interrelations of life forms; the sixth or universe dynamic, with possessions, matter, energy, the mind, areas of livingness, schedules, measurement and description, manufacture, property, transportation, communication media, national forces, geographical areas, the universe, other universes; the seventh or spiritual dynamic, with spirits, theta, entheta, affinity, reality, communication, spiritualism, aesthetics, ethics, philosophy, art, creativeness, magic, scientology; the eighth or God dynamic, with the Supreme Being, religious entities, religion, religions, church, mysticism, anti-religion, after death, creation, religious philosophy, religious practices.

A variety of subheadings is indicated in respect of dynamics five to eight as being appropriate topics or areas on which to audit the preclear should he select any of these dynamics. However, the dynamic most likely to be selected would appear to be the first or the second, and with either of these there is almost unlimited scope for disclosures which are of a personal, secret, shameful nature, and which, when recorded on the preclear's file virtually ensure the domination of the HASI over the preclear.

Routine 2H Assessment.

The fifth process demonstrated was described as "Routine 2H Assessment". The purpose of this routine was "to put a person into better communication with other persons in his life by finding moments in his life when he went out of communication with certain persons", or to repair an ARC break. The preclear in this session was a young man in his early twenties who stated as his goal for the session, "To clean up an ARC break I had with a girlfriend". The auditor proceeded then to ask him seven times in succession the question "Since the last time you were audited has anything been suppressed?" The preclear, who had been audited about eight days previously, answered variously to this question until the auditor pronounced the meter to be "clear". He then asked the preclear to "Recall an ARC break", which the preclear did, and the auditor questioned him until the details of this incident were exhausted. He was again asked to "Recall an ARC break", which he did and he was also questioned on this at length.

This session finished in the same way as the previous one, with squeezing of cans and "havingness" routines, whereby the preclear was slowly brought back to present time.

This session lasted only 35 minutes, and the ARC breaks were not dramatic and were only lightly touched upon. In a secret session of 2½ hours, a worried person could be mentally tortured by the probing of the auditor. Problems Intensive. The sixth demonstration was of a process named "Problems Intensive". Hubbard regards the "problems intensive" as a highly effective technique. In HCO Bull. of the 27th September AD 12 (1962), he writes,

"The only fully valid lower level process today that achieves enormously effective results, is the Problems Intensive. It does the following: Eradicates feelings of illness; Adds years to life; Subtracts years from appearance; Increases I.Q. . . . . People are suddenly losing all manner of things they thought were illnesses and were calling arthritis and ulcers and what not. They weren't sick. They were just suppressed."


His instructions are, " Find on the meter the most important most reactive change in the pc's life, and then locate the prior confusion to that change, which confusion may have occurred from 2 weeks to 5 minutes before the actual decision to change."

The process involves the auditor asking the preclear, "What changes have you decided to make in your life?" In this process, the preclear's answers are written down ; these are checked with the preclear on the F-meter, and the particular decision which reads most on the meter is selected as the topic for auditing. The auditor then asks the preclear a series of questions called "prep-check" questions (see demonstration 4, ante) such as " suppressed", "careful of", &c., and he phrases the question, "Since [a month before the decision to change] has anything been suppressed?" The theory behind this process is that some decisions to change are made as a solution to some problem and confusion that have existed in the preclear's mind. The supposed benefits of this process are said to be that the preclear will have a feeling of increased well-being and will find the resolution of a problem which he has had since the period of confusion and the decision to change.

The preclear in this session was asked many times the precise question, "What other changes have you decided to make in your life ?", and he gave a variety of answers, together with appropriate dates. After eight decisions were detailed, the auditor called a halt because of limitation as to time, and then checked the eight decisions on the E-meter, and got a" blow-down" on the decision "To build up my body a bit" at a particular date.

The auditor then asked the preclear many times, "Since [the date] has anything been suppressed?" and the preclear was still telling of things suppressed when the hour allotted to this session elapsed.

In an ordinary session the seeking of decisions goes on until the preclear exhausts his recollection of decisions and things suppressed. As the usual course for a "Problems intensive" is 25 hours as a minimum, but may be much longer, it requires little imagination to picture the mental exhaustion of a preclear after five hours questioning each day for five days in succession. When a preclear has finished telling of all the things suppressed, he may be asked to tell all the things of which he has been careful, and then of all the things he has "failed to reveal", made mistakes about, been "anxious about", "ignored", failed at, &c., as listed in demonstration 4, ante. In this way hundreds of hours of auditing can be, and are, aggregated.

R3SC - A Service Facsimile.

The seventh demonstration session was of a process called "R3SC-a service facsimile." In scientology, a "service facsimile" is "an aberrated, non-survival solution the preclear uses to make others wrong, self right, to aid the survival of self, hinder the survival of others, help self dominate others and help escape domination." There are various means, so it was said, by which an auditor can locate a service facsimile. In this particular process, the procedure is for the auditor to ask the preclear, "What method have you used to make others wrong during your life?" The auditor writes down the answers and then with the aid of the E-meter gets a "blow-down" on one of the answers which is then selected as the item to be audited to determine the facsimile.

The benefits claimed for this type of auditing are "a considerable rise towards optimum behaviour level of the person and a cessation of the use of that method used to make others wrong as well as a general increase in well-being, confidence, happiness and ARC."

The preclear in this demonstration session was a woman who had been audited the previous week, and she was asked by the auditor the customary preliminary question, "Since the last time you were audited has anything been suppressed?" A "read" was obtained on the meter, and in explanation the preclear said, "Well, all auditors' questions always read at first. 1 am protesting so much and I sort of hate them, you know, they make me feel guilty."

The auditor then asked repeatedly, "What methods have you used during your life to make others wrong?" Then she was asked such questions as, "Is there anything you have done to make anybody else guilty during your life?" "Have you done anything during your life to make yourself right?"

It emerged from this questioning that the preclear considered that she had been critical in making others wrong and herself right, whereupon the auditor embarked upon a series of questions such as, "Will you tell me how being critical will make you right?" "How would being critical make others wrong?" "How would being critical aid your survival?" "How would being critical hinder the survival of others?" " How would being critical help you to escape domination?" "How would being critical help you to dominate others?" and many other questions to the same effect, in relation to being critical.

Finally, the auditor asked "Concerning being critical has anything been suppressed ?" He immediately announced there was nothing on the meter, the preclear said she felt "Okay", and the auditor decided then to end the session earlier than intended because the service facsimile had been found and run. Tampion admitted that this session might have been better had some other person been the preclear, as the preclear in question had had "this sort of thing handled quite a bit in past auditing."


Characteristics of an Auditing Session.

In the light of later evidence which the Board heard from expert psychiatrists, several features of these demonstration sessions are of particular importance and significance. The scientologists considered that these sessions were fair representative samples of the various processes demonstrated, having regard to the limitations imposed by the time and circumstances, and Hubbard actually bestowed upon Tampion a doctorate of scientology for the part he played in conducting the sessions. From what has been set out above and from other aspects of these demonstrations the following features emerge:

  1. Sessions are always commenced with a strict routine. The preclear is asked if it is all right to audit in the place where they are, and is it all right to start the session? The auditor then utters a loud "start of session" and the session is then under way.

  2. The auditing questions are repeated in identical or almost identical terms, and are continued until the meter does not read.

  3. Goals are stated and recorded at the beginning of the session, and at the end of the session the preclear is asked what gains he has made. Sometimes the preclear was vague about the goals set, but when reminded of them enthusiastically stated there had been gains.

  4. The questions as to whether goals have been obtained are asked in such a way as to induce favourable answers.

  5. The auditor assumes a pose of being obligated to the preclear for his (the preclear's) help in making the session a success. The auditor thanks the preclear for whatever gains are said to have been made and expresses regret that he (the auditor) has, in effect, failed in cases where a gain has not been obtained, and the preclear is made to feel that he must help the auditor make it a good session. There is evident in the preclear a desire to please the auditor.

  6. The preclear searches deeply into his memory for incidents which may be made to fit the subject matter of the question, and frequently matters with only the most tenuous connexion with the matter being probed, and even with no connexion, are mentioned.

  7. A suggestion of guilt is implied in each question, and the answer is generally in the nature of a guilty admission, an abasement, a confession. Alternatively, there is an attempt to justify what the preclear is admitting.

  8. Notwithstanding the innocuous nature of most of the areas dealt with, the truncated nature of the session and the presence of an audience watching, the preclears were speaking in what, on normal standards of conversation, would have been an uninhibited level.

  9. Each session is brought to an end by a strict routine. There is a slowing down of the tempo of the session, and the auditor ends the body of the session which, however, still continues while the auditor inquires as to gains made and conducts processes designed to bring the preclear from the introspective past up to the present. The session is finally ended by a sharp "end of session", and in the last two more advanced demonstrations the auditor commanded, "Tell me I am no longer auditing you", to which the preclear in each instance replied, "You are no longer auditing me."

  10. At least two of the preclears had symptoms which would have alerted a psychiatrist to the likelihood that the preclear was suffering from mental or physical illness. In one case the process being run, short though it was, was positively harmful to the preclear's condition. As to the other case, the Board subsequently heard expert psychiatric evidence that auras the preclear said he was seeing could be part of an organic illness like epilepsy and that auras may be one of a series of premonitory symptoms which precede an epileptic fit. Neither the auditor, Tampion, nor Williams was apparently aware of the possible medical significance of the phenomenon which this preclear described. Tampion, a man still in his twenties, a former school teacher who gave up his University course in Commerce in about 1961 to become a full-time professional scientologist, considers that his knowledge of the human mind is superior to that of psychiatrists, and that rather than recommend psychotic persons to a psychiatrist for treatment he would advise "that they have a good holiday and get away from the things that upset them."

The foregoing features assume great significance when considered in conjunction with evidence which the Board later heard from expert psychiatrists and psychologists as to what was the nature of psycho-analysis and hypnosis. Almost every feature of an auditing session has its parallel in command or authoritative hypnotic procedures. Grave consequences flow from the indiscriminate use of such hypnotic procedures. Chapter 18 deals with the hypnotic aspects of scientology processing.



One process in respect of which the Board heard somewhat contradictory evidence was called "S.C.S.", or "Start-Change-Stop." Williams in his evidence rather suggested that this process was a simple process, the purpose of which was to increase a person's familiarity with something, and he illustrated this by the example of the inefficient typist whose ability was increased by her being made more familiar with her typewriter by being told to touch various parts of it, and to start it moving by pushing it from one place to another. Williams made the claim that the British Pentathlon Team in the 1956 Olympic Games improved its skill in pistol shooting by being given such exercises which made the team more familiar with its weapons.

However, other evidence was given as to the real nature of the S.C.S. process, which shows certain of its features to be quite different and of a harmful nature. The S.C.S., like the CCH processes, is a control process, and though "control" is said to connote control by the preclear over his body, the actual effect is to place the auditor in a position of complete domination over the preclear and, in scientology, S.C.S. is classified as "8-C" and represents "a very strong control to make sure that a person does what he is required to do."

It was said at the Inquiry that S.C.S. was not now practised at the HASI. However, on a chart entitled "Processes, Levels and Theoretical Material as currently used and as expected to be used in the future", prepared for the Inquiry and tendered in evidence by Williams, processes described as "S.C.S. on object" and "S.C.S. General" were shown as being used or expected to be used respectively at levels 1 and 2 which were levels at which the HASI was then functioning. Files examined by the Board make it clear that well into 1963 wholesale use was being made of the more dangerous S.C.S. process.

The Board heard evidence that the S.C.S. process involves the auditor instructing the preclear to start his body moving, change the position of his body from one place to another, and stop his body moving, upon the command of the auditor to "start", "change" and "stop", respectively. It was said in evidence that S.C.S. was sometimes used as a punishment for recalcitrant preclears, the witness in question stating that he had been "sentenced" to 25 hours of S.C.S. for some infraction.

That S.C.S. is not merely the simple process that Williams suggested is apparent from Hubbard's own writings. In Scientology : Clear Procedure, issue one, Hubbard directs that the command in S.C.S. is to be, "Now I want you to get your body moving in that direction and when I say Stop, I want you to stop the body." Almost precisely the same commands are set out by Hubbard in Control and the Mechanics of S. C.S. The significance of the S.C.S. commands to start "your body" moving, &c., is that the thetan is considered to be distinct from its body, and it is the thetan which is compelling or requiring the body to move. This concept is drilled into the preclear during hours of this processing, and he is thereby reduced to a condition in which he is ready to believe that the thetan does just that.

In Scientology: Clear Procedure, issue one, Hubbard writes,

"These S.C.S. processes produced the greatest control changes that have been produced with any control process . . . . An apparent drop in havingness is occasionally experienced by the preclear as he does these processes. This is because of compulsive exteriorization. If a preclear is about to fly out of his head he'll fly out of his head on S.C.S. . . . . If he does fly out of his head on S.C.S., or any other process, you, of course, continue the process . . . . In running S.C.S., however, the preclear flying in and out of his head will experience various changes of havingness which are quite upsetting . Don't be surprised in running S.C.S. if the preclear suddenly flies to pieces, goes into flip-flopping, has to be picked up off the floor and put over on the couch and left aghast, but do be very surprised at yourself if you fail to get the preclear back up on his feet and into session again at once."
In the same publication Hubbard explains "flip-flopping" in this way:
"Flip-flopping was a process by which the preclear's excess motion was taken off . . . . It is extremely interesting that a preclear exteriorizing from his own body which is out of control, flip-flopping, writhing, convulsing and going into epileptiform seizures was at a distance from a flip-flopping body. One day while in his own body he causes some other body to go out of control, he shoots somebody or hits somebody, and has this person go into a flip-flop."
In Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S. Hubbard states in relation to S.C.S., "The end result of this process is exteriorization."

The S.C.S. process is a hypnotic process which is dangerous to mental health and produces distressing and alarming symptoms in preclears, who may exteriorize while being processed, and who develop almost the qualities of an automaton.

A former scientologist volunteered to demonstrate S.C.S. The manner in which he demonstrated was criticized by the scientologists, who, however, though invited to demonstrate S.C.S., declined to avail themselves of the opportunity.


R2-12 (Listing).

A further process which was not demonstrated to the Board was one called "R2-12, Listing". A substantial part of scientology theory involves thinking in opposites. In Scientology 8-8008, Hubbard refers to "The Dichotomies", amongst which he lists "Survive, succumb", "Affinity, no affinity", "Start, stop", "Be, be not", "Win, lose", "Right, wrong", "Sane, insane", and several others. In subsequent teaching he developed terminals and opposite or opposition terminals, or "terms" and "opterms" for short. The idea of opposition developed into the R2-12 process which involves asking the preclear the questions, "Who or what would .... oppose?" and "Who or what would oppose .... ?" The object being opposed or opposing is initially determined by reference to a long list of items enumerated by Hubbard, generally with a scientology connotation, such as "scientology", "auditors", "minds", "mental health", "hats", mental doctors", "psychiatrists", &c. In this process the preclear is on the E-meter, and the auditor asks and repeats the questions as necessary, writing down the preclear's answers and noting the reaction on the meter. The asking of one of these questions may take many hours, spread over several days; hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of answers may be obtained to the repeated asking of each question. One preclear on 23 almost consecutive days gave over 9,000 answers to a series of questions which included "Who or what would somebody with a goal not to be the centre of attraction oppose?", "Who or what would the most reasonable being (a being of integrity), (a servile being), (certainty), (birth), (the planet) oppose?".

After several hundred answers to a particular question have been obtained, they are checked on the meter in search of a "reliable item", which is one of the answers which reads the best (or worst) on the meter. The reliable item is then used as the subject or the object of the questions in following sessions, when the "Who or what" questions proceed for several more days.

This process has been very common at the HASI. It was said in evidence by HASI witnesses that it was not now being used, but it was in constant use well into 1963. It has highly undesirable features, and one can well understand the anxiety of the HASI neither to demonstrate it nor to admit that it was in current use.

This process produces in preclears a condition from which all moral restraints are absent. In many of the files examined by the Board this process was used, the preclear's answers frequently relating to very disgusting matters of sex, depravity and perversion. The initial subject of the "Who or what" question is a simple word, but in the course of finding 600 to a 1,000 answers to such a question as "Who or what would scientology (or an E-meter) (or psychiatrists) oppose?". the preclear will often give a sexual or depraved answer which then suggests the next answer which will be more disgusting and thereafter the floodgates of filth and depravity are open. Preclears whose questioning has started off with some simple subject finish up giving the most debased answers, striving obsessively to outdo in vulgarity and depravity the previous answers by the addition of vulgar adjectives.

When the preclear is checked for a reliable item, one of the depraved answers is often selected, and the preclear may be questioned for days on "Who or what" would oppose that particular reliable item. An example, by no means isolated, is a question asked for days of a young married woman, namely, "Who or what would a sexy little piece oppose?". Many of her answers show an abandonment of any restraint.

Mere declamation does not sufficiently describe this shockingly immoral feature of scientology processing; included in Appendix 19 is a small selection of the questions asked and some of the answers given in R2-12 processing.


Previous chapter Next chapter

Back to start

Last updated 21 February 1997

Page maintained by Martin Poulter (