By Virginia McClaughry
I’ll cut right to the chase.
The top triangle (in the S and double triangle symbol of Scientology) does not represent KRC, and I can prove it.
I will also tell you about another symbol which I’ll bet just about none of you know what it means – and this meaning is as per L. Ron Hubbard no less.
In fact, let’s do that first – it’ll just take a second.
The Circle Triangle Symbol
This symbol was not on the first editions of the Dianetics book -
This symbol first appears on the book Science of Survival, published in 1951. The 1958 edition has it:
But this first edition does not – at least not on the binding or on the case it came in.
It does have it on the interior facing page though.
In May of 1952, L. Ron Hubbard did a lecture detailing a circle/triangle symbol –
Beingness 19 May 1952
Imagine a circle, a circle up here. You talk about a symbol; this is a timeless symbol. And by the way, although Dianetics has never existed before on the time track evidently, this symbol has existed there. And that symbol must come from practically the beginning of all time. And this is a circle and inside the circle is a triangle, and inside the triangle at the top is the figure infinity and at the bottom is a zero.
You should remark that symbol fairly well. The big circle could stand for the universe, perfection, completion or the continuation of time after the end of time. In other words, time ends and begins at the same point.
Now, here you have the triangle. And at the top of this triangle we have affinity, over at this corner of the triangle we have reality and over at this corner of the triangle we have communication. And then we have the infinity mark up at the top, and at the bottom of the triangle we have a zero.
..So we take this symbol; we take this symbol of the circle, the triangle and the infinity and the zero, and we can behold, in that, something which would symbolize all you need to know about anything, anywhere, to accomplish anything that you want to accomplish. Of course, it needs a couple of billion words of explanation, but it’s been there for an awful long time and it’s a very good symbol to remember.
The circle: The universe and the continuum of time; the beginning is the end of all.
The triangle: That means thought. And the three corners of the triangle are affinity, reality and communication. And they’re the three component parts of thought (I’ll explain to you why); ARC, they make up thought.
And there’s the fact that you mustn’t overlook, is this triangle of thought is imposed upon and becomes the circle of the MEST universe. The triangle is one end, the high end of the tone scale-all thought. And the circle is the bottom of the tone scale and it says all MEST-the universe, the circle, circular time, so on. And there is thought impinged upon the universe.
And that combination, then-the circle and the triangle-is exemplified by infinity (the allness of everything).
… But there you have the triangle of thought on the circle of the material universe.
Over 13 years later, in 1965, a SHSBC (Saint Hill Special Briefing Course) lecture is done that offers this additional explanation as to the use of a triangle in relation to Dianetics. However, I find this lecture to be suspect somehow – I include it so you can see what you think about this rather lame explanation compared to the very intricate one above.
THE PROGRESS AND FUTURE OF SCIENTOLOGY 16 MARCH 1965
But I said, “Well I just write the stuff up,” you know. And actually that was my attitude until about July of 1950. “Oh, I just-just wrote it.” And I wasn’t making any commotion, I wasn’t promoting my writing name. Actually a writer seldom promotes his own writing name anyhow.
Names-names of course to me are very, very indifferent things. After all, I’m very well known under about six pen names, you see, so names don’t mean much. It’s the guy that was important. But this name, this name, this one name started to move up and hit me in the face, don’t you see. I’ve worn it very pleasantly and so forth, since it isn’t that L. Ron Hubbard is a pen name, it happens to be my own name. But this name, this name was strictly exclamation points, you see, around the place. And I was trying not to wear that hat. And finally, the fellow who was serving as general manager at that time-I was having to do fantastic things; I was putting the place together with my bare hands-everybody else was running around being important. I’m a working stiff myself I wouldn’t quite know what it is to be a sedentary type desk flyer, you know. Just flying a desk as an executive you see, sitting there-sitting there at zero mph, going madly down the carpet, you know, and I wouldn’t quite know what that was.
And I was all over the place and I think I was delivering eight hours of lecture a day or something of that sort; I was teaching about three or four courses. I was buying all the furniture, putting everything together, I’d had to go out and find the building myself because I’d found out the reason they couldn’t find a building is they went around and told everybody with a poor mouth, “Well, we’re just a charity organization, we can’t pay very much.” I kept saying, “Gee, but man, we’re expanding, we’ve got to get out of here, you know.
“Oh, I’ve been trying everywhere!” And so I said to Parker, “You come along with me!” I said, “I’m certain that there are buildings in this city.” And that was what he was telling people, “We’re just a charity organization and we can’t pay very much. We don’t have very much money.”
Money? My God! The doors were falling in with money! And I just cut him off and just scolded him right in fro -right in front of the building owner of the building we were standing in, you know. “What do you mean telling people lies like that? You’ve got to conquer that hab-habit of yours, Parker, telling people lies like that!” Turned around to the fellow, and said, “We’ve got plenty of money,” I said, “Give me the keys to the place, how much did you say it was? Oh, yes, well give me the keys to the place, because we’re moving in this afternoon.” And the fellow says, “Well, the lease and so on.. .” Well, I said, “That’s your lookout.” I took the keys out of his hand and we were into-into our original headquarters.
And there were three mainline railroad trains which went one on each corner of the building in a triangle. And that’s why you-that’s why you see to this day the Dianetic symbol in our shield. You can just imagine it, you can just imagine.
So, that’s that, which I bet a lot of Scientologists don’t know, let alone non-Scientologists.
Next – I give you the history of the symbol for Scientology, the S and double triangle.
First, the bottom triangle – defined by the Church as the ARC triangle.
The bottom Triangle – the ARC triangle – formulated in July 1950
First up, an early reference.
The Journal of Scientology, Issue 21-G [1953, ca. late October], published by The Hubbard Association of Scientologists, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, The Theory of Communication by L. Ron Hubbard
…One of the simplest and yet one of the most significant emergences has been the factor of communications as the most important single factor in the triangle of Affinity-Reality-Communication.
This ARC triangle, when I formulated it in Elizabeth in the early summer of 1950, resolved a great many things for auditors, but for the following three years much discussion ensued on the nature of the triangle itself. Generally, though, acceptance of it was swift and glad, for with its use came an understanding of human behavior, and with that triangle the tone scale itself, as it appeared in Science of Survival, was bom. The earliest tone scale is in Book One, and is the first chart in that book.
In this next reference, I have included for historical interest, that Hubbard says that he created some big mathematics dissertation on how math cannot exist in the absence of any of his ARC triangle factors.
September 1950 – per this lecture Hubbard decides that ARC = Understanding as a mathematical equation, and that you can “raise” someone’s understanding level by “raising” their ARC triangle.
DEFINITIONS: GLOSSARY OF TERMS-PART I 13 January 1955
And so you have the ARC triangle which was developed in July of 1950. I developed the first two parts of it, C and R, I think they were. No, they were A and R, and gave a lecture on it as A and R, and then all of a sudden hit C, some such combination, and there was this triangle.
Now, about two months after that I did a paper which has not survived unfortunately, because I will never do it again, which extrapolates ARC into mathematics and demonstrates that mathematics cannot exist in the absence of any one of the factors, and that a mathematical formula must contain A and it must contain R and it must contain C in order to be mathematics.
… There was much more to this, but the fact of the matter is that understanding, mathematics, reason, all these things are in the same basket, and we got the oddity right there, in I think it was September of 1950, that these three things composed understanding, these are the three component parts of understanding. And when we have raised these three parts we have raised somebody’s understanding.
Next, Science of Survival gets published – with it’s Chart of Human Evaluation. The following image is from a 1951 first edition of Science of Survival – the Chart is folded in this image.
This is where the whole idea of the much expanded Tone Scale gets entered in (compared to the Dianetics book 4-tone one).
I’d like to discuss the premises here of the Tone Scale before we go any futher.
The Tone Scale
(please excuse the quality of the scale – this copy has seen better days)
The Tone Scale is Hubbard’s overly simplistic and highly hierarchal chart of “levels” that people supposedly live their lives at. The scale tells us what are “bad levels” and what are “good levels”.
Not too surprisingly, anger, antagonism, and other “willing to fight” levels (that Enslavers are afraid of in others), are classified as “low-toned”.
In typical Hubbard Space Opera conspiracy theory style – he even goes so far as to invent an “incident” of where these bad emotions were “installed”.
This reference is within a year of when the big Tone Scale was released in Science of Survival.
From Space Opera and Aliens (post is currently on private status):
The Dome Incident:
“Well, the MEST people, more or less, they want to put out this big prize. And so they give you a prize for knowing. Well, up to that point, you really know – you know pretty well. And then one of its versions is to throw a dome over the person, over the theta person – bam! – hold him completely motionless with fields so that he has an utter timelessness, so that he’s suddenly and momentarily a zero, and then just throw him down a chute which passes him across fields – magnetic fields – one right after the other, which install wavelengths which are very close to one-over-infinity, with – which approximate our Tone Scale from 2.0 down.“
“If they sassed a guard or something like that, they had a part of them or had a field that matched them back in the guardhouse, and all you had to do was turn a switch and this fellow was in bad shape right away. At a vast distance, he was in bad shape. How do you like this electronically? Boy, could you sell this to the federal government!“
– tape lecture 16 April 1952 HCL-27 How To Search for Incidents on the Track, Part I
In July of 1952, What to Audit was published by the “Scientific Press” (softcover apparently) in Phoenix and published with the title of History of Man in London…heart of Darwin land…. The British version is the one that Hubbard dedicates to Mary Sue, his wife.
In that book, here he is self-aggrandizing over the above Dome Incident and other “amazing” discoveries (choke).
Hubbard was always doing that – trying to cover up his own inadequacies and sense of failure, in my opinion. Plus notice how how he goes on about these HUGE amounts of force etc. etc.
“So heavy is the concentration on electronics in the theta line, so closely connected with energy behavior is the anatomy of a theta being that only one trained in nuclear physics could have cracked this riddle.“
… What does it take to aberrate a thetan? Thousands and thousands of volts, thousands of amperes, poured into destructive wavelengths and thrown straight in his face. What does it take to get him into a position where he can be aberrated? Trickery, treachery, lies.”
– 1952 book What To Audit – aka History of Man
Next, we need to cover the idea expressed on Hubbard’s Tone Scale, as “theta” or “life units” – the number of determines high or low position on his scale.
The above is a partial image of the Hubbard Chart included in the book Science of Survival, showing the “Life Units” plotted next to a “tone scale” indicating how well off someone is – Note that the number of “free theta” (or freed life units) decreases as the “tone levels” go to the so-called “bad” tone levels. In 1952 the idea was to “free” them by running them through an incident they were stuck in. By the time of the OT levels in the 1960’s, the idea was to “free” them by sending them away. The more units that are freed – the better off you are, according to Scientology theory.
Hubbard appropriated Thomas Edison’s theories (in concert with the British Society for Psychical Research and Lurian Kabbala) in referring to these “separate beings” as being individually, an entity. He also appropriated the idea “life units” number of relating to “good” or “bad” men, from Edison as well.
The following is excerpted from Scientology Roots – Chapter Twenty-Four: Brothers of Light Mental and Spiritual Ideas :
Thomas Edison stated ideas that were used in Scientology.
J. P. Morgan was an American banker who acted as an agent for the Rothschilds – the British branch. Thomas Edison was under his thumb. Thomas Edison was also a member of the British Society for Psychical Research.
Edison submitted to an interview in The Columbian magazine, January 1911 -
“A man is not an individual; he is a vast collection of a myriad of individuals, just as a city is. The cell, minute and little known, is the real and only individual. A man is made of many million cells. His intelligence consists of the combined intelligence of them all…
There are two worlds, the world of matter and the world of mind. There is every indication that there is a mental law – a law which we may well discover to be based upon the fundamental principles laid down by the great teachers Christ, Confucius, Buddha. “
In 1916, Thieneman, a German Jewish scientist, called these entities Lebenseinheiten(life unit). Following that, Edison used the term life unit to describe the myriad of entities inhabiting a human body.
New York Times article January 23, 1921 Mr. Edison’s “Life Units” -
“Life he conceives as a series of “units” motivated by physical and chemical reactions. Memory, or that part of life which goes to make up the complex of emotions, feelings, desires, tendencies and intrinsic peculiarities of the individual, Mr. Edison believes to be our personalities.
These personalities are various groups of units within the larger group that constitutes life. When so-called “death” appears to drive life from out bodies Mr. Edison thinks that our personality “units” do not die, but continue to exist as substantial material things. He estimates that the human body is composed of 100,000,000,000,000 of these units.
I believe our bodies are composed of myriads and myriads of infinitesimal entities, each in itself a unit of life, which band together to build a man.
In the case of a man, for example, he may be ‘bad’ or ‘good,’ in accordance with the trend of these dominant individuals or in accordance with the majority quality of the individuals which have gathered, more or less by chance, in the swarm which makes him up. He is ‘good’ if ‘good’ individuals are more numerous in it and dominate, and ‘bad’ if the reverse occurs.
Mr. Edison conceives personality to be virtually nothing more than memory…
Memory is the close kin of personality. Our past, the events and quality of our lives previous to this moment, is carried by each of us with him into the future. The things he has learned, the important record of what he has felt, believed, inspired, what he has been and hoped to be, each man takes with him from yesterday into today and from today he will carry it into tomorrow. This memory as it is applied to the conditions that confront a man each moment is his personality.
The life units which have formed that man do not die. They merely pass out of the unimportant mechanism which they have been inhabiting, which has been called a man and has been mistaken for an individual, and select some other habitat or habitats.”
Dianetics, Chapter Emotion and Life Force -
“Two thousand years ago the Chinese built a wall which would have been visible from the moon had anybody been up there to look; three thousand years ago he had North Africa green and fertile…
There’s an extra quality at work or perhaps just more of it…
…it is stated here as an aspect of life force. Where the individual finds himself ‘possessed of less and less life force,’ he is losing some of the free units somewhere. And the free units of this life force, in a society or an individual, are the extra surge that is needed to tame North Africa, divide an atom or reach the stars.
The mechanical theory here… is that there are so many units of force per individual. These units may be held in common by a group and may build to higher and higher numbers as “enthusiasm” increases; but for our purposes, we can consider that man…has a ready number to hand for use in any given hour or day. He may manufacture these life units as required and he may simply have a given supply: that is beside the point. What is to the point is that he can be considered, at any hour or day, as just so much alive. Consider this as his dynamic potential as we can see on our descriptic earlier.
Hence, discharging these frozen units is a vital and important part of therapy and the condition of the case will improve in direct ratio to the number of these units so discharged.
Consider these life units as free life energy…
To free these units is the primary task of therapy; “
Elements of Auditing, an LRH lecture 21 April 1954 -
We, of course, walked over in the direction of the spiritual side of man and walked over in the direction of the physical side of man. In other words, we merely broadened the biological concept in its two component parts. And we all of a sudden found ourselves looking at this thing called biological science as a combination of the spirit and the physical universe. …and the next thing you know we have two component parts which themselves combined form this third part. And so we got the theta-MEST theory.
Theta was, in physical universe terms, a nothingness, a something that had no motion.
We found out the body was totally physical, but as long as he was- or a life unit (there are two life units in a body) - as long as this life unit was connected to this totally physical thing, you had an animate biological thing.
The Whole Answer To The Problems Of The Mind, an LRH lecture 1 January 1961 -
“If you don’t know anything about the life unit, you would know nothing about life.
And a thetan is a life unit. “
Dianetic Auditing And The Mind, an LRH lecture 28 July 1966 -
“And a thetan is a life unit capable of many things as described in the Axioms, but most familiar to one and all as you.”
So, we see that some more data from the BRITISH Society for Psychical Research, (forerunner of the later Tavistock Institute) was used to formulate Dianetics and Scientology.
For further data on this subject also see – Thomas Edison and L. Ron Hubbard.
Now look at this image again, showing the “Life Units” plotted next to a “tone scale” indicating how well off someone is. Note that the number of “theta” or life units decreases as the “tone levels” go to so-called “bad” tone levels. See where Hubbard got that from? (click to enlarge)
It might interest you to know, that this whole “life units” and “theta units” business is also found in Lurian Kabala.
Excerpting from Chapter 24 of Scientology Roots again:
L. Ron Hubbard said - “To free these units is the primary task of therapy…“
Lurian Kabala said – It is the individual’s divinely appointed task to not only liberate those sparks that are entrapped…within his own body and soul, but also those sparks in the world that he or she encounters along life’s way. Through proper ethical and spiritual conduct the individual is able to free the holy sparks…
YIKES! That sounds exactly like David Miscavige right-hand man Marty Rathbun and his fabulous views about who can do telepathy:
Blog post: Scientific proof II, August 31, 2009
…After all, if one really understood and applied the core philosophic principals of Scientology he/she would understand …that one can graduate above waves (which are part of the physical universe) and communicate directly through thought with other beings. And when you walk that walk – as opposed to just talking the talk – …
… someone experiencing “OT phenomena” like telepathic communications (which real Scientologists will tell you theyexperience on almost a daily basis, provided they are living their lives ethically),
Next, here’s a description of the Tone Scale in relation to other “tech” of Scientology. This is from Scientologists – By Their Own Tech Ye Shall Know Them (that post is currently on private status).
Scientology, the subject, contains an array of datums under a “tech” called The Tone Scale.
One of the things that is plotted using this Tone Scale, is Responsibility “levels”.
The Tone Scale goes from minus, or “below death” levels up into “positive” levels.
“0″ being “body death” or just referred to as death in some cases.
Negative or “minus” responsibility levels named things like Shame, Blame, and Regret, are plotted as being BELOW DEATH on this tone scale.
The “Bridge to Total Freedom” in Scientology is a list of courses and auditing actions one must ascend in order to reach enlightenment, or Operating Thetan.
However, every single step of the way, the Scientologist is “working on” one or more things that are TO BLAME as to why he is how he is. Ie: Lessened, damaged, degraded, broken, non-optimum, – pick your word, the idea is the same.
That’s pretty typical of Hubbard, he places “blame” well down towards the bottom of the Tone Scale but yet his entire “bridge” literally leads a person to blame this, that and the other thing – which is driving them DOWN his own scale!
That being the case, obviously the intent is to try to turn people into the “undead” or “living dead” as individuals. A situation wherein the Body lives, but the personalities, the people, as who they really are, are zombies. ‘B’ grade horror movie as it may sound – that’s pretty accurate actually. Enslavers already are Living Undead, they are trying to turn other people into being like them!
Do keep in mind, that everything you just learned about the tone scale, all falls under the concept of the ARC triangle, which is the bottom triangle in the Scientology symbol.
First appearance of the S and double triangle Symbol
We first see this S and double triangle symbol show up on the binding and dust-covers of Science of Survival.
The following reference mentions that this symbol was on the earliest editions of the book.
OPERATIONAL BULLETIN NO. 17 14 February 1956
The pin is the lovely little S-and-double-triangle pin designed by Bob Hollanbeck in Phoenix, Arizona. Some of you have already seen them. The design was taken originally from the dust wrapper of Science of Survival’s earliest editions.
Here is a picture of our old and frayed copy of Science of Survival, the Eleventh Printing, 1968.
Note: From here on out, I’m going to usually use much smaller images – just click to enlarge any ones you want to see closer.
Let’s go a little earlier and see Here is a picture of a HASI London, October 1958 printing sold on ebay, which also carries the same symbol.
Now here are pictures of a First Edition. Notice that THERE IS NO S and DOUBLE TRIANGLE ON IT.
This particular first edition also is signed by L. Ron Hubbard, and has some coupons from the time period.
Here is another pic listed as a “first edition” . Notice that the top triangle is much larger than the bottom one, this will come into play later on in this post.
By 1976, the symbol was dropped off the Science of Survival book. Loss of Trademark perhaps? A Shore story is going to be covered soon in relation to this, that happens in 1972.
On this book’s copyright page, you will notice a big gap between the eighth and ninth printing – 1958 and 1964 respectively. By that time, 1964, we had the first mention of the KRC triangle, (which I’ll cover a bit later here) but NO mention of it in relationship to the original symbol of the S and double triangle.
There are two very early references by Hubbard to this symbol.
OPERATIONAL BULLETIN NO. 17 14 February 1956
The pin is the lovely little S-and-double-triangle pin designed by Bob Hollanbeck in Phoenix, Arizona. Some of you have already seen them. The design was taken originally from the dust wrapper of Science of Survival’s earliest editions.
In this reference, Hubbard discusses the ARC triangle and the 8-8008 triangle. 8-8008 is a book that was published in December 1952, after Science of Survival already carried the S and double triangle.
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN (#44)
From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.1 1
21 January 1955
Book 8-80 Special note: The first three steps of SOP-8-C could be classified as beingness steps. The remaining five steps of SOP-8-C could be classified as havingness steps. SOP, itself, in all eight steps constitutes doingness, thus approximating as described in Scientology 8-8008 the space-be, energy-do, time-have triangle.
… As a point of incidental interest, I just happen to have by accident in my jewel box where I keep the keepsakes of value that people often send me from various parts of the world the original solid gold S-double-triangle pin made by Bob Hollanbeck. He sawed this out for me personally as a gift in Phoenix last year. If I owe him anything for copying it for everybody’s benefit, I wish he would let me know since I don’t have his address here in Dublin.
There was another slightly smaller S-and-double-triangle pin made and issued from Phoenix a year ago, but it was not from this handmade design of Hollanbeck’s which he intended for my personal wear. By the way, Bob Hollanbeck will make you a Mexican tie-tie with the S and double triangle in solid silver and very beautiful for I think $I 5.
TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION IN ACTION
The entirety of ARC is the subject of understanding. Knowingness is highest on the scale, and this exceeds ARC and is in the realm of considerations and ideas. The moment we enter into understanding we get into the communication formula and the ARC triangle. Understanding is a highly superior commodity, but still lower than knowing. Understanding itself produces a column of the Chart of Human Evaluation which could be added to it. At the top we would have a complete understanding of all things, and it would be complete knowingness, but this would require no communication to effect. From this knowingness we would drop downscale into understanding…
It is obvious that the S and double triangle was already defined as to what the triangles were by 1954.
The Top Triangle
At the Church’s official website, is the following explanation of the S and Double Triangle.
The lower triangle is called the A-R-C Triangle (pronounced by the letters A, R, C); A for Affinity, R for Reality and C for Communication. The first corner of the triangle is affinity, which is the degree of liking or affection for someone or something. Reality is the second corner and is, fundamentally, agreement. The third corner is communication, defined as the interchange of ideas between two people. All three of these are interrelated. Without a degree of liking and some basis of agreement, there is no communication. Without communication and some basis for affinity, or emotional response, there can be no reality. Without some basis for agreement and communication, there can be no affinity. And when one corner of this triangle is improved, the other two corners are likewise improved. These three interdependent factors combined add up to Understanding and are expressed as a triangle. ARC is a fundamental principle of the Scientology religion.
The upper triangle is the K-R-C Triangle (pronounced by the letters K, R, C); K for Knowledge, R for Responsibility and C for Control. Like the points of the A-R-C Triangle, these three elements are interrelated. When one corner of the KRC Triangle is raised, the other two also rise.
It is impossible for the “upper triangle” to have meant the KRC triangle, because the DOUBLE triangle was already in use well before the discovery of the “KRC” triangle.
The discovery of this triangle by Hubbard is documented in the State of Man lecture series, lecture Zones of Control and Responsibility of Governments, 3 January, 1960.
The S and Double Triangle was already in use over 6 years earlier.
But let’s back up here, and let me show you the “doc trail” Church staff put together trying to make his mis-identification of the upper triangle work. This was not done by Hubbard.
So, we start off by looking up this alleged “top triangle” called the KRC triangle.
This is the Technical Dictionary of scientology, first created in 1975 and this particular version is the second printing in 1975.
Note the names under the LRH Personal Compilations Bureau (the forerunner of Dan Koon and RTRC).
Editors: Pat Brice/Alethiea C. Taylor
Project I/C: Ernie Ryan
Compilers: Cliff Von Shura, Rhonda L. Bauer
Researchers: Anita Von Shura, Terry Von Shura, Barbara Chandler, Arden Hansen, Bridget Marple, Bill Thomas.
Manuscript Typist: Morton A. Smithberg
Sidecheckers: John Eastment/David Mayo
Artist: Andre Clavel
Bridget Marple – wife (at that time) of Wayne Marple, brother of Diane Marple – I believe this is the same person as Bridget Kelleher, who was the old LRH Birthday Game I/C of the International Management Org of the Sea Organization in Clearwater, Florida approximately 1980. So, since she wasn’t using that last name by then she must have gotten divorced – probably because Wayne Marple went “rogue” scientologist somewhere around that time. You may also know Bridget as an International Association of Scientologists (IAS) registrar – which she did for many years starting in the late 1980’s through the 1990’s I believe.
This is a picture of Bridget, taken at Jeff Hawkins wedding to Nancy. Jeff was the former editor of the Scientology Advance! magazine. I believe Jeff married Nancy in approximately 1976/1977, which is just before I joined the Sea Organization in the summer of 1978 – I was 16 years old.
Closer pic of Bridget:
Aside: Back in the San Francisco organization of the Church (where Bridget got into Scientology) my husband Mike – who supervised all the training courses at one time – had dated Bridget for a bit, probably around the early 1970’s.
Here is the relevant Tech Dictionary page concerning the KRC triangle –
You will note that the source for this definition, is listed as HCO PL 18 Feb 1972.
Long form, this is Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter of 18 February 1972.
Ok, so what’s that? Well, first we have to figure out what the TITLE is, since we are not given it in the above citation.
So, off we go to the HCO PL Subject Index – copyright 1976. Remember – click pics to enlarge.
We find out that the title is The Top Triangle, Exec (Executive) Series 8 – but the set of OEC (Organization Executive Course – called “the green vols”) that I have does not have this issue in them. My set was copyright 1969, and it says First U.S. Printing 1974.
Our issue in question falls later than 1969, so that means I have to go another route to track it down.
There were a set of binders produced called informally the “Update Packs” that had issues that did not make it into the printings of the older OEC volumes, as well as the older Technical Bulletin volumes. Arnie Lerma discusses one of the releases of the “update packs”, presumably the 1983 one, as well as why they were being made in the first place – lost copyrights.
…About 1985, before the New HCOB and PL volumes came out there was an interim release of “update packs.”
…This time frame exactly coincides with the completion of the massive copyright registration fraud ordered by David Miscavige and described by Jessie Prince and Vaughn Young and others.
…If you have information on this or you know how to contact Sherri Anderson or any one else involved in the 1980′s project which did the actual altering of HCOBs and PLs let us know ASAP. Also if you know how to contact Nancy
Tidman or anyone else who personally typed many original LRH issues of
HCOBs and PLs let us know ASAP too.
Ref: Arnie Lerma google groups post November 3rd, 1998
I have an OEC volume from the first new set of OEC volumes, which was copyrighted 1986.
My Update Packs, have as their last issue, 28 May 1980 – so I would assume that my update packs are the first set issued, obviously from late 1980, early 1981.
There was another set of update packs that covered up through 1983, per this site as well as a comment on Marty Rathbun’s blog.
FWIW, I have an entire set of Tech Vols, copyright 1980 and two different sets of the pre-Miscavology update packs for them. I also have what I believe is a full set of the green version of all the LRH books. My copy of DMSMH is copyrighted 1968.
So, that’s were we look for our issue – my Update Packs.
Sure enough, our reference is in there.
As you can see, this is the reference that first tries to have it be believed that the top triangle in the Scientology symbol is the KRC triangle.
Let’s look a little closer at this reference.
See the red-box area? This proves that:
THIS ISSUE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD.
“…is given on an old LRH tape…called, I think…”
is not a statement one would make about one’s own works.
It’s being said in what’s called the 3rd person, and would only be relevant if this issue was written by someone else other than Hubbard.
So what we have here is:
Someone is redefining the Scientology symbol.
who obviously is not in contact with L. Ron Hubbard whatsoever, as he would know what the hell the 1952 symbol meant!!
L. Ron Hubbard is OUT OF THE PICTURE HERE IN 1972, when the issue was written.
At this point, I’d like to call your attention to the fact that despite the constant mewlings of the current Church of Scientology/Independent Scientology Black OP marketing campaign –
THIS BLATANT LIE CANNOT BE BLAMED ON DAVID MISCAVIGE.
Have a look at this, in relation to the TIME PERIOD of this false L. Ron Hubbard issue concerning this “top triangle”. Hubbard was out of the picture -
The Apollo was docked in Tangier.
Having reportedly come down with some ailment that has a “bewildering combination of symptoms,” LRH allegedly sends a note to Jim Dincalci, the ship’s medical officer: “Jim, I don’t think I’m going to make it.”
Mary Sue was busy supervising the decoration and furnishing of a split-level modern house, the Villa Laura, on a hillside in the suburbs of Tangier. The Hubbards planned to move ashore while the ship was put into dry dock for a re-fit and Mary Sue was looking forward to it.
Some months previously, the Sea Org had set up a land base in a small huddle of office buildings on the airport road outside Tangier. They erect a sign on the road announcing, in English, French and Arabic, the arrival of “Operation and Transport Corporation Limited, International Business Management.” (Miller: “Bare-faced Messiah”, pg. 309/310)
This is also the time that Hubbard and the Sea Org were mixed up in a CIA operation in Tangiers, trying to install a new CIA dictator. They were caught and then kicked out.
So, Hubbard is “going down” so to speak – and obviously some other people are taking control of the reins of the Scientology operation. Not that that means Scientology is “being taken over” – I don’t mean that at all. I mean that some case officers and agents are having to kick in here to try and keep the Scientology operation going. Although why the hell they would deem it important to define Scientology’s symbol – god only knows. Perhaps there was some trouble with trademarks, lawsuits, and the like, generating a need to define it, then re-trademark it. Something like that.
What is a fact, is that this redefinition was not ever done by Hubbard. That 3rd person discussion I highlighted proves it.
Oh, but this gets even worse –
This particular HCOPL probably was not an HCOPL – I say that because in the HCOPL subject index that came with my 1974 set of OEC, it lists several Board Policy Letters that were issued in 1972. Both Exec Series 6 and 7 were Board Policy Letters – which means they could have been written by anyone, either representing it as being from Hubbard or not, those issues did not always follow a set pattern.
Also interesting, is that the index lists that this particular HCOPL Exec Series 8, was issued in a UK management series, and a US version Management Series. I’ve not seen those before.
This is a 1983 version, which is listed as a first printing:
The subject index itself is copyrighted 1976, with the editor listed as Pat Brice. So, apparently there are some Management Series floating around out there copyrighted 1976 as well? If anyone has those, and/or the 1983 Update packs and Management Series, and/or the 1986 issue of the OEC vols, Management Series, could you please check and see if the particular paragraph under discussion is the SAME or is it EDITED. Much appreciated!
What is also a fact, is that in the 1991 reissue of the OEC volumes, the head of RTRC (LRH Technical Research and Compilations Unit) -
Dan Koon …
APPROVED THAT ISSUE AS BEING LRH.
It was not, and he would have known that, because he had access to the earlier version.
He would also have had access to all references concerning the KRC triangle and the S and double triangle.
Hell, I spent an hour one day, and I could verify the meaning was false – why didn’t he?
I’ve mentioned before that I was infiltrating Scientology. Isn’t it just amazing that anything enslavers try to do as an imitation of certain people, they just fall completely flat. But a person like me comes along and…
I master their crap better than they do – and I don’t even like Scientology!
That just amuses me no end. Why? Because it’s such a clear illustration of the difference between an ENSLAVER and a truly FREE BEING.
It’s like a friend of mine pointed out to me – from a Steve Martin movie – Leap of Faith.
If there’s one thing I know, it’s how to spot the genuine article. That’s what you gotta watch out for.
There’s just no getting around the genuine article.
And…in addition to editing that key paragraph – Dan Koon removes all traces of who was at least involved in doing this Exec Series 8 originally.
Let’s have a look.
That particular paragraph that I detailed earlier – with it’s “…is given on an old LRH tape…called, I think…” statement – clearly shows that the issue could not have been written by Hubbard. Now, let’s put both the 1981 version and the 1991 version side-by-side, so that you can see this more clearly. Most importantly, you can see why that was changed – because obviously Koon and others saw that if left intact, it proved exactly what I just said! Hubbard did not write it.
The second page of our 1981 Update packs version of this HCO Policy Letter tells us about a tape reference, but it also tells us some other things. It tells us a bit about who was involved in the presentation of this issue.
The initials at the bottom – LRH: ne.rd
This means that it is being presented as being by LRH (which it’s not), ne is the person in charge who submitted it this way, and rd is the mimeo typist. They are the initials of actual people.
Although it is true, sometimes on issues (when I was in the Sea Org at Flag, I used to help out in mimeo on occasion during all hands) the ne could be the mimeo typist and rd is the proofreader. But usually, that ne would be the person presenting the issue to mimeo in whatever capacity.
Per Michel Snoeck, this removing all traces was first done in 1991 – so that means DAN KOON DID IT.
“…they witness of an additional set of typing initials (explained in detail in next chapter) indicated at the bottom of each individual issue. The issues as found in these old volumes were still basically exact duplicates of the original mimeo print-offs. This is also the case for the revised Management Vols. 1 & 2 (released 1982/83), and the revised OEC* Vol. 0 (released 1986). Any revision notes are also still present in full.
But we we’re in for a change when we entered the 90′s (see here below).
A change in practice (1991)
The 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes is an entirely different matter. We find for example that about all of the sometimes extensive revision notes simply have been stripped from these issues. And thus this means that the publication history of these references have been removed. You will also look in vain for copyright notices and composer/typing initials for each individual issue.”
We also see that we now have an earlier dated reference concerning this top triangle, given as:
“Zones of Control and Responsibility of Governments” No. 6001C03 SMC No. 7, State of man Congress 1960 – and that this tape is also part of the Class X auditor checksheet, which means it has something to do with using it as part of L-10 (a very, very expensive audited rundown delivered only at Flag, the Clearwater land base of the Church, in Florida)
But, still not early enough, as the symbol was already in use, as I have proven, back in 1952 or so.
Unless this tape was to say that’s what the top triangle means in the symbol (which it does not say that as you will see) – then it’s bullshit as a source other than for the KRC triangle itself. Which doesn’t mean diddly-squat as to the origins of the S and double triangle.
But, let’s have a look at the tape now.
ZONES OF CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENTS, 2 January 1960
“Knowledge and control and responsibility all go hand in glove. These things are all together.
In order to know about something, you must have some control over it-some slight control-to know about it. In order to have control over something, you must have some responsibility for it. In order to be responsible for it, you must know something about it. And we sort of have a brand-new triangle, composed of knowledge, control and responsibility as three corners.”
Everybody get that?
“…a brand-new triangle…”
Well then, since this is 1960 – it couldn’t possibly be the S and double triangle one, now could it.
So there you go – they lied in Exec Series 8, it is not the top triangle of the symbol, and it was not Hubbard who said that it was!
What a rat’s nest that Scientology is – I mean really, they can’t even keep their lies straight!
Here’s another reference from the same day, just to drive this home a little more.
CREATE AND CONFRONT, 3 January 1960
Well, this triangle that we’ve run into of knowledge, control and responsibility handles this obsessive creation.
…It doesn’t particularly influence the knowledge, control and responsibility triangle.
Here’s almost 2 years later – and we have another new triangle. Hubbard was rather obsessed with triangles.
HOW TO SECURITY CHECK, 2 November 1961, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
Here we have a class of thing which is all of a-all of a piece: unknowingness, forgettingness, withholdingness and stupidity. These all go together. These are all of a class. They are not the same thing but each one interdepends on another. It’s kind of another triangle like we used to have in ARC and still have. But unknown and stupidity and withholds go up and down accompanying one another. They are hand in glove. The more withholds a person has the more stupid he’d be; the more unknowns he will have. And you’ve got these three things just marching up and down beside each other. And as you improve a person’s withholds, if they’re actually withholds, of course he will get brighter…
Now here’s one from this same time period, where he specifically mentions the S and double triangle, but sure doesn’t say that top one means KRC.
SCIENTOLOGY, WHERE WE ARE GOING – 30 December 1961
I don’t expect you to be driving down the highway with a great big flag on your radiator cap Scientology, the S and double triangle-and shoot everybody dead who dares whisper against Scientology or spread any entheta or something of the sort…
To illustrate that Hubbard did indeed have the symbol for Scientology itself, to be the S and double triangle – there is also this reference.
SHSBC Tape – Between Lives Implants – 23 July 1963
… show him an “S” and double triangle, and there he goes.
[note: “him” refers back to that earlier Hubbard is making a racist slur against a CHINESE person being implanted between lives. This is done with an of course attitude, being implanted, as if that explains what’s wrong with the Chinese]
… The truth never hurts. It’s only lies that aberrate.
Lies like this?
“The very fact that this is a prison planet, that it is being monitored this carefully right this minute…
…[The aliens-from-another-planet Marcabians] They’ve been looking down the backs of our necks and we didn’t know it, for thousands of years. Each one of us as a person and as a society as a whole.”
And now…..for what those triangles really mean.
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 AUGUST 1963
CERTIFICATES AND AWARDS
… Release buttons (an “R” set in the S and double ARC Triangle of Scientology)
Copyright @ 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DOUBLE ARC TRIANGLE…
Nothing in there about it being a KRC/ARC triangle, and note that this reference is AFTER the 1960 tape that documents the first finding of the KRC triangle.
Here’s another point that shows that the Top Triangle never was “the KRC triangle” – Judy Ziff, (wife of David Ziff long-time editor of Scientology’s Advance! magazine late 60′s through mid 1970′s) was the editor of Auditor magazine in 1967, specifically the #26 issue. In that issue, a definition is given for the S and double-triangle by Judy.
BEAR IN MIND, this is also after the reference discovering the KRC triangle (ZONES OF CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENTS, 2 January 1960) so it also illustrates that NO ONE defined that top triangle as the “KRC triangle” until the mid 1970′s. And even then, it was also not done by Hubbard either!
Since the double ARC triangle was first used on the book Science of Survival, are there other triangles listed in there?
Yep, there are.
Remember this first edition picture?
The top triangle is much larger, indicating a seniority or “larger than” impression.
Now, look at this, Science of Survival Book 1, p 99:
THE GOD TRIANGLE
“The theta universe is a postulated reality for which there exists much evidence. If one were going to draw a diagram of this, it would be a triangle with the Supreme Being at one corner, the MEST universe at another, and the theta universe at the third. Too much evidence is forthcoming in research to permit us to overlook this reality.”
That’s a little different than the KRC triangle, now isn’t it?
NO WONDER THEY TRIED TO HIDE THIS!
Dan Koon (and others)..REDEFINED IT because they were trying to hide the Rosicrucian/Judaism/Christianity elements that are built in to the very roots of Scientology itself. Not to mention trying to hide the obvious links to the fact that Scientology was (and is) a combined British and American Intelligence psychological warfare operation against the minds of the rest of us.
IN THAT TRIANGLE, the Supreme Being is the senior part of the triangle, “he” is at the top - just like Communication is the senior part of the ARC triangle.
According to Hubbard in Science of Survival, “God” made thetans.
The biologist… has sought to dream for man an origin out of mud and ammonia seas and a source for him independent of God, but springing only from material things.
If Dianetics does not come too late upon the scene, its investigation of higher mind levels… may be of assistance to a resurgence in man of something of his belief in a Divine Being and in himself as an entity partially divine.
Well, that pretty much says it all as to what’s wrong with Scientology.
Bridge…to a NEW WORLD?
Sounds pretty same old, same old TRAP to me…
*References on Dan Koon and RTRC IC , and what else they have been up to – and Operation Save Scientology and the Independents/Freezone
Scientology – Dan Koon and The Six Month Check Line
Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) #20 Alteration – The Full Story
Scientology – Do You have An ARC-Break?
Scientology Today – A Study of Contrasts and Parallels