ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

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

Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by Dulloldfart, May 31, 2010.

  1. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    This is a post of mine from my iCans blog and also the Workable Technology Forum. I hope it prompts more comment here on ESMB. I just saw a post about some freezoners delivering "Standard Tech" and want to make an appropriate comment. Again. :)


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

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

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

    Hubbard gave many definitions. I don’t want you to think I’m just cherry-picking some that support my point of view and ignore others more prominent that refute it. There are five definitions in the Tech Dictionary. A typical one there is
    4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70).
    Sounds great, doesn’t it? But WTF does it mean? What exactly are the rules of processing? Everything in the Tech Volumes and 3000 lectures? --No, no (one might say), don’t be an idiot! There are just a few core basics, like the axioms, the auditors code, auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, things like that. Is there a list anywhere? --Oh no, you have to do the Class VIII course in order to know them.

    The Class VIII Course was developed in 1968. Its product per the pack is “A zealot for Standard Tech.” I used to supervise the Class VIII Course at Saint Hill in the early 80s. Anyway, let’s go to the Class VIII course, thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, and toss off some quotes from there. Here are a couple I think are pretty typical:
    You say, “Yes, but this PC could sit there for a month without any auditing.” It’s god damn well better he did. If there’re two people who have entirely different opinions on what ought to be done with this case, then either one or the other of those two different people do not know standard tech, because if they knew standard tech they would not have any divergence of opinion.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    --Yes! Hip Hip—


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

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

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

    --Yes. Right. Hooray!

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

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

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

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

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

  2. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor


    Mark A. Baker
  3. rocky the flying squirrel

    and bullwinkle j moose
  4. R6Basic

    R6Basic Patron Meritorious

    So, the def. of 'Standard Tech' should just be "That which works no matter what the source or when the date?"

    That sounds good to me. I mean as long as people are truly getting better from the 'tech' that is being applied then source isn't so much an issue. (Granted it's not stolen and being used illegally.)
  5. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Try discussing the subject with one of the fundamentalist "original workable technology of Lafayette Ron Hubbard" guys and see how far you get with that definition. :).

    But you would have to toss in something about it having been published in an official Scientology medium, otherwise it could include my Rub & Yawn stuff and I would definitely object to that being included with Scientology.

  6. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    Paul the solution is easy, it is confusing as to what is real Ronny stuff and what was Mayo etc, so just don't do it! Just carry on with the yawning and farting, it's guaranteed to get a blow down!:yes:
  7. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I don't have a problem with my own stuff at all. I don't pretend that it is Scientology even, let alone standard anything, although it sure works well.

    I just get irritated sometimes when some idiot Scientology freezoner is promoting that he delivers "100% standard tech" and he doesn't really have a clue what he means by it. It is just used by him as a magic talisman because it sounds good, and it's good for business.

  8. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    The whole idea of a 'Standard Tech' is just another marketing device.
  9. Good twin

    Good twin Floater

    100% standard tech is old historical background data.

    We now have something better. Shack Tech. :thumbsup:

    Marty is the only verifiable non squirrel auditor on planet earth at this time. Shack tech will replace 100% standard tech in the near future because 100% standard tech is actually squirrel tech.

    Try to keep up. :)
  10. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

  11. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    I think that a good counsellor will give good results and a bad one will screw the person up whatever the tech is being used. TR's and fake interest don't make a bad listener any better. I've had chats with random people on trains that gave me more benefit than hours of drug run down from someone who wanted to be somewhere else. It's not saying the right thing at the right time, it's having someone who actually cares about what you say, really hearing and understanding what you have said that counts. Weather there's any validity to the tech itself I have no idea, standard or squirrel, no idea what I had and from whom, but I can tell you which auditors actually listened and which ones just went through the motions.
  12. Good twin

    Good twin Floater

    This is what I have come to believe as well. :yes:
  13. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    Great post. Thanks. Scientology makes natural and simple things complicated. People are not machines.
  14. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    If the only tech in use is itsa — where the pc just talks about what's bugging him — then yes, to a large extent that is true. But if the tech is more advanced than that, like, for instance, oh I don't know, maybe Rub & Yawn :))), then the listening aspect of the session becomes far less important. Almost all of the Rub & Yawn auditing that occurs is done by my automated applications where there is precisely zero listening involved, although the pc can take notes or talk to the wall as needed. From my experience it seems that if the person follows the instructions and is dealing with a hot topic then results will be obtained.

    I have a purely itsa application (Rogerian therapy at that also seems to work on fairly hot topics (it won't really work on something mild), and again there is totally zero listening involved.

    Writing in a journal can be quite therapeutic. Again there is zero listening involved. Posting on ESMB can be very therapeutic too.

    I think the therapeutic part is sorting things out for oneself enough to express them coherently in words, and also revisiting the events out there instead of inside one's mind (even if only five seconds later) in reading the words one has just written. So, much (not all) of the skill in listening really comes down to not interrupting!

    Hubbard's standard tech idea from the Magic of the Communication Cycle that it takes a live being on the other end of the comm line in order for the pc to discharge anything is just bullshit, as shown by the examples above, in fact any of the successes from my automated (Robot) auditing applications. It's even shown as bullshit by anyone who has discharged stuff using Self Anaysis lists by themselves.

    Last edited: Jun 1, 2010
  15. R6Basic

    R6Basic Patron Meritorious

    As always, a well thought out and sound argument. :)
  16. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron


    Yet, I find the most benefit from the action of placing an understanding out there, say, three feet in front of one's face. To cause a duplication of viewpoint or understanding in another being, over the illusion of distance, is a higher level skill worth attaining. My opinion, of course.
  17. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Not so. The only auditing courses I did was HQS and interne on NED. I
    was expected to apply standard tech and use basics correctly. BTW an important basic you missed was TRs.

    Its a very interesting subject. Is class VIII primarily for C/S's?

    I'm yet to listen to the class VIII tapes but its on my to do list.

    Hubbard was clearly looking at creating a subject that worked 100%
    for 100% of people. A great ambition, but IMO only approached by those who
    are gifted and very experienced. I believe the C/S series was a result of the class VIII course, and from my limited knowledge seems excellent stuff.

    Book 1 isn't standard tech but can achieve miracles in the hands of

    In the hands of experts can do that probably fairly often.

    Were LRH alive and in good health he'd have no doubt been still refining and researching tech. Who knows he may have created his own robot auditor. :)

    I'll tell a story leaving out some details, Phil Spickler class VIII, worked
    with LRH from 1952, C/S at LA, honarary class XIII awarded by LRH for his book 1 course, honoured by at least two declares did some auditing to good results using methods standard tech guys would scream about. An expert.

    Also Paul you forgot to mention that in 1968, quickie grades were
    standard tech. :)
  18. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Hubbard's idea was that only a master in a subject could know what was important in a subject. We're not talking about some bullshit "Reiki Master" or "NLP Master" where you get a cert saying you're one after a few days' or weeks' study. I mean a real master who can think with the subject, with *lots* of good training and maybe 10,000 hours of experience and guidance from experts.

    The idea as laid out in an old LRH ED that I have quoted a few times (Google "real design of training") is the lower courses like Academy Levels are fast courses that teach technique; the long, long SHSBC, covering the entire evolution of the tech in chronological order, teaches all the philosophic background with a polishing of technique and makes an excellent auditor; and then the auditor (who should also have audited thousands of hours by this time) is able to do the Class VIII course and appreciate it. He KNOWS from long, bitter experience the relative importances of all the parts of auditing, so when he studies about what is important and what isn't the concepts have a huge amount of reality for him and he can appreciate them fully. It's not the same as an HQS course graduate reading the pack and thinking he is now like a Class VIII.

    You can have someone on a beginning course chant off a list of basics, but he only knows they are important because he has been told that. He doesn't KNOW from his own experience why they are important. (For the sake of this argument I am pretending Hubbard had it all worked out properly. Maybe one day I'll make up a list of basics and examine how much of them seem to me to be spot-on and how many don't, but for now I know many of them are fine.)

    That is what Hubbard said was the right way to do it.

    Now, just because some prick comes along and says you need to be a perfect auditor before you're allowed to take anyone in session doesn't make it so. An auditor learns to audit by auditing. Doing a year or more of theory and drilling first is crazy.


    I didn't omit TRs from a complete list. I gave some examples, and didn't include TRs in them.

    Last edited: Jun 1, 2010
  19. Telepathetic

    Telepathetic Gold Meritorious Patron

    Nice essay Paul!

    I just copied it and plan to show it to a friend who is somewhat "out" but is still one of those "standard LRH tech" zealots.

  20. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Thanks for reference :) Will persue.

    When I did HQS I hadn't heard of class VIII. May possibly have done it prior to 1968.