Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document date: 1961, 2 November
Document title: How to Security Check
Document type: lecture transcript
Event: Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
Location: East Grinstead, Sussex
Document ID: SHSBC-79
Description: In this lecture on security checking, Hubbard talks about straightening people out on their mores and moral codes; asserts that there is no act pronounced immoral in any one part of Earth which cannot be found to be moral in some other part of Earth; instructs on security checking the moral codes in times of prior confusion.
But if you think you’re going to take a member of the Bank Robbers Security League and sec check him on a churchman’s moral code and wind up with an increased IQ, of course, you’re quite mistaken. This will not occur.
What you’ve got to do is sec check within the reality of what the pc is and what the pc has done. You have to sec check within that reality.
Well, there is one method of finding the zone by dynamics, and another method: zones of action by change. That is the Problems Intensive1.
Well, the hidden confusion was when he was in school. All right. Now, that is not anything but a school mores. It couldn’t be anything but school mores. It is not familial mores, particularly; it’s school mores. The confusion immediately before this change that you assessed out was going to school. So therefore it’s a school mores. It’s a schoolboy’s attitude toward the parents; a schoolboy’s attitude, you see, toward teachers; a schoolboy’s attitude toward all the other aspects of existence. Well, what are these, what are these? And what’s the morals? What’s the mores of a school? “Thou shalt not give the headmaster an even break,” you know? It’s the thousand-odd commandments of the schoolboy. “Thou mustn’t peach. Thou mustn’t inform on thy worst enemy.” All kinds of weird moral codes, one kind or another. “Thou shalt take revenge.” It’s quite weird, you know? Somebody was mean so therefore all the other boys enforce the fact that there must be a fight.
You know, it’s quite weird. But so is any of these moral codes. And if you’re living comfortably, ensconced in a sort of a even, easy-go sort of a society, and you’d say, “Well, I know what’s moral: ‘Thou shalt not, thou shalt not and thou shalt not and thou shalt not,’ and that’s about all there is to it. And, of course, I am a moral person.” That is the emptiest remark that anybody ever made. “I am a moral person.” There isn’t any other kind.
It doesn’t make him a well-behaved person, except in one group: the group that happens to have the same morals. See that, and then he’s a well-behaved person only in that group. It’s very interesting The auditor’s viewpoint can be thrown out. The auditor can sec check securely from the fact of the Presbyterian church and then with what amazement discover that nobody but Presbyterians ever lives by the Presbyterian church. Always discovers this with some shock. And never under any circumstances realizes there’s a moral code amongst marijuana addicts. See, so that is immoral.
Well look, it’s only immoral to those groups that have a moral code that says what the other side is doing is bad.
I’m not now trying to tear down and rip to pieces every single moral code that has ever been developed anywhere. As a matter of fact, we have the only means that has ever been discovered of straightening them out. I don’t know how anybody can be a Presbyterian after having been a Roman Catholic for fifteen hundred years. If the Presbyterian church was smart, if it was very, very clever, why, it would come around and find a bunch of us auditors and get us to sit down with our E-Meters and put the congregation up the line out of the moral area that they are stuck in so that then they will hear something of what the preacher is saying. I think it’s a waste of air and church heat and a few other things. He’s standing up there and he’s ranting and pounding the pulpit and telling them they must not sin. And just think of this fellow who is totally stuck in the Never-Give-a-Planet-an-Even-Break Space Jockeys Protective Association.
And here’s this preacher ranting at him, “Thou shalt not sin. You must learn to become a moral person.” And something in the back of his mind says, “You know, I don’t want to kill any more women. And this fellow is standing up there demanding that I kill women. And that is why I left the Space Jockey Protective Association because it was just too much . . just one too many women. Now, why does the Presbyterian church want me to kill women?” This is what goes in crosswise, you see, in the reactive bank. And the fellow is very puzzled about Presbyterianism. And he can’t articulate what it is and he can’t understand about it. He just thinks that, well, it’s not quite for him.
And if you ask him about it, almost on a flash response, “What does a Presbyterian church want you to do?”
“They want me to steal ships and kill women.” And even he at this point looking at that would say, “You know, that’s peculiar.” Because they don’t want him to commit sin.
If you raved and ranted at a large group of people with great force and decibels of sound that they must not sin, that they must be moral people, and never at any time held up what you were talking about or defined morals or showed them any moral code or anything . . you just collect them at random and then just start screaming at them that they mustn’t sin, they mustn’t be immoral, so on . . people would walk out of there and do some of the weirdest things.
You should realize that there is no act pronounced immoral in any one part of Earth which cannot be found to be moral in some other part of Earth. So remember that, when you are doing Security Checking. Security check against the moral code of the prior confusion2,3.
And, well, if your prior confusion, let us say, is a period after the person has been an auditor for years and it’s a big confusion and it has something to do with auditing in an organization or something like this . . there was a big confusion at this time, and after that he changed something or other, and that’s the confusion you assessed, and that is the confusion that you are security checking. And you’ve learned that in his early life he was a Presbyterian or something You know he’s probably crossed up one way or the other. But probably the code he has gone against is the code he understands to be the code of a Scientologist . . not the written Code of the Scientologist. The written Code of the Scientologist is not the code of a Scientologist, oddly enough. It is simply something that is held up as a . . as some kind of a model of action to keep us from getting our heads kicked in. But we have developed quite a structure of morality, you know? “Thou shalt not audit badly.” That’s one of the foremost of them.
Hubbard, L. R. (1961, 2 November). How to Security Check. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, (SHSBC-79). Lecture conducted from East Grinstead, Sussex.