Group Engrams was first defined in a Bulletin, called Group Dianetics™ (DAB, Jan 1951). It loosely refers to a group in a state of chock. Something traumatic happens and the group goes hay wire. Hubbard describes it as the effects of arbitrary orders, that appear contrary to the group's ideals and ethics. From the Technical Dictionary:

What happened in San Francisco was not an isolated incident. The whole ordeal started about 10 years earlier. Here is a summary as far as we have well documented facts : In the early 70'ies it was decided to execute a secret operation called Snow White. It was executed by Guardians Office under Mary Sue Hubbard's and Jane Kemper's leadership. Many reports suggest, that the idea was conceived by Hubbard himself, while he was staying in New York in 1972-73. The plan was to infiltrate government offices and get copies of all reports they possessed about Church of Scientology™ and Hubbard. It was a highly risky and illegal operation. It was resorted to after it became clear, that the Freedom of Information Act was being obstructed by government officials. They were supposed to provide these documents to Church of Scientology™, but didn't. These reports had special interest, because they could help to pin down who was behind attacks. For a while GO had remarkable success with their covert operation. But as time went on greater and greater risks were taken. Finally the whole thing blew up.

In July 1977 FBI staged a big raid on the Guardian's Offices  in LA and Washington DC simultaneously. As a result the leadership of Church of Scientology™ and GO was rattled and it ended up in a big court case, where Mary Sue Hubbard, Jane Kemper and seven other GO execs were sentenced to jail.

In the wake of this, Hubbard decided to live and work out of sight, so he couldn't be summoned to court or indicted. The GO was disbanded and 'cleaned up'. A new network called OSA was to take its place. It was not an independent network as GO had been, but officially under the local orgs authority. Otherwise little had changed.

While Hubbard was still on the scene, he had built up his Commodore Messengers Org (CMO) to assist him to execute his leadership and orders. As Hubbard's position weakened, CMO got more and more powerful in his place. When he disappeared they managed to take control after several battles. It was a time of great turmoil and numerous group engrams. There was a transition period of restructuring and power struggle. But out of this came the new leadership under Religious Technology Center and David Miscavige. It appears DM had won the fight internally. He was still an unknown to the orgs and the public at large. There have been many allegations and reports of off policy activities, dirty tricks and outright criminal activities that was used in that power struggle. It has even been suggested, that  Hubbard's will they built their authority on was a forgery. There are still many holes of weak or lacking evidence, allegations and counter allegations.

Now over 20 years later many accounts exist. But all of them are emotional and slanted, either for the mission holders or for management. There are many unexplained motives and actions. Although RTC has released a doctored transcript of the event itself, it does not shed light on anything behind the scenes.  In other words there still isn't a reliable, detailed and full account in existence nor a safe environment for this to be sorted out. RTC does not repent their actions and the mission holders don't have access to the whole story. Accounts from Bent Corydon (a mission holder and participant in the meeting) and others is only half of the story.

Although I have seen numerous successes where ethics was applied by and to individuals, I can't say the history of the subject as a whole has convinced me about anything except that it's a two edged sword that few have the skill and integrity to use.

As far as the Group Engram in question is concerned Ethics was grossly misused as the 'weapon of choice' to purge out anybody, that was in disagreement with the new management. I doubt if any amount of investigation and use of Repair of Past Ethics Conditions etc. can ever straighten that mess out and heal the group.

One of the major weaknesses of the Ethics system is, in my opinion, that there are absolutely no rights or protection for the defendant. Burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty, Miranda rights, independent judges etc. are just not there. In other words, if somebody in power says you are guilty, you are sunk! The only thing that can save you is, if you are a heck of a talker and somebody choose to listen. In other words, a subject with a lot of power to it has all too often been turned into a loaded gun with no safety mechanism installed.

Also an ethics system will only handle a third dynamic, that has a stable frame of reference. When you talk about the whole group which is in a battle with FBI, IRS, its own field and own members and which leadership has been found guilty of crimes, this frame of reference goes out the window. This is a condition of war. We saw an ugly power struggle, that totally set aside the rationale of the group in the early 1980'ies. In that situation Ethics was the weapon of choice in a partisan fight for control and power; not a serene quest for the greatest good by a blindfolded lady.

After studying these various approaches that has been developed over the years, only this stands out as a workable and doable approach: Having an independent and hopefully unbiased 'historian' write the whole time track of the events. I am sure that would have a tremendous impact in terms ‘reducing the engram’ - even 20 years later. A group has its own memory banks and even with change of personnel, the engram is still there. It would help reconciliate the Freezone and the Church of Scientology™ into at least to be able to coexist. It could have a reforming influence on the Church of Scientology™ and possibly help remind them of their true responsibilities.

I can't say I am sure it will ever be written. The Church of Scientology™'s' line seems so set on being right and presenting things as being perfect or at least necessary and rational. They are not likely to permit access to needed documents nor allow key personnel to testify.

There is a personal approach to straightening out group engrams and problems. Basically it's based on what we know from the above definitions; but there is a second definition in the Technical Dictionary we need:

This contains the additional truth, that we all have a hand in perpetuating a bad situation. The group engram is based on our individual abberations coming into play. The arbitrary commands have set our case whistling and a way to stop it is to look at our part. It can be understood in terms of By-passed Charge (BPC). BPC means charge that was restimulated but not picked up or handled. So we push this theory a little further and address areas that contain BPC on the third dynamic. We want to address this common BPC on the individual group member.

The general definition is: Something which is introduced into the situation without regard to the data of the situation
Introduction of these arbitraries cause BPC in the group.

If we isolate and address areas, that contain arbitraries we can certainly help group members to become stronger and less prone to group upsets, mob mentality or mass hysteria. In terms of BPC the rule is, the moment the correct by-passed charge is found and indicated the person feels much better.

If our analysis is good and we have many group members using the data, it will have a definite impact on the group's rationale and help deaberrate the group.

Let me give an example: Let’s say we have a group of five years old kids playing peacefully. Suddenly you scream: Watch out the Boogie man is coming! They will start to cry and run around in panic. That’s a group engram.

Then you educate them and teach them, that boogie men doesn’t exist. A year later you repeat the experiment. You scream: Watch out, the Boogie man is coming! Now they know that it’s a complete arbitrary and they will laugh and start making jokes about it.

Because they knew it was just a silly arbitrary, they acted calmly and rational in the situation and after a few jokes (a form of rejection), they went on with their business of playing.

In this series of articles we will chase arbitraries and ‘boogie men’ and the like. There is one type of arbitrary we especially find interesting to look for: Holy Cows. These are the arbitraries, that everybody seem to agree upon, yet they don’t hold up to rational inspection. By finding arbitraries, boogie men and holy cows and educate ourselves through study, drills and processing our whole outlook as group members will change and so will the group.