Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study or       What it means and how it has been dealt with through the
     years
(2)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.


Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’  (page 2)

Go to “Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study” index page



 
‘Disconnection’ A.D. 1983

Back to Main Index A prologue

To have a full understanding of the ‘Disconnection’ that made its entry in 1983 one needs to carefully examine the following 2 references:

      1)  HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”      
    A release that easily can be taken as a reissue of the same line of approach previously forwarded by the confidential HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”removing the confidentiality label. Although this HCOB is getting into more detail of the matter and is furthermore even stepping up the actions.  
  2) HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”  
    Which in actual fact is HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”, only reissued under a new issue date. So, it is the same issue, but has since been revised and added upon a bit. Where the original HCO PL was written by Mary Sue Hubbard, this particular reissue is fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard and the name Mary Sue Hubbard is not seen anywhere anymore. This un-acknowledging of the original writer of the reference actually occurred in a gradient, see full publication history of this reference here (separate window).  
    Revised on the same date as HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, it was subjected to various revisions and implementations to reflect the official reinstatement of an enforced practice of disconnection.  

We also find this little addition in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”:
        
“POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES AND DISCONNECTION  
        
 
The subject and technology of ‘disconnection’ is thoroughly covered in HCOB 10 September 1983, PTS-NESS AND DISCONNECTION, and in the basic technical materials referenced therein.”
 

 
Go back (a) The odd cancellation of HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”

HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” was cancelled by HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” it did that as follows:
    “The following issues, which were not written by the Founder, are hereby CANCELLED: ...
  HCO PL 15 Sep 73           CONFIDENTIAL, HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS”

Then, just 2 days later, we see the release of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection. Which is the reference that furthered the message and handling as laid out in HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”.
The obvious question to ask here is why then it was not “HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” that was cancelling HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”?  Instead this was being done by HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” for given reason that it was “not written by the Founder”?
The new HCOB then has been claimed to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard, but is this really the case? There are indications found that this would not be the case (see chapter “Regarding the authorship of HCOB 10 Sept 83 ‘PTS-ness and Disconnection’”, later on this page, about that).

Evidently we are finding various wrong angles here. We can briefly summarize them as; that (1) if L. Ron Hubbard wrote “HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” then it still remains pretty much so a reissue of indeed very similar data and outset that originally was written by one Judy Ziff. We find however no reference to this person in the new HCOB. Is named L. Ron Hubbard taking credence here for something what some other person wrote and originated?; and (2) if L. Ron Hubbard did not write it then why did HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” had to be cancelled by another reference for given reason that it was “not written by the Founder”?

You see, no other reason than that it was “not written by the Founder” is being given. I does not mention anything about any other reason for cncellation. And so, it does not appear to cancel that very practice!
HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection is just extending and defining more precisely the format, thus stiffening the rule, and for all making the rule public knowledge.

 
Go back (b) HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”

HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”, compiled by “CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL” says:  
“The following issues, which were not written by the Founder, are hereby CANCELLED:”
         HCO PL 16 May 80, Iss I  ETHICS, PTS TYPE A, POLICY ON HANDLING ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES         
  HCO PL 16 May 80, Iss II ETHICS, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS  
  ...    
  HCO PL 15 Sep 73 CONFIDENTIAL, HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS”  

The HCO PL makes a further statement regarding:
   
- “HCO PL 23 Dec 65R, Revised 31 Dec 79, ETHICS, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS” (cancelled by next)
- “HCO PL 16 May 80, Issue II [SAME TITLE]
- “HCO PL 16 May 80, Issue I, on PTS TYPE A”
It stated that these 3 references “sought to remove disconnection from a declared Suppressive Person as a standard action, whereas it is a vital technical tool in the handling of PTSness.”. For which reason they then were cancelled, or remained being cancelled.
To that effect HCO PL 23 Dec 65R “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” had previously been “Revised 31 December 1979 to remove all references to ‘disconnection’ which was cancelled as a condition by the Church of Scientology in 1968”.
Just 2 days after cancelling these we see HCO PL 16 May 80 II “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” being replaced with HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “same title”.

The problem here is that HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” is more or less hidden. It is obscuring the tracking of the publication history of references!
 (1)  HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” should have DIRECTLY cancelled and replaced HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”
 (2)  HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” should have DIRECTLY cancelled and replaced directly HCO PL 16 May 80 II “same title”
Minding as well that HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” was not signed with L. Ron Hubbard, and would have been taken out since. This according to: “HCO PL's that have been written by the Board of Directors ... are being cancelled as HCO PL's and will be reissued as Scientology Policy Directives, so that the HCO PL line remains an LRH line.”  (from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type, Scientology Policy Directives”).
I have however no information it having been cancelled as HCO PL and/or it having been reissued as an SPD. But even this issue-type is not made available anymore for Scientology public. So, the whole cancellation information regarding these references for sure is hidden today!

In regards to the matter of disconnection HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised 31 Dec 79) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” had said:
        
“Any HCO Area Secretary or Ethics Officer may receive evidence of handling suppression ... .”          LRH
        
In HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” this was changed into:
        
“Any HCO Area Secretary may receive evidence of disconnection or disavowal ... .”
        

The year 1983 outlines the handling of PTS'es as being contained in the following references:
        
“Data on PTSes on their handling is contained in HCOB 10 Sept 83, PTS-NESS AND DISCONNECTION, HCOB 20 Oct 76, PTS HANDLING, HCOB 31 Dec 78, II, OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING, and in numerous additional HCOBs contained in the Technical Volumes* as well as in LRH tapes on the subject.”
        
Either of these references and many others relating to the matter have been addressed adequately in this study.

 
Back to Main Index (1): HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”  

HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is responsible for an official reinstatement of an enforced practice of disconnection. Although an unofficial reinstatement was already in place. Established by the confidential release HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”.

 
Go back The various reasons given for cancellation of the previous practice of disconnection examined
(Includes:  HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”;  HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)

HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”

We find the following lines in HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”:
        
“Earlier, disconnection as a condition was cancelled. It had been abused by a few individuals who'd failed to handle situations which could have been handled and who lazily or criminally disconnected, thereby creating situations even worse than the original because it was the wrong action.
        

The reason given for cancellation in 1968 was “since we can now handle all types of cases”. And then 15 years later in 1983 we then get this HCOB saying that the reason for this cancellation back then was because “it had been abused by a few individuals who'd failed to handle situations which could have been handled and who lazily or criminally disconnected.”. These are actually 2 distinct different reasonings that are being forwarded here. On the other hand they can also complement each other.
There was indeed a situation where people had gone and misapplied and/or misused. This is just an expected pattern of behaviour of how man travels through his existence. He misunderstands and then goes on and does something else. Due to the consequences that arose from that, the whole affair, and that what had become if it, got unconditionally cancelled just like that.

The HCOB says that “It had been abused by a few individuals”. Well, if that would have been the case, just “a few individuals”, it would not, I repeat, it would not have brought about the repercussions that it had caused! So, it can not have been just “a few individuals”. Also, what “a few individuals” did or did not do, is not a sufficient reason or ruling factor to change some handling or action. You base a change of handling on an undesirable general scene or situation that has seen a vast spreading. And just “a few individuals” do not cause that.
Then if you decide to bring back into existence that sort of approach and handling you may count with that people will behave in the very same manner. They will misuse it. It doesn't matter how skilled some instructor would be. People tend to walk on the wide path, not the narrow one of understanding.

HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” then forwards a second reason:
        
“Secondly, there were those who could survive only by living on our lines -- they wanted to continue to be connected to Scientologists (see the HCOBs on the characteristics of an SP). Thus, they screamed to high heaven if anyone dared to apply the tech of ‘handle or disconnect.’”
        
Well, here I am really puzzled, what is this about? Why don't you just tell such people to get lost, that you don't want contact with them? May be “they” want to stay having contact with you (?). And if any wants to scream, well scream, who cares? Sooner or later they will get silent. I have no reality on the ‘situation’ that is being relayed here. Haven't seen it, nor do I consider this being a situation.


HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” and its revision from 10 Sept ’83

The original release of HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” that had been written by Mary Sue Hubbard had said about this:
        
Many took the easy course and merely disconnected as such disconnection was only temporary for the time of their training or processing and so they did not in actual fact handle the condition in their life which was upsetting to them as Scientologists.”
        
The 10 Sept ’83 revision of the same reference, issued as HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “same title”, added the following sentence at the end of the above paragraph:.
        
“In some cases there was a mis-application of the tech, as their situations were totally handle-able with the use of simple Scientology basics.”
        
A statement that probably is very true.

We find here that a similar reason had been given in HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”.


HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”

We then find that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” tales about a different angle of the matter. This HCOB was a somewhat remarkable reference and it had been attributed to L. Ron hubbard for having written it. The HCOB informed us that “there have been a staggering number of tech sectors that have been corrupted by issues by others that alter-ised.”. Concluding that “A very few people (3 or 4) have wittingly or unwittingly brought about outnesses which could easily make the difference between successful case handling and failed cases.”.
This reference then noted 23 outnesses and their handling, listed from “A:” to “X:”. Its author noted that “This completes 7 months of search for tech outnesses.”. The first one being addressed was: “A:  PTS HANDLING” that says:
        
“The first shock (which actually began this current search for out tech issues) was the discovery that PTS conditions were going unhandled across the world and had been for some time.”
        
In this section of the reference it is laid out what had happened and what actions had been taken to have the outness corrected. Particularly interesting is that it says that after having the outness “rounded up” that “PTSness is again being handled successfully over the world”, and mind that this still would be without having an enforced practice of disconnection officially being in use. It also makes the observation that “the condition is not too difficult to handle”. The full text of section “A:  PTS HANDLING” can be consulted here (pop-up window).

The message thus given by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” is that it successfully had dealt with and solved the named problem there and then, back in 1976-77. Now, if that was the case then why then did 1983 require an official reinstatement of en enforced practice of disconnection?

 
Go back (a) The terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ confused

This HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is divided up in various sections. First we get “THEORY” that talks about:
        
“Communication ... is a two way flow. If one has the right to communicate, then one must also have the right to not receive communication from another.”
        

The section “HANDLE OR DISCONNECT” gets into identify in these 2 terms. It does that as follows:
        
“The term ‘handle’ most commonly means, when used in relation to PTS tech, to smooth out a situation with another person by applying the tech of communication.
        
 
The term ‘disconnection’ is defined as a self-determined decision made by an individual that he is not going to be connected to another. It is a severing of a communication line.”
 
A bit further on in the text it talks about a choice:
        
“In order to resolve the PTS condition he either HANDLES the other person's antagonism (as covered in the materials on PTS handling) or, as a last resort when all attempts to handle have failed, he disconnects from the person.”
        
Now, look at this text carefully. It implies here that it requires handling of the “other person's antagonism” to un-PTS a person. It thus implies here that the PTS person would always deemed to be in an effect position if there is an antagonistic person in his/her vicinity! And this is factually a false datum. You see, that which needs handling is the person affected by this “other person's antagonism”. And that is exactly what the matter has been about all along within Scientology! A person that is not affected can undergo processing and perform studies. It is vital to differentiate here to understand the original outset of the why of disconnection. You don't handle the “other person's antagonism” which regularly will actually fail, you handle the person that is affected by it and become cause over it. This is a different target.

The section “HANDLING ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES” goes further into to “educate” the PTS person “in the tech of PTSness and suppression” so that he arrives at a cause point. Here it is directed:
        
“... an Ethics Officer ... does not recommend that the person disconnect from the antagonistic source. The E/O's advice to the Scientologist is to handle.”
        

Next we arrive at the section “WHEN DISCONNECTION IS USED”. I print this section here below in full:
        
“An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone is factually connected to a Suppressive Person, in present time. This is a person whose normal operating basis is one of making others smaller, less able, less powerful. He does not want anyone to get better, at all.
        
 
In truth, an SP is absolutely, completely terrified of anyone becoming more powerful.
 
 
In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to ‘handle’ the person. The answer is to sever the connection.”
 
There is something rather wrong here. You see, the “SP” does not require handling!!! It is the “PTS” that requires handling!!! Whatever happened with the original concept of the disconnection from the late 60's? Which is to make auditing occur! It was never about handling the SP, because you can only then achieve any success there if you handle the PTS. The PTS being handled and placed at cause will make the SP appear of not being of concern anymore.
And so this turns everything completely around, no choice is being given here.

It also would appear that the suppression is divided up here in 2 categories. First we have the “antagonistic source”, and secondly we have the real “Suppression Person”. The first situation can be handled, the second one simply demands disconnection.

From this then follows:  (printed near the end of this same reference)
        
“To fail or refuse to disconnect from a suppressive person not only denies the PTS case gain, it is also supportive of the suppressive—in itself a Suppressive act. And it must be so labelled. (Ref. HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA)”
        
Here we are back to the PTS person able to get “case gain”, and for that it is thus directed by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” that the person has to disconnect always or otherwise ...! And here we find the source to the application that is denying the person the right to actually make “a self-determined decision” about it.
It is a wonder why this has received such a bad repute? You see, if the person will not follow the demand to disconnect, he will receive an SP declare, then all persons having contact with this person, must disconnect, if they do not, they also will get an SP declare ... Now do we have to go on?

There is one more point to make here. In this previous citation we find a reference being given: “Ref. HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA”, which is HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”). We find that this reference says:  (underlining is mine)
        
“Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.”
        
Do note here that the citation as found in HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” in regards to this HCO PL appears not properly relayed! See, the HCO PL tells about: “either handle or disconnect”. The citation from HCOB 10 Sept 83 only has a focus on “to fail or refuse to disconnect”. Which obviously is not a proper use of giving reference!!
Things appear to have turned around in just a short period of time. The previous 1979 version of this HCO PL even read: (underlining is mine)
        
“Any PTS who fails to handle the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised 31 Dec 79) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”)
        
It is probably a bit odd the way this sounds. As one can not actually handle the SP itself! But if you handle the PTSness of the person that dwells in its vicinity, then the SP would simply not be a bother anymore to the now de-PTSed person.
Either way if we would work with the 1983 revision of this HCO PL which directed “either handle or disconnect”. Then we have actually a choice. So, if you handle the SP as per the above you would not have to disconnect. Which in turn is not what HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”directs! Are you still with me?


HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” caused this revised reissue of HCOB 31 Dec 78R (Revised 20 Dec 83) II “Outline of PTS Handling” and added:
        
“In the rare cases where disconnection is validly indicated in order to handle the person's PTSness, the disconnection is done exactly per HCOB 10 Sep 83, PTS-NESS AND DISCONNECTION.”
        
Here are 2 observations that can be made here, these are (1) that handle and disconnect are mixed up, here handle means in fact disconnect. The impression is here given that you handle PTSness by disconnecting. Please think this one carefully over, as this is not actually true. Fully handle would imply that one can be around such a suppression person without being affected negatively by it. To disconnect is a temporarily solution in regards to handle only. You thus disconnect while you are handling the situation. When the handling is done, disconnection serves no immediate purpose anymore as you will be at cause. Then the suppressive person will instead walk away from you.
The other observation here is (2) that it makes mention of “rare cases”, although in the real world's application of this it has since become clear that these occasions were not rare after all. The practice is often resorted to at a whim and is enforced, usually by some Ethics Officer in the organization.

HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” although it refers to disconnection “as a last resort” it would not give that outcome. As later on in the reference it talks about when dealing with an “SP” that “the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to ‘handle’”.
And thus it looks like that “handle or disconnect” in that instance as a rule would be resulting in the same action, namely to actually “disconnect”!
Which in turn is also (sort of) contradicted by HCO PL 30 Jan 83 “Your Post and Life”. That reads:
        
“If you know the tech—and that includes policy—of your post and apply it, you cannot be the adverse effect of it. FACT!”
        
It lists then 5 “ramifications”. The last one reads:
         “5.
An SP confronted by someone who knows and can use all the tech concerning SPs would shatter.”
        
So, how do we have to interpret this? You see, if you disconnect according to the unconditional guideline forwarded by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, then would the result be that the “SPs would shatter”?


The main message relayed by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is that apparently you are always considered PTS or will go PTS if in some way connected with some suppressive person. Therefore it advices you to permanently and rather officially to disconnect. Which is all rather different from the the original concept of the disconnection from the later 60's. So, you may want to think this one over for a while.

 
Go back (b) ‘Self-determinism’  vs  ‘compliance required’

We are being forwarded this datum:
        
“1. That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.
        
 
2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or disconnect.”          LRH
(from HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”)
 
Here we address thus PTS-ness itself as a condition.

Then when he look at HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” we see that is referred to a condition that is assigned to you by someone else and that you are obliged to comply with. In the section heading “EVIDENCE OF DISCONNECTION” we read:
        
“Any HCO Area Secretary may receive evidence of disconnection or disavowal and, on finding them to be bona fide, must place copies of such evidence in the Ethics File and in CF folders of all persons named in them.”
        
And thus here we have 2 different conditions being addressed.

The handling as offered in HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” is done fully by the person on his or her own self-determinism. There is no mention of an Ethics Officer where you have to report or such things. Although HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” makes claims about “a self-determined decision made by an individual” in the final end this is simply not the case when it comes to disconnecting. The HCOB itself reads:
        
“... the tech of disconnection is hereby restored to use, in the hands of those persons thoroughly and standardly trained in PTS/SP tech.”
        
And that would be the named Ethics Officer. And there is no choice or option left in regards to a real suppressive person, here it directs:
        
“An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone is factually connected to a Suppressive Person, in present time. ...
        
 
In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to ‘handle’ the person. The answer is to sever the connection.”
 
Including such ‘suppressive elements’as: “a person or a group that has been declared suppressive by HCO in a published ethics order”. Further informing: “The SP's reform is strictly in the hands of HCO.” and dictating “The PTS simply disconnects.”. Well, I guess at this point in time there is not much left of this “self-determined decision made by an individual”! You are simply are being given an order and that's about it.
Accordingly then all this is ordained by the Ethics Officer's prescription, and enforced on the person.

This is thus one step further away from Scientology being a self-correcting system. The whole point actually here is that you always may decide to not have (or least possible) communication with a particular person or persons. You will rather shun unpleasant individuals, than becoming best friends with them. But all this is your business, you decide about these things, and not someone else who enforces that upon you. And this is basically what the official reinstatement of this practice of disconnection is about.

 
Go back (c) Writing disconnection letters!

Whereas the disconnection procedures from the late 60's did not actually advice writing such things as personal disconnection letters (see main index on this page, chapter “Beginnings of ‘Disconnection’ and cancellation (1965-68)”, section “Writing disconnection letters?”), it would appear that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” condones it fully. And thus the actual misunderstanding and misapplication that arose during the late 60's practice is here, now 25 years later, promoted and fully supported! Now, isn't that interesting!

HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” thus directs:
        
“He should disconnect and, if he wants to inform the SP of the fact, he may write a letter of disconnection. Such a letter would be very straightforward. It would state the fact of the disconnection and the reason for it. It would not be misemotional or accusative, since this would only serve to stir up further antagonism. The letter would be inspected by the Ethics Officer before it was sent, and copies kept for the PTS person's own ethics file and pc folder.”
        
Do mind the control that is exerted on this, the close involvement of the Ethics Officer and copies send to files.

Mind also that if some person sends out such disconnection letters that it also implies that in essence the receiver of such a writing would be considered being a person “whose normal operating basis is one of making others smaller, less able, less powerful. He does not want anyone to get better, at all” and “is absolutely, completely terrified of anyone becoming more powerful”. Now the receiver knows what some person(s) consider him/her to be. Isn't that all nice!
This would thus include those persons that refused to follow up on such an order, they would in turn have received such an SP declare. I guess that they too then are considered persons “whose normal operating basis is one of making others smaller, less able, less powerful. He does not want anyone to get better, at all” and “is absolutely, completely terrified of anyone becoming more powerful”. Which in itself is a rather absurd thought, as that person is only PTS. But you see, you follow the orders, or else ...! There is no space here for “a self-determined decision made by an individual”.

 
Go back HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”  vs  ‘The Scientology Handbook’

This ‘The Scientology Handbook’ (published 1994) is a rather thick book volume (871 pages) that breaks down the “technology of living” into “19 separate aspects of human endeavor” aiming at to be a help “for anyone who wishes to be successful in any and every area of life”. (more info about this book is found here, external link. (last checked: 25 Mar 2013)
One of these “19 separate aspects” found in ‘The Scientology Handbook’ is chapter 11 entitled: “The Cause of Suppression”, this appears re-titled on the Internet site as “Overcoming the Ups and Downs in Life”, visit page here (external link) (last checked: 25 Mar 2013).  It is actually referring to one of these ‘A Scientology Life Improvement Course’ that has the same title. Anyway this particular chapter (any many others) is/are basically just a collection of some HCOB's which are here and there have text adjustments. The main sections as found in the book are as follows:

  
   Sections in book:    Adapted from:    Notes:
 The Antisocial Personality           
 HCOB 27 Sept 66 “The Anti-Social Personality; The Anti-Scientologist”  
 The Social Personality
 Basic Terms and Definitions  This seems very loosely based on HCOB 24 Nov 65 “Search and Discovery”  
 PTS Handling  HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”  
 Further Data on PTS Handling  HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, it skipped the last sections of the original HCOB, amongst other “HOW TO DISCONNECT”  Excluded from the Internet site
 Easy Handling  Source unidentified

It is interesting to notice that the whole of this “Further Data on PTS Handling”’ (=HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”) is not found on that site on the Internet. It must have been because of the sensitivity of the subject of disconnection and the bad repute it has received in the media.

An edited version of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is found on pages 438-441, and has been given the title “Further Data on PTS Handling”. Noteworthy here is the first whole paragraph that is not actually found in the original HCOB. This paragraph reads:
        
“A person applying PTS technology to his own life or to another who is roller-coastering can encounter a [sic] unique circumstance. The PTS person correctly carries out the standard action to handle a person who is antagonistic to him or his activities, yet the antagonistic source continues to remain antipathetic to the PTS person and/or his activities. In this case, it may require the alternate step to handle, which is disconnect.”
        
It is saying in the above that even if “the PTS person correctly carries out the standard action” that “the antagonistic source” can continue “to remain antipathetic to the PTS person and/or his activities”? Be it noted here that handling a PTS would involve that this person would be affected by that anymore. The actual problem is the “PTS person” and not the “the antagonistic source”.


 
Back to Main Index (2): HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”
The relevance of HCO PL 20 Oct 81R “PTS Type A Handling” becomes evident when we see the revision notices of this reference that read:
        
“(Revised 10 Sept 1983 to reinstate the use of disconnection in alignment with HCOB Sept 83, PTSness and Disconnection)”
        
Mind that this revision notice will only be found in the original mimeo print-off of this reference. It is excluded from mention in the version of this same HCO PL as found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes.

 
Go back The odd cancellation of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”

The actual reference that previously in 1968 had cancelled the practice of disconnection HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” was itself cancelled in 1983 by HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”. We find the following notice printed right under the HCO PL date and foregoing the issue title/reference listing:
    “CANCELS: HCO PL 15 Nov 68, CANCELLATION OF DISCONNECTION”
Be it noted here however that this notice is only found in the original mimeo print-off of this reference. You will thus not find it in the version included in the latest 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes.

It is a rather odd cancellation and that from various angles. The main reasons being, that (1) the confidential HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”, issued 10 years earlier, already was reinstating an enforced practice of disconnection and thus had acted against it!; and that (2) if we disregard from the 1973 HCO PL, it would still have been more correct that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” would have cancelled it, as this was the actual reference that had reinstated an enforced practice of disconnection in an official manner.
All that HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling” basically was doing is referring to HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” regarding the disconnection subject matter.

Well, it may have been cancelled by that aforementioned reference because of a technicality. As we have the following:
        
“Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)
        
Per this it may have been thought that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” may not have had authority to cancel HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”. Although this is not even an acceptable explanation as for some odd reason the Religious Technology Center (RTC) of the Church of Scientology has been very persistent in their magazine (‘Keeping Scientology Working News’) and their Internet site (www.rtc.org), at least since 1995 to present day, to refer to HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”.
Although there is no indication anywhere that an HCO PL version of this ever would have been issued. Even the version included in the 1991 release of the policy letter volumes (‘The Organization Executive Course’) is an HCOB version. Then the HCOB version fails to note: “Also issued as an HCO PL, same date”, which is the rule for that.

Ah well, we may as well ask here anyway: “Why did HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” not cancel HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” directly?

 
Go back (a) HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”  turns  HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “same title”

It was Mary Sue Hubbard that back in 1972 had figured out an approach that would successfully address and solve the problem with in particular this PTS Type A. This solution was first issued as HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”. As it was with the latest revision of this reference still issued with the original issue date as BPL 5 Apr 72RC (Revised 29 Dec 78) I “PTS Type A Handling”.
That it had turned into a BPL was due to the 1974-75 revolution in where it was decided that the HCO PL and HCOB issue-types would be reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only. And so the Board Policy Letter issue-type had been created for those policy letters not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
Then in 1981 we see the reference being reissued as HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling” in where Mary Sue Hubbard had been demoted to an assistant, and the reference was attributed to L. Ron Hubbard seemingly as being the author. The revision notes however still said that it was actually “written by Mary Sue Hubbard”. A rather strange happening of affairs. Then 2 years later in time, in the 10 Sept ’83 revision,we see that the reference was now fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard, and no mention is made of Mary Sue Hubbard anywhere! As it appears the un-acknowledging of the origination and authorship of this reference had been implemented in a gradient. A full publication record of this reference and analysis thereof can be consulted here (separate window).

It is further reported that L. Ron Hubbard had added an introduction to this reference in its December 1978 revision. A full version of this BPL 5 Apr 72RC (Revised 29 Dec 78) I “PTS Type A Handling”can be consulted here (pop-up window). I have indicated here clearly the part that was being added and which was the original text from Mary Sue Hubbard.

 
Go back (b) HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” A.D. 1983  

The official reinstatement of the enforced practice of disconnection by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” also caused HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” to be revised. It was reissued in 1981 as HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”. Then on 10 Sept ’83 it was once again revised to have it align to this rekindled and reinforced practice of disconnection.
The changes incorporated in this revision appear difficult to detect. The changes should have been indicated in script (as a standard procedure), for some reason however they are not! Also here I had to compare the 2 references line by line and word for word.
The handling was still laid out until 1981 as follows:
        
“It is actually an interview with the suspected PTS person. It is often done on an E-Meter to assist the verification of data.”  
        
Which is in accordance with HCOB 24 Apr 72 I “PTS Interviews”.
Then it follows with:
        
“If a PTS situation actually exists, the interview must result in a written program agreed upon by the person with copies to the person and to his Ethics file.
        
 
As the person does the steps of the program he reports their accomplishment to the org officer who interviewed him.
 
 
If the person fails to do the program or the program results in no real change in the situation, then the interviewing officer must require the person to have auditing on the subject (a PTS Rundown [as per HCOB 9 Dec 71 “PTS Rundown”] given by a qualified auditor in the HGC).”          LRH  
(from HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”)
 

And here we get to the point where it is changed in 1983. Prior to getting a PTS Rundown you are basically required to disconnect. Last above quoted paragraph got replaced with all of the following:  (the text in this type style was added in 1983)
        
“If the person fails to do the program or the program results in no real change in the situation, the interviewing officer must investigate thoroughly to find out what the person is doing instead of the program and check for any communication he may have sent which continued the upset, and get this corrected at once. He must also ensure the PTS A person is handling the correct antagonistic person. (Example: PTS person Jones may have thought the antagonism was coming from Smith, whereas Smith's upset is being kept alive by Smith's associate, Doakes, who has disagreements with and/or misunderstoods on Scientology.)
        
 
If the handling program is drawn up standardly and yet the person is sour on it or ‘doesn't want to do the handling’ or never seems to quite get around to doing the program, then the Ethics Officer would suspect that either:
 
 
(a)
a wrong item had been found, which would require an L4BRA [assessment of auditing listing errors] done by an auditor in session to handle (Ref:... )
 
 
(b)
the program had been misimplemented (the pc didn't really understand what he was to do, was mis-coached on the steps of the handling, or he ‘did the handling’ in such a way as to create further antagonism rather than ease it requiring a thorough review of the situation and handling of whatever is found. (Ref:... )”
 
Per what I have seen during the years the above addition would be rarely applicable. The PTS interview is a rather simple procedure and would give indicators quickly. Was this text implemented here because the next step would be disconnection, and mistakes then would not be permitted to be made? That is probably so.

The text continues as follows:
        
“If (a) and (b) above have been thoroughly checked into by the Ethics Officer to ensure that any non-standard application has been corrected, and there is still no change in the situation (i.e. the antagonism and upset continue), the PTS person would then disconnect. And if the person does need to disconnect, the HCOB 10 September 1983, PTS-NESS AND DISCONNECTION, must be followed exactly.
        
 
Fortunately, standard PTS Type A handling does handle the majority of these situations. When disconnection is required, very often that is enough to handle the PTSness.
 
 
Should the condition persist, however, then the interviewing officer must require the person to have auditing on the subject (a PTS Rundown given by a qualified auditor in the HGC).”
(from HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”)
 

Noteworthy is that disconnection is placed prior to doing the PTS Rundown. What if this rundown would have solved the PTS condition? One could have chosen for the option that it would be advised to reside with friends (something) while receiving this PTS Rundown. For this no ordination of the Ethics Officer would have been required. But HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” had directed otherwise!

This line is also interesting (quoted again): “When disconnection is required, very often that is enough to handle the PTSness.”. I would comment here that disconnection is not an actual handling of the situation, it's putting it ‘off-shore’. Meaning you turn your back to it, you actually walk away from it! This would be alright to do as for a temporary relief, it does however never result in actually handling the suppression itself. A handling would involve not being affected by it negatively even if being in contact or close to any such person. And nothing says that one has to be in contact with such a person either. But factually handling the suppression itself would have de-PTSed the now previous PTS person. Him or her being in the vicinity of some suppressive person or not.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The legal consideration  vs  Newspaper coverage from early 1984

As it appears both HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” and HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling” received a notice regarding a legal consideration.

HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” notes:
        
“Nothing in this HCOB shall ever or under any circumstances justify any violations of the laws of the land. Any such offense shall subject the offender to penalties by law as well as to ethics and justice actions.”
        
HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling” had added in its revision:
        
“Nothing in this Policy Letter shall ever or under any circumstances justify any violations of the laws of the land or intentional legal or moral wrongs.”
        

It appears that one at least was aware of the sensitiveness of these matters. And thus some precaution had been taken for improper or impertinent use of this that could reflect back on to the organization. This was as well exactly what had happened earlier during the 2nd half of the 60's. Which basically was caused by a misunderstanding that lead to a misapplication and upsets. Now, why would anyone think that this would go any different this time??
In spite of these rather naïve precautions (or warnings) added to these 2 references it did appear that an official reinstatement of an enforced practice of disconnection provided for bad publicity to the Scientology organization very early on indeed.

There were various reactions that were directly caused by the reinstatement of an enforced practice of disconnection that made it to the newspapers as early as February 1984:  (all pop-up windows)
    ‘East Grinstead Courier’, 9 Feb 84 “Sect Row Over Policy”
    (members quit in ‘disconnection’ protest)
  ‘Daily Mail’, 11 Feb 84 “We Disconnect You!”
    (return of a condemned ritual)
  ‘Grinstead Courier’, 16 Feb 84 “Buy-out Bid for Sect”
    (disaffected Scientologists fight ‘disconnections’)
  ‘East Grinstead Courier’, 23 Feb 84 “Poison-Pen Campaign Alleged”
    (‘maintaining friendly relations’ vs ‘disconnections’)

 
Back to Main Index Regarding the authorship of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”
Is it actually possible that this HCOB is not compiled or written by L. Ron Hubbard? I reflect on this possibility because there have existed a whole variety of references and particularly during these early 80's that were attributed to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard, only to have a whole variety of them cancelled some 10 years later because it was found that they had been written by someone else. See for information my pages “Story of the ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH?” (visit here, separate window) & “Non-LRH turns into LRH?” (visit here, separate window). Now, would it be possible that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” was one of these references, but for some reason had been overlooked?
L. Ron Hubbard has always advocated more communication and not less communication for handling situations. This is also the message given by him in a lecture given in 1975 in regards to PTSness, this section was issued later as BTB 11 Nov 77 “Handling PTS Situations”, consult here (pop-up window). Presently it is in use as HCOB 8 Mar 83 “same title”. Now, when you reflect little about this, disconnection effectively opposes to more communication, and is favourable towards less communication.

 
Go back A summary of arguments

We have 5 main arguments that can be put forward here:

1.    An old procedure officially reinstated after establishing a way of handling that had made it superfluous
2.    Disconnection ‘on your own self-determinism’ and ‘by arrangement of other’ are being mixed up
3.    The use of the terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ are being confused 
4.    ‘We can handle’ turns ‘We can not handle’
5.    The HCOB issue-type format is the wrong issue-type format!
  Summary
  
  
  
Go back
1. An old procedure officially reinstated after establishing a way of handling that had made it superfluous
    
  The outcome of the release of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is that it caused an old procedure, that was misunderstood and accordingly misapplied was cancelled in 1968, only to be officially reinstated in 1983 and in use till this day, which is not in the line of logic. Also it is not in the line of logic that L. Ron Hubbard would contradict himself in such a way, as he did conclude in 1970 that “man cannot be trusted with justice”.   (see chapter “Beginnings of ‘Disconnection’ and cancellation (1965-68)”, section “Cancellation of ‘Disconnection as a condition’ (Nov 68)” , chapter “The practice of ‘Disconnection’ reinstated, yet in secrecy (Sept 73)”, section “(2) HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”” & chapter “Educating the PTS & ‘Why finding’, a solution to PTSness (1971-78)” earlier in this study)  
  
  
  
Go back
2. Disconnection ‘on your own self-determinism’ and ‘by arrangement of other’ are being mixed up
    
  The year 1983 introduced a mixing up of (1) PTS-ness itself as a condition (ref. HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”) as opposed to (2) a condition that can be assigned to you by someone else and that you are obliged to comply with (ref. HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”). When these actually 2 disrelated conditions!  It then appears that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling” & HCOB 31 Dec 78R (Revised 20 Dec 83) II “Outline of PTS Handling” are a bit unclear about which is meant.   (see chapter “‘Disconnection’ A.D. 1983: (1) HCOB 10 Sept 83 ‘PTS-ness and Disconnection’”, section “‘Self-determinism’  vs ‘compliance required’” earlier in this study)  
  
  
  
Go back
3. The use of the terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ are being confused 
    
  HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is mixing up the use of the terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’. L. Ron Hubbard is precise about matters, where this reference is unspecific and contradictorily in its approach.  (see chapter “‘Disconnection’ A.D. 1983: (1) HCOB 10 Sept 83 ‘PTS-ness and Disconnection’”, section “The terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ confused” earlier in this study)  
    HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” relates about various policy letters that: “sought to remove disconnection from a declared Suppressive Person as a standard action, whereas it is a vital technical tool in the handling of PTSness.” (underlining is mine).    
    HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling” says: “When disconnection is required, very often that is enough to handle the PTSness.” (underlining is mine).  
    HCOB 31 Dec 78R (Revised 20 Dec 83) II “Outline of PTS Handling” says: “In the rare cases where disconnection is validly indicated in order to handle the person's PTSness, ... .” (underlining is mine). This line was added in the 20 Dec ’83 revision.  
    The above contradicts or at least confuses what it says in HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”: “2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or disconnect.”  LRH. (underlining is mine). Handle or disconnect is 2 separate issues. The references from 60's and the 70's do not confuse these terms. But since the early 80's handle has started to be used as a synonym to disconnect.  
  
  
  
Go back
4. ‘We can handle’ turns ‘We can not handle’
    
  HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” itself says: “An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone is factually connected to a Suppressive Person, in present time. ... In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to ‘handle’ the person. The answer is to sever the connection.”. This approach is contradicted by various statements made by L. Ron Hubbard earlier in regards to this!    
    HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling” says: “PTSness can be handled routinely when the tech is fully known and applied. A PTS person can be brought to cause over his situation through study of the PTS tech. ... We can handle and the person himself can handle. There is no substitute for understanding.” (text attributed to L. Ron Hubbard)   
    HCOB 31 Dec 78 II “Outline of PTS Handling” stated: “These are powerful and precision tools. With them we can handle our PTS students, preclears and staffs and get resounding one-for-one successes.” (text attributed to L. Ron Hubbard). This reference confirms that as late as December 1978 that that there was an effective handling in place at a time that there no official enforced practice of disconnection in use. The official reinstatement of the practice in 1983 defies this confirmation found in this HCOB.  
    HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling” reports about a “pilot was then ordered to determine the original possibility, that people could study their way out of being PTS. ... In short it appears the studiers were blowing charge on their past PTS handlings ... . All are reported to be doing well on post with no illness, roller-coaster or ethics trouble.” (text attributed to L. Ron Hubbard). It thus says (underlining is mine): “All are reported to be doing well”, and so no exceptions are noted here. This basically adjudicates that the practice of enforced disconnection had become superfluous.    
    These previous statements found here above would acknowledge the correctness of “Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”)  
  
  
  
Go back
5. The HCOB issue-type format is the wrong issue-type format!
    
  HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is a technical issue-type format. The matter of disconnection however, and its involvement of the Ethics Division (as opposed to Tech Division) is a purely administrative matter. And thus this reference should have been issued as HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”. The question is, why wasn't it?  
    An observed irony here is that it would seem so that the Religious Technology Center (RTC) was aware of that, as it does persist to refer to it in their periodicals and their website as HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”. (see for further details in next section entitled “The role of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) vs “Lost Tech” found!”)  

 
Go back Summary

The above considerations and the fact that quite a many non-LRH issues in the same time period (early 80's) were published as being originated by LRH, when in fact they were not, justify that one should verify that this particular HCOB is really intended and/or written by L. Ron Hubbard. In fact my findings do justify such an action!
The main issue here is that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is rather contradictive in the writing itself! Disconnection first is needed, then it is not needed, decision made on your self-determinism, then ordained by others, it is going back and forth like this! If one analyzes this writing in detail it simply does not add up. The person L. Ron Hubbard has had no previous habit of writing up matters like that. All the writings stemming from or attributed to L. Ron Hubbard that address PTS Handling that were issued in the period 1972-78 also admit to a PTS situation can and has been handled routinely without any enforced disconnection practices. HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” counteracts them all with the things that it states. All the enforced disconnections that occurred since 1983 can easily be sourced back to this very reference.
May it be noted here as well that L. Ron hubbard had been shunning any public appearance for a number of years by then. It was even brought up in court in 1983 to determine if L. Ron Hubbard was still alive or not and more such things. Why would that be? Read more about that here (separate window).

There is a lot of talking within the Scientology organization about ensuring that we are continue “having the correct technology” and are “closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.”. And that really means: “any possibility”!  Well, may be some people should start looking into this. Now, a whole variety of these HCO PL's and HCOB's were handwritten. One option would be to issue HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” in its original handwriting, such has been done before. Just authenticize its authorship, as the claimed authenticity of this HCOB has been seriously questioned!.

 
Go back The role of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC)  vs  “Lost Tech” found!

It appears that Religious Technology Center places a lot of attention and a stress factor on the subject of disconnection. Referrals are then made to HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”. Mention of this, as far as I know, was firstly introduced in their periodical ‘Keeping Scientology Working News’, Issue 47 (mid 1995) under the heading “Matters of RTC Concern”, and this is upheld at least until 2004 in ‘International Scientology News’, Issue 27 (May 2004). Equally much attention to this is given on their website at http://www.rtc.org at “Matters of RTC Concern: Ethics”.
There is one peculiarity in regards to this though. In these “Matters of RTC Concern” it does indeed say HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, sometimes a reference is issued on both the HCO PL & HCOB issue-types, personally however I have not ever seen a HCO PL version of this reference. True is that the reference is also included in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, but the version found in there is actually on the HCOB issue-type format! Per the rules it would have been indicated on the HCOB version if an HCO PL would exist. It would then say: “Also issued as an HCO PL, same date”. But the HCOB version doesn't say any such thing. Per this we can then safely assume that the HCO PL version of this particular reference simply does not exist. It then appears that this error had been upheld during at least 10 years in those Scientology periodicals. This includes the mention on their website (external link). The last time I checked: 22 Apr 2015, it was still listed as an HCO PL.
Now, think about this for a minute! This is in fact a very odd misunderstanding, and why did it not ever get corrected?

Now why is there so much attention on all this? Could it be because of that some persons have not understood what PTS actually is about? “I recall years ago in handling PTSes, that none of them at first knew what PTS really meant or what it was all about even when they used the term freely!”  LRH  (from HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling”). Then instead of persons clearing up their misunderstanding they think up other solutions. Then someone remembers something and comes with the idea that “Well, back in the 60's we had something that was used.” Is this why we have this official reinstatement of this enforced practice of disconnection? Well, what we do know is that it is addressed as actual “LOST TECH” in HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”!

I have printed below that whole section carrying that title:

        
LOST TECH  
        
 
Earlier, disconnection as a condition was cancelled. It had been abused by a few individuals who'd failed to handle situations which could have been handled and who lazily or criminally disconnected, thereby creating situations even worse than the original because it was the wrong action.
 
 
Secondly, there were those who could survive only by living on our lines -- they wanted to continue to be connected to Scientologists (see the HCOBs on the characteristics of an SP). Thus, they screamed to high heaven if anyone dared to apply the tech of ‘handle or disconnect.’
 
 
This put Scientologists at a disadvantage.
 
 
We cannot afford to deny Scientologists that basic freedom that is granted to everyone else:  The right to choose whom one wishes to communicate with or not communicate with. It's bad enough that there are governments trying, through the use of force, to prevent people from disconnecting from them (witness those who want to leave Russia but can't!).
 
 
The bare fact is that disconnection is a vital tool in handling PTSness and can be very effective when used correctly.
 
 
Therefore, the tech of disconnection is hereby restored to use, in the hands of those persons thoroughly and standardly trained in PTS/SP tech.”
 

When we go through this text, then what is this Lost Tech actually about? To me personally it seems that the right not wanting to be in communication with some person or group has always existed! The sentence: “We cannot afford to deny Scientologists that basic freedom that is granted to everyone else:  The right to choose whom one wishes to communicate with or not communicate with.” seems utter nonsense to me. You have not ever been denied that right, whoever thought that one up? If you don't want someone in your house, you simply say, “Bye-bye birdie!”, and you close the door, and if some person persists, then you can call the police, what is so difficult about doing that? Any of these situations as we find described in that HCOB can be handled by simple and straight communication!
Then we find that the HCOB reads: “witness those who want to leave Russia but can't!”. Well, does someone has to be reminded of that we not all live in Russia? So, what relevance does that comparison carry here in mid-Europe and USA?

In reality however HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is about officially reinstating an enforced practice of disconnection, which is thus about placing a demand on some person that he/she has to disconnect from someone. But what does that have to do with what we read in these citations from that HCOB? I just fail to see the relevance of the text. If some “Scientologists” are “put at a disadvantage”, then I would think that they have to start learning to speak up, or they need to do some Communication Course or Upper Indoctrination Course (training drills to attain ability to handle bodies, objects and intentions)! Well, may be they are not a Grade 0 (Communication) release yet? The end phenomena (ep) for that would be “Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject.”. Either way you most definitely do not need someone to tell you what to do, which you are obliged to follow up on like it being a doctor's prescription of some sort.
In fact the outcome is paradoxical as thanks to this HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” “The right to choose whom one wishes to communicate with or not communicate with.” bears no relevance anymore as instead it will be enforced on you. It is not your own choice. Someone else will tell you with whom you may contact with and who not.

We have to take here in consideration that in fact we had a large amount of policy letters being issued during these early 80's fully attributed to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard, many of which later (especially during 1990-91) were taken out of circulation with reason given that they were not written or even seen by L. Ron Hubbard (I noted this earlier). Could it have been so that an unusual solution to a problem has been looked for, instead of clarifying the misapplication or misunderstanding of some persons concerning PTS handling? And that this particular release with that solution (this being HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”) also falsely was attributed to L. Ron Hubbard as so many other now cancelled issues once were? Then this particular HCOB simply seems to have escaped the scrutiny of the LRH Technical Research and Compilations (RTRC). We indeed have very good reason to ask these questions according to my findings!

You may wish to send an inquiry to them:

Religious Technology Center International
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90028 U.S.A.
Phone: (323) 663-3258
Fax: (323) 667-0960

or ...

... Would it be imaginable that if you are ordering people around like that, splitting up families and all that, then you also can exert control over them? Separating people will make them less strong. And then if you isolate people you can also easily withheld information from them which some people don't want you to have. However if this is the way you are going to go about it, people will perceive that you will be ruling with ‘fear’. Now does anything worthwhile come out of that? Is that desirable for anyone? Is that what Scientology is supposed to be about? And then we have moved on to discussing conspiracy theories.
More about conspiracy theories in my study “LRH vs A New Order” (see Scientology index page).

But then it could also be that someone simply has been a little bit overzealous about some things ...

 
Go back Who wrote HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”?

Question: “Do we have some clue about who may have written HCOB 10 Sept 83 ‘PTS-ness and disconnection’?”.
I actually did find something in an affidavit written by Robert Vaughn Young. He was a member of the Church of Scientology for a period of 20 years (1969-1989), he had worked in many areas within the organization including the highest management echelons.  ‘IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO - Civil Action No. 95-K-2143:  Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young in Support of Defendant's Opposition to the Motion of Bridge Publications, Inc. for Summary Judgment Against all Defendants for Copyright Infringement.  Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of February, 1997, Robert Vaughn Young.’

Section 29 of this affidavit reads:
        
“I have personal knowledge that material was written and issued under the name of L. Ron Hubbard that he did not author. While working at ASI, I personally wrote material to be issued under his name for several years. This ranged from simple messages to be sent to various organizational staff on events such as his birthday or a holiday, to my composing an entire large directive that was issued under his name. In these instances, they were done without his knowledge or consent. The directive that I wrote concerned the Scientology policy of ‘Disconnection’. The order to do this came from David Miscavige. Miscavige said that we had to reinstitute the Policy of Disconnection and that I was to write the policy for this. I wrote it and it went through several revisions. It was not sent to Hubbard for his approval, but was issued into the Church of Scientology. I might note that at the time I was not working for the Church of Scientology, but was working for a for-profit corporation.”
        
ASI: Author's Services, Inc.’, these were involved with dealings concerning L. Ron Hubbard's literary legacy. Incorporated on 13 Oct ’81.

Noted is also the involvement of Phoebe Maurer who is said to have worked over the text. The typists initials on its original release were ‘iw’, and this, I have confirmed, was one of the typists employed at the RTRC and she listens to the name Irene Woodruff.
Probably all that was required to be done was to have HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” looked over, make some adjustments and get it reissued as HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”.

One note can also be made here in regards to Religious Technology Center (RTC) and the stress put on this non-existing HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” in their publications (it only exists in fact under the HCOB issue-type format). It is David Miscavige that is heading the RTC as its Chairman of the Board.

Now is all this good news or bad news? All what I like to say here is that various observations do confirm my actual prognosis.

Go to index

 
Further evaluations

Back to Main Index A brief overview of various references regarding disconnection

A question to ask is probably how we should interpret?:
        
“Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”)
        
The answer, as per the data at hand, would be that (1) it implies to tell about a solution to the problem that would deem the actual enforced practice of condition unnecessary, and (2) the repercussions that hit the organization was rather extensive. So, why is it back since 1983?
Also since 1968 more and better solutions had seen the light.

In 1972 it was Mary Sue Hubbard that released HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” that forwarded the method of so-called why finding:
        
“Each PTS individual should report to Ethics and with the assistance of Ethics find a WHY as to their familial antagonism and then set about actually handling the situation. ...
        
 
See the Data Series P/Ls (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why.”
 

During 1976 a supposed drawback on an avalanche of tech matters is being reported by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, after these having been “rounded up” it then announces:
        
“PTSness is again being handled successfully over the world”
        

By the end of 1978 ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition) explains:
        
“Disconnection has been replaced since 1968 by ethics counselings, which are quick and effective and designed to assist a person to recover his ability to act both causatively and rightly.”
        

Exactly one year later by the end of 1979 we see a re-release of HCO PL 23 Dec 65R “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” which revision notices reveal:
        
“Revised 31 December 1979 to remove all references to ‘disconnection’ which was cancelled as a condition by the Church of Scientology in 1968”
        

Then almost 3 years later this was once again acknowledged and enforced by ‘Scientology Policy Directive 28’, 13 Aug 82 “Suppressive Act - Dealing with a Declared Suppressive Person” written by “Watch Dog Committee for the Church of Scientology International” that read:
        
“Where the matter concerns family relations or where a Scientologist is in the position of being closely associated to a person found to be Suppressive the materials covering Potential Trouble Source apply. There is no practice of ‘disconnection’ allowed in the Church of Scientology and these materials cover completely how one may use proper lines and procedures to handle a PTS condition.”
        
Also informing:
        
“One does not however use a false excuse of ‘handling my PTS condition’ to covertly maintain a line of supportful dealings and agreements with an SP. If you wish to maintain such a line, do so outside of current and future membership in the Church.”
        
And found earlier in this reference:
        
“It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org MAA*).”
        
Mind here that it actually refers to having “agreements with an SP” and having “supportful dealings” with. You can still talk to a person, so mind the difference.
Let's repeat this once more, August 1982 thus directed:
        
“There is no practice of ‘disconnection’ allowed in the Church of Scientology.”
        
According to my knowledge this Scientology Policy Directive 28 has never been cancelled, although it obviously had been superceded by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” just 13 months later.

The release of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” then caused the following:
Cancellation of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” [by next]       
Revision of HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”  
Revision of HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”  
Revision of HCOB 31 Dec 78R (Revised 20 Dec 83) II “Outline of PTS Handling”  

And, does it all still make sense to you?
Almost forgot, what about HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” that in secrecy had reinstated an enforced practice of disconnection already back in 1973? Well, 'em ...

 
Back to Main Index ‘The Way to Happiness’:
“Honor and Help Your Parents” - “Love and Help Children”

A further argument can be made with the little publication ‘The Way to Happiness’ (copyrighted 1981). It basically lays out basic rules for a happy and successful life, a self-evident collection of rules how to get along well with other people. It is generally thought that this is written by L. Ron Hubbard, but the publication itself does not actually say that it is. Although ‘LRH ED 321 Int’, 25 Dec 80 “Ron's Journal 32” notes: “I wrote a booklet, very cheap to print, for the man in the street. ... It is called ‘The Way to Happiness’”.

Point # 5 says:

        
“HONOR AND HELP YOUR PARENTS.
        
 
From a child's point of view, parents are sometimes hard to understand.
 
 
There are differences between generations. But truthfully, this is no barrier. When one is weak, it is a temptation to take refuge in subterfuges and lies: it is this which builds the wall.
 
 
Children can reconcile their differences with their parents. Before any shouting begins, one can at least try to talk it over quietly. If the child is frank and honest, there cannot help but be an appeal that will reach. It is often possible to attain a compromised where both sides now understand and can agree. It is not always easy to get along with others but one should try.
 
 
One cannot overlook the fact that almost always, parents are acting from a very strong desire to do what they believe to be best for the child.
 
 
Children are indebted to their parents for their upbringing—if the parents did so. While some parents are so fiercely independent that they will accept no return on the obligation, it is nevertheless true that there often comes a time when it is the turn of the younger generation to care for their parents.
 
 
In spite of all, one must remember that they are the only parents one has. And as such, no matter what, one should honor them and help them.
 
 
The way to happiness includes being on good terms with one's parents or those who brought one up.”
 

Obviously the above does not coincide very well with disconnecting children from parents or even parents from children. Especially not if you realize that point # 4 in the list is about: LOVE AND HELP CHILDREN.

Either way it appears that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” does not live up to its promise: “The technology of disconnection is essential in the handling of PTSes. It can and has saved lives and untold trouble and upset. It must be preserved and used correctly.”. Instead it has split up families causing “untold trouble and upset”.
If “man cannot be trusted with justice”  LRH , then the outcome as we see in regards to disconnection is not very surprising. Would L. Ron Hubbard have reinstated some enforced practice of disconnection when he did know what reactions it created back in the late 60's because of apparent misapplication? What do you think? Is that option plausible?

 
Back to Main Index In the year 1996 ..., ‘Disconnection’ once again ...
(The occurrence of HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” (Reissued 10 Oct 96))

 
Go back A first introduction and initial inconsistencies found with this re-release

At the time of HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” first being issued there was nothing remarkable or noteworthy about the writing in this reference. Then it was reissued in October 1996, at which time it got rather extensively rewritten. On the original mimeo print-off of this reference this rewriting was indicated on the top of the reference with the notice: “Reissued 10 October 1996 to correct transcription errors”. In reality however this circumscription for what had been done to the reference appears to be quite a misnomer. Typographical errors or sorts could account for a reissue. But this rewriting consisted of adding various whole new sentences, adding several words at places, rearranging the sequence of the various paragraphs in the writing, removing the reference list. In particular these added words directed the significance of its message into a somewhat different direction. In fact what was done to the reference was an actual revision! Now, it gets worse as the notice that it had been reissued ([sic] = revised) does not appear in the version of this reference on its inclusion into course packs. The version that we find in these course packs also do not give any indication it having been altered. And thus readers will not know that it had actually been rewritten. This creates the situation of something being hidden, it very well may create the situation of a misunderstanding. In fact a person that consulted the version included in such a new course pack (issued 2001) felt uneasy as it did not make the same impression onto him when he just earlier had read the version as it appeared in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology. And so he compared them and he found that they were actually different in text, although for the eye they seemed to be the same release. He then forwarded to me what he had found, and I was able to fill him in on the reissue information. First of all we should realize that which had been done to the writing of this reference was an actual REVISION, and this therefore should have added an ‘R’ following the year 1982 all as per HCO PL 2 May 72RA “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”. Which would have made it look as follows:
        
“HCO BULLETIN OF 16 APRIL 1982R  
CORRECTED AND REISSUED 10 OCT 1996”

        
But then we stumble over another inconsistency in the form of that at this point in time (since 1991) the practice was implemented to re-date reference dates to reflect the time that it had originally been written! More data about this you can find here (separate window). Per these adopted practices and the fact that it does concern here a revision its headings should have turned it to look something like this:
        
“HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1973R  
ISSUE II
CORRECTED AND REISSUED 10 OCT 1996
        
 
(Originally a despatch written by LRH on 10 Aug. 73.
  Issued as an HCOB on 16 Apr. 82.)
 
 
  MORE ON PTS HANDLING”
 
It had turned an “Issue II” as we had already an HCOB carrying this reference date. If matters would have been executed as such it would not have created any misconception or confusion.

 
Go back A more closely inspection of this release, and the matter of ‘Disconnection’ making its entry

Earlier on this page in chapter “Introduction and explanation of ‘disconnection’ A.D. 1973” I had discussed HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”. This HCOB could be considered to be its sister-release, hence its title. Although it was issued not earlier than April 1982, it did make the claim at the top of the reference that it was “Excerpted from an LRH despatch of 10 Aug 1973”.

The changes incorporated in the re-release of this reference in October 1996 that are of particular significance are indicated here below. Realize though that the text has been rearranged rather extensively and appears in a somewhat different sequence. The added text is printed in purple here below:

You will find that PTS policy calls for DISCONNECT or HANDLE.” ...

“The person has to either handle or disconnect. If he does so he will begin to get well and cease to have problems. ...” ...

“The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE or DISCONNECT. And the misunderstood on it is how gently one can handle.” ...

“One tries to find what it is and then persuades them into handling or disconnecting. That's the tech.”

Reviewing these changes it is interesting to see how the focus has diverted to disconnecting. If we regard its sister-issue HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”, we see that the focus in there is foremost directed to discover and handle, and not so much on disconnect. But if we may believe in a correct transcription of that despatch supposedly written on that same day as we find it now in HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” (Reissued 10 Oct 96), then it was pounded on as many as 4 times. I find this being inconsistent.
A second argument of inconsistency can be made with the following. We probably should realize that the reference that introduced all this attention on disconnecting was HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, which was written as late as September 1983. This is a whole 10 years after the writing of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” and the writing of this supposed despatch on the very same day, but that was not published until April 1982. Then keeping in mind that an actual practice of disconnection was unconditionally cancelled back in November 1968 by HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”, it is then not very logical to then return to pounding on disconnecting in that despatch claimed to have been written in such a way in August 1973. It simply would not have been in the spirit of that time.
A third noteworthy observation is that the present very first sentence of the reference appears out of nowhere and has even received a paragraph all of its own! It is also noted that it first mentions “DISCONNECT” which is then followed by “or HANDLE”. We can see that all the other 3 instances that are quoted start with “HANDLE” then followed by “or DISCONNECT”. We find it also in this sequence in HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”, in which issue disconnect is just mentioned once. And of course the object is first of all to actually handle a situation. The interesting angle with this release is the sheer exposal that the attention is very much drawn to this thing disconnecting. And this is as late as 1996.

The question we should ask ourselves also if this original despatch really was written as we find it now published in this re-release from October 1996? Or is this just a matter of adjusting the various already published references to reflect the exact same approach and get the exact same message across? Either way the original despatch, if available some place, should be inspected.


Changed signature

The signature area of the first original release of HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” read:

    
      L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


Assisted by
Mission Issues Revision 2nd
  LRH:BM:dr
Copyright © 1973, 1982
by L. Ron Hubbard
   

This means that the initials of the person that had compiled the version that was thus issued in 1982 were ‘BM’. In its re-release in October 1996 the text ‘Assisted by Mission Issues Revision 2nd’ and ‘BM’ are not found anymore. This we could interpret as that this BM had rewritten the original LRH despatch and issued it. Then in 1996 it was supposedly restored in its original glory, and thus the mentioning of this other person was not called for anymore. Or at least this is the message we are given.

Another minor observation but not insignificant is that the re-release is not copyrighted for 1973 and 1982 anymore, and it does not either say anymore ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ as the copyright holder. Instead it is copyrighted as follows: ‘©1987 L. Ron Hubbard Library’. An interesting change. It would indicate that it had dropped the previous copyright altogether and that it instead was re-copyrighted in 1987 under a different copyright name. I have addressed such matters in more detail on my page “The copyrights issue, licensing and related matters”.

Go to index

 
Afterword

Back to Main Index Final comments  or  The ‘shooting’ game ...

 
Go back Consequences: Cause or effect?

(Includes:  Reminiscences from a Founding Scientologist from 1951)

         (from ‘Advance! 38’, Jan 76)

The practice of individuals being forced by HCO order to disconnect from family, friends or other has been in use ever since. And if the individual didn't comply they were risking to receive such a Suppressive Person Declare themselves. Out on the Internet we read about such stories on a regular basis, and this is not very favourable for the Church of Scientology at all.
The biggest issue though seems to be that this new disconnection treat characterizes itself by being of a rather permanent nature, whereas the disconnection practice from the late 60's was predominantly of a temporarily nature.
Then we also have to consider that an enforced disconnection, even when it is claimed to be done on a particular person's so-called self-determinism, it still is enforced upon that person, and therefore can not be considered having been done on his or her self-determinism! One simply can not claim that if disconnection has been enforced in some way by some other person that it is done on the self-determinism of the person that is to comply with it. Claiming that it would be is in fact an utter absurdity!

I received the following reminiscences from Patricia Krenik, a Founding Scientologist from 1951. It appears reprinted here with the permission of its authoress:
        
“Hi, Michel. My personal observation of that time is while tech people took the 1968 disconnection policy to heart, that the E.O.'s simply said that that didn't cancel any of the other policies, and when someone was declared SP by Ethics we were required to disconnect.
        
 
‘Handle’ from a tech viewpoint is moving the person from effect of a person to some sort of relative cause.  For instance, not discussing Scientology with a person who puts it down but instead turning the conversation to earlier practices.  Or keeping a ‘good roads, fair weather’ attitude around some people.
 
 
I'm not familiar with any 1973 policy.  I heard that later Miscavige cancelled the 1968 policy--I don't know whether this is true or not.
 
 
There is basically nothing wrong with the Ethics disconnection policies themselves.  I'm sure if Ethics declared an axe murderer suppressive and required disconnection they would get no flack at all.  People would of course disconnect.  The problem is they kept putting good people in lowered conditions, and no one wants to disconnect from their friends.
 
 
So the whole game turned into a big make wrong, or some sort of group pressure.”
 
 
Pat (message dated 9 Apr 2013)
 

Today's reality is that the whole thing has gone completely overboard. Today and most particularly within the Church of Scientology one operates on the paradigm that one is always deemed PTS if one in some manner is in contact with such a suppressive person. The outcome of that is then that it is enforced that you must disconnect either way!
This statement however is false, and no support is found for this claim within the original references about the matter! Do mind here what Scientology actually was about! Offered as a tool intended to make you cause over matters, it is not something that is going to tell you with whom you may have interaction and who not. And so, today, within this organization, persons can be pretty much randomly picked, and are then adjudicated being a suppressive person. Next, some Scientology public having some sort of contact with the person is pretty much being ordered/persuaded to disconnect from this or that, randomly picked, person. I say randomly picked because no action appears to be necessary to be taken for running some verification, or issue matters first in some official writing issued on the person. I know this, as I have personally observed this happening a variety of times now. Today people appear to disconnect left and right for no clear or verified reason, and it is often done just because someone told them to do so.

Today it has turned to a shooting game: “Oh, you are connected to this suppressive person? You need to disconnect, you know! So, write your disconnection letter! Oh, you don't want to do that? Ah, well that is a suppressive act, you too will receive your suppressive person declare now!”.
Mind that this day it does not even require an actual declare to have been issued. It seems to suffices if an CSW has been written and send to International Management (these declares require an approval of the International Justice Chief ). One is forgetting here though that a CSW needs first to actually get approved!  Ah well, man and his justice ... Please, some sanity regarding these matters folks!

“I have concluded that man can not be trusted with justice.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)

 
Go back Rehabilitation, a forgotten and overlooked aspect

There was this little booklet written in 1959. A confidential release and only for use by HCO personnel in the Scientology organization. It just lays out the basic approach how to deal with this thing called justice. What to do, and what not to do. It is all pretty straightforward. Here I have the dilemma again to quote or not quote from it. It was originally issued in 1959, it was reissued in 1972. I am not sure if it is still referred to till this day, it may be. It appears fairly widely available on the Internet, I find scannings and I find transcripts. That what I quote here below is quite an important aspect in relation to some enforced practice of disconnection, if ignored the consequences may turn out being disastrous.

        
“When you punish a man you punish also his family and friends. Even if you slayed the man you would then still have his friends and family as your enemies. If you slay everyone he knew – why, they have friends and families, too – and at last you've a whole populace against you.
You punish a man. He goes away to join the ranks of the squirrels. You swell the opposition. Don't do it.
Shoot the offender for the public good and then patch him up quietly. That isn't even mercy. It's good sense. ...
        
 
So it is mercy, not revenge, that prompts our justice. (1) We must not neglect it and (2) we must not fail to rehabilitate.”          LRH
(from booklet ‘Manual of Justice’ (first released 1959))
 

It may speak for itself.

 


And this ends off my vademecum on the subject of disconnection.

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     BPL:
Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked.
     CSW:
Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
     EO or E/O:
Short for ‘Ethics Officer’.  See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
     HCO Area Secretary (HAS):  (In the early days this was called ‘HCO Secretary’.)
 1. The HCO Area Secretary (HAS) has the function of establishing the org. (HCO PL 7 Jul 71)  2. The HAS establishes, forms, puts there, corrects, posts, hats, equips, org boards, stats, corrects the org. All on a long term basis. (FO 2794)  He is in charge of the HCO Division (Div. 1).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     HGC:
Hubbard Guidance Center’. The department of the technical division of a Scientology organization which sets you up for and delivers auditing.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     MAA:
Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in the Sea Organization (senior Scientology organization). See further at ‘Ethics Officer’.
     Mimeo:
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the 80's however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PL's are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
     PTS, PTSness:
potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Qual (Div):
Qualifications Division’. 1. It could be called the correction division or the adjustment division. But qualifications would also serve. (SH Spec 77, 6608C23)  2. The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run. (BPL 22 Nov 71R)  3. The division where the student is examined and where he may receive cramming or special assistance and where he is awarded completions and certificates and where his qualifications as attained on courses or in auditing are made a permanent record. (HCOB 19 Jun 71 III)
     RTRC:
‘LRH Technical Research and Compilations’.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PL's and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AO's) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
     SPD:
Scientology Policy Directive’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     Technical Volumes:
This refers to ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. See further at that entry in vocabulary.


Go to top of this page


Advertisement