HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 SEPTEMBER 19831
PTSness AND DISCONNECTION
Tape: 6505C18 “Organization and Ethics”
Tape: 6506C08 “Handling the PTS”
HCO PL 7 Mar. 65RA I Rev. 10.9.83 SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS
Tape: 6608C02 “Suppressives and GAEs”
Tape: 6608C25 “The Antisocial Personality”
HCOB 27 Sept. 66 THE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY, THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST
HCOB 24 Apr. 72 C/S Series 79 ExDn Series 5 PTS INTERVIEWS
HCO PL 3 May 72R Rev. 18.12.77 Exec Series 12 ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES
HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS HANDLING
HCOB 29 Dec. 78 THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN, A MAGICAL NEW RUNDOWN
HCOB 31 Dec. 78 I OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING
HCOB 31 Dec. 78 II EDUCATING THE POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE, THE FIRST STEP TOWARD HANDLING: PTS C/S-l
HCO PL 5 Apr. 72RD Rev. 10.9.83 PTS TYPE A HANDLING
HCOB 8 Mar. 83 HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS
Perhaps the most fundamental right of any being is the right to communicate. Without this freedom, other rights deteriorate.
Communication, however, 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. It is this latter corollary of the right to communicate that gives us our right to privacy.
These rights are so basic that governments have written them into laws—witness the American Bill of Rights.
However, groups have always regulated these rights to one degree or another. For with the freedom to communicate come certain agreements and responsibilities.
An example of this is a marriage: In a monogamous society, the agreement is that one will be married to only one person at one time. That agreement extends to having second dynamic relations with one’s spouse and no one else. Thus, should wife Shirley establish a 2D type of communication line with someone other than her husband Pete, it is a violation of the agreement and postulates of the marriage. Pete has the right to insist that either this communication cease or that the marriage will cease.
HANDLE OR DISCONNECT
In the HCOBs on PTS tech you’ll see the phrase “handle or disconnect.” It means simply that.
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.
The basic principle of handle or disconnect exists in any group and ours is no different.
It is much like trying to deal with a criminal. If he will not handle, the society resorts to the only other solution: It “disconnects” the criminal from the society. In other words, they remove the guy from society and put him in a prison because he won’t HANDLE his problem or otherwise cease to commit criminal acts against others.
It’s the same sort of situation that husband Pete is faced with in the example mentioned above. The optimum solution is to handle the situation with wife Shirley and her violations of their group (marriage) agreements. But if Pete cannot handle the situation, he is left with no other choice but to disconnect (sever the marriage communication lines if only by separation). To do otherwise would be disastrous, for he is connected to someone antagonistic to the original agreements, postulates and responsibilities of the group (the marriage).
A Scientologist can become PTS by reason of being connected to someone that is antagonistic to Scientology or its tenets. 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. He is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person.
With our tech of handle or disconnect, we are, in actual fact, doing nothing different than any society or group or marriage down through thousands of years.
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.
HANDLING ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES
In the great majority of cases, where a person has some family member or close associate who appears antagonistic to his getting better through Scientology, it is not really a matter of the antagonistic source wanting the PTS to not get better. It is most commonly a lack of correct information about Scientology that causes the problem or upset. In such a case, simply having the PTS disconnect would not help matters and would actually be a nonconfront of the situation. It is quite common that the PTS has a low confront on the terminal and situation. This isn’t hard to understand when one looks at these facts:
a. To be PTS in the first place, the PTS must have committed overts against the antagonistic source; and
b. When one has committed overts, his confront and responsibility drop.
When an Ethics Officer finds that a Scientologist is PTS to a family member, he does not recommend that the person disconnect from the antagonistic source. The E/O’s advice to the Scientologist is to handle.
The handling for such a situation is to educate him in the tech of PTSness and suppression, and then skillfully and firmly guide the PTS through the steps needed to restore good communication with the antagonistic source. This eventually dissolves the situation by bringing about an understanding on the part of the antagonistic source as to what Scientology is and why the PTS person is interested and involved in it. Of course, when this is accomplished you no longer have a PTS at all—and you may very well find a new Scientologist on your hands!
The actual steps and procedure of this sort of handling are well covered in the materials listed at the beginning of this HCOB.
WHEN DISCONNECTION IS USED
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.
HOW TO DISCONNECT
How a disconnection is done depends on the circumstances.
Example: The pc lives next door to, say, a psychiatric clinic and feels PTS due to this environment. The remedy is simple—the pc can move to another apartment in another location. He need not write any sort of “disconnection letter” to the psychiatric clinic. He simply changes his environment—which is, in effect, a disconnection from the suppressive environment.
Example: A pc is connected to a person or group that has been declared suppressive by HCO in a published Ethics Order. 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. No attempt would be made to establish communication with the declared SP “to clear matters up” or to seek to reform the SP. The SP’s reform is strictly in the hands of HCO. The PTS simply disconnects.
Example: One discovers that an employee at his place of business is an SP—he steals money, drives away customers, wipes out other employees and will not correct no matter what you do. The handling is very simple—the PTS fires him and that’s the end of it right there!
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 labeled. (Ref: HCO PL 23 Dec. 65RA, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS)
SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN
There is of course another technical way to handle PTSes and that is to get them through all problems they have had with the terminal involved and the PTSness will disappear (Ref: HCOB 29 Dec. 78, THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN, A MAGICAL NEW RUNDOWN). But it still requires that during the handling the person disconnects.
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.
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 described by law as well as to ethics and justice actions.
L. Ron Hubbard
- Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.