HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
SUPPRESSIVE PERSONS, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF
It is interesting in the detection of suppressive persons that they use “policy” to prevent purpose.
In one org which went into a serious decline a suppressive person was in a high position.
Every time org personnel returned from Saint Hill and proposed that the org get going, they were told by this SP that their proposals were “against policy.”
Not one of these people, hearing this, ever alerted to a glaring fact. The SP in this case was renowned for never being able to pass a bulletin, tape or policy letter!
So how would that person have known WHAT was against policy for that person NEVER was known to pass a hat check!
So that person’s statement that “It’s against policy” was obviously false since the person was incapable of passing hat checks or bulletins and wouldn’t ever have known what any policy was, for or against anything.
Thus, we see one of the characteristics of an SP is:
1. THE NEGATION OF POLICY WITHOUT KNOWING IT AND THE USE OF “POLICY” TO PREVENT SUCCESS IN SCIENTOLOGY IS THE PRIMARY TOOL OF THE SP AGAINST ORGS.
Dissemination is a prime target of the SP.
Magazines ordinarily have half a dozen SPs on their lines. These people write in and complain about ads. If you don’t watch it, these half dozen become “everybody” and the mag is beaten down into not advertising.
“Soft sell” is another recommendation of the SP.
And “build it quietly” and “get only decent people” are all part of this.
When somebody is demanding less reach, that person is an SP.
Therefore, we have another characteristic:
2. SPs RECOMMEND INEFFECTIVE DISSEMINATION AND FIND FAULT WITH ANY BEING DONE.
A suppressive will try to sell off the property or buildings of an org, and in one case tried to give them away when temporarily in charge.
3. A SUPPRESSIVE WILL TRY TO GET RID OF AN ORG.
Good staff members are a prime target for SPs. In one org where an SP got a foothold, 60% of the staff was gotten rid of and the org almost crashed.
They do it by making people too dissatisfied to produce and so make it impossible for the org to earn.
4. AN SP WILL SEEK TO UPSET AND GET RID OF THE BEST STAFF MEMBERS.
Bad news, particularly if false, is the only comm line of the SP.
The executive who is getting bad news as a steady diet on his lines has SPs about.
5. ENTHETA IS THE SOLE STOCK IN TRADE OF THE SP.
The triumph an SP feels in not getting rid of things the auditor has tried to ease is quite malevolent.
6. AN SP IS SATISFIED WITH AUDITING ONLY WHEN HE GETS WORSE.
7. SPs are happy when their pcs get worse and sad when their pcs get betters.
8. AN SP IN AN EXAMINER POST WILL ONLY DECLARE RELEASED THE BAD RESULT CASES AND WILL NOT PASS ACTUAL RELEASES BUT WILL ARC BREAK THEM.
9. Cover invalidation is the level of an SP’s social intercourse.
An SP can only restimulate another; he has no power of his own.
10. An SP deals only in restimulation, never easing or erasing.
11. The persons around an SP get so restimulated they can’t detect the real SP.
The whole rationale of the SP is built on the belief that if anyone got better, the SP would be for it as the others could overcome him then.
He is fighting a battle he once fought and never stopped fighting. He is in an incident. Present time people are mistaken by him for past, long-gone enemies.
Therefore, he never really knows what he is fighting in present time, so just fights.
12. The SP is sure everyone is against him personally and if others became more powerful they would dispose of him.
The SP usually commits continuing overts. These are hidden.
I have had two or three SPs blow up and shout or snarl at me. When I investigated, I found, in these cases, they were committing daily crimes of some magnitude.
13. An SP commits hidden overts continuously.
14. Back of a crime you will find SP characteristics.
15. Because an SP uses generalities in his speech “everybody,” “they,” etc., the SP is hard to detect.
SPs have an experiential track that is poor. SPs know how to needle and commit overts and hold others back.
When released, the SP has so little decent background experience that he or she has a very hard time.
16. Releasing an SP does not make a worthwhile person. It only makes a person who can now learn to get along in life.
“A cleared cannibal is a cleared cannibal.”
SPs don’t get case gains. Sometimes they pretend them. They are held back by their continuing overts. If we were found by them to be decent, their past conduct would swell up and engulf them.
They are in a continual PTP of their fight with mankind. And they follow the rule that pcs with PTPs get no case gains.
Real SPs comprise about 2½ percent of the population. By restimulating others, they make another 17½ percent into potential trouble sources. Therefore, about 20 percent of the population is Ethics type.
We must not allow this 20 percent to prevent the 80 percent from crossing the Bridge.
We are no enemy of the SP. But he can’t have friends, can he?
So we handle the SP and his PTSes and carry on with our job.
L. RON HUBBARD
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 APRIL 19651
ACADEMIES RELATION TO HCO JUSTICE
THE NO-GAIN-CASE STUDENT
Instructors MUST be alert for no-case-change cases on course and for “withholdy pcs who ARC break easily,” “blowy students” and “unstable gains” cases.
Even indifferent auditing on even a haphazard course causes good case gains.
The minority group of no case change in routine course auditing and “withholdy” is very minor. These categories contain all the students who disturb your course, are insolent to instructors, rant against rules, etc.
You are under no orders from me that you must please them, but you are under orders to report such cases to HCO.
YOU ONLY USE DIFFICULT CASE OR STUDENT IN THE ACADEMY AS AN INDICATOR OF SOMETHING WORSE. You aren’t a staff auditor but an instructor. You want proper auditor and case gain of course, and you’ll get it (providing when some student says IT didn’t work to find out exactly what the student did that didn’t work and you’ll find it was never what was ordered).
However, on cases that are very difficult, watch it! These difficult cases are more than cases. They mean trouble for you from that student and for your class in ways you wouldn’t look for. By concentrating on “tough cases,” you miss the fact that you have a whole class to handle. If you want it handled, look rather at what these tough cases do to your class and handle the “tough case” in a way to protect your course, not to make their cases move.
IN AN ACADEMY DON’T TRY TO HANDLE YOUR COURSE ENVIRONMENT WITH STUDENT AUDITING!
Handle your course environment with good data, good 8-C and discipline and HCO justice machinery.
Your students now have their old course regulations suspended. Instead, the Justice Codes are in. The students are Scientologists. Becoming students gives them no new rights. And it doesn’t remove their justice rights either.
I’ve been through all you go through and I have found, by comparing conduct on a course to conduct in the field afterwards, that the turbulent student is a pc not a student. He or she makes trouble. On the course and afterwards.
The total symptom that alerts you to such a person is “tough case.”
This is very easy to notice. Just look over the student case folders and note that one or another student doesn’t seem to get going. Note the folder you have to work on. That’s it. That’s your trouble spot on the course. DON’T judge students by “conduct” or speed of study. Judge on “tough case” only.
Routine auditing is good unless it’s been alter-ised. Routine processes work on good people.
The no-case-gain case makes you hunt for magical processes and fatally leads to alter-is. Now hear this:
THE PROCESSES YOU HAVE, EVEN WHEN ONLY FAIR, ARE BETTER THAN THE PROCESSES THAT WILL BE DREAMED UP BY STUDENTS OR ANYONE AROUND YOUR COURSE.
The processes you use, if altered to “fit” some tough case, will cease to work on standard cases when so altered.
The “tough case” (who is also the difficult student) is the sole reason one has an urge to alter a process.
You must be sure to push routine processes done routinely. When you see a process being altered, look for a “tough case” in the pc or the student and call HCO promptly if you find the poor-TA-type case, the “no change” response to routine processes.
Your approach is to run the standard processes in the right grade in the right sequence. That’s all you teach students to do, and it’s all you do in case supervision.
When these “don’t work” even when you force them to be correctly applied, you have a tough case there. Don’t louse up Scientology technology to handle a “tough case.” You don’t have to invent the processes for it. They already exist in the HGC. When you see alter-is, look for the tough case and let HCO take it from there. We are, after all, a team, and as a team we can handle our environment.
Your job is just teach and get run the processes of the grade in the right sequence. Your job is to teach students to do just that. Your job is to force the student to run the process that should be run and run it right and to correct any alter-is savagely.
Never let some student tell you “it didn’t work” without at once plowing in there to look. You will find only one of two things wrong:
1. Your student erred in the wording, sequence or application of the process through lack of study, or
2. Either the student auditor or the student pc is a “tough case.”
Don’t let anybody try to vary a process to fit a case. If you do, your indicator is obscured in letting anybody fool about in “trying to make a process work” or trying to get inventive just to crack a “tough case.”
The majority of your course trouble and the tendency to alter-is material comes from trying to force a “tough case” to get gains. Should you alter or advise alteration of a process, you are letting our side down. It leads you into teaching students to alter-is and there goes the balloon. It means they won’t be able to run standard stuff successfully. And that means (let’s be brutal) they will miss, by nonstandard auditing, on 90% of their cases, the good people. They will slant all Scientology toward one nut, and we’ll be a failed mess like psychiatry with our clinics full of psychiatric cases not people.
The HGC (and perhaps one course level) is taught to handle “tough cases.” The processes for them are standard, too. You must hold the line and answer a student’s “didn’t work” with “Exactly what didn’t work?” and “Exactly what did you do?” and you’ll find they didn’t do it, or it’s a tough case. Either way follow policy!
YOU MUST REPORT A TOUGH CASE TO HCO AT ONCE.
For there sits a justice matter, not an Academy problem. It’s not your hat.
You see the no-gain-case, the “withholdy case that ARC breaks easily,” “the blowy student,” “unstable-gain student” and your tendency may be to do something original or give the student some different process. If you do, you are madly off-policy. In the ordinary Academy course you are not teaching a “tough case” course. You are teaching a nice, fast, workable course for decent average cases. Your majority is composed of good students. They deserve your time.
So this makes the “tough case” student the odd man (or woman) out. They make a lot of commotion so one may think they are “everybody” on a course. They’re not. They are seldom higher than 10 percent. So you risk the 90 percent of your course and all Scientology just to handle 10 percent.
That’s not smart. Particularly when it makes a tendency to alter-is tech and lose it and to mess up and ignore the good 90 percent.
Could I point out that the Protestant idea of recovering at any expense and considering very valuable any sheep who strayed, was batty? How about the whole flock? Leave them to the wolves while one ran off after one? No, please don’t go the route by doing that. It’s pretty awful.
No, this “tough case” is for the HGC and HCO. And I’d dam well rather you didn’t give the person the technology before he straightens out as he’ll hurt people with it.
Such “tough cases” are possible to salvage. They’re just cases. But it takes an HGC to run them and it takes HCO to hold them still so they’ll be audited. Remember, we’re a team. HCO and HGC are part of the team. Don’t steal their hats.
The “tough case” is judged only on the basis of case gain or lack of it.
The Academy does NOT send students to the HOC for “slow study” or dullness or any other reason except “tough case.” That’s firm policy. The “tough case” is the only one you send.
There are three categories of these “tough cases.”
1. The Roller Coaster Case
The potential trouble source. A suppressive person is on the other side of this one. The case will get a gain and slump, get a gain and slump over and over. It isn’t a “manic-depressive” as the old nineteenth-century psychoanalyst thought. It’s a guy whose marital partner or family is going into fits over this person’s connection with Scientology. This is purely a justice matter and belongs to HCO. He either disconnects or acts to settle his or her situation. No halfway measures. But you can’t do much about that in an Academy. If you did, you’d leave your class to the wolves. Get on-line and route this mysterious fellow who can’t get a gain without losing it the next day or week over to HCO with a “Please investigate. Possible potential trouble source.” Don’t even bother to question the student. HCO will find out. It’s also illegal to audit them so HCO won’t even route to the HGC but will act as per policy on such.
Always err on the side of sending HCO too many students rather than risk keeping one who is a liability to us all. But never send merely a course “cutup” or a lazy student whose case runs well. This policy is only faintly discipline. It is actually excellent technology to a recurring course problem.
2. The Withholdy Case
The withholdy case is routinely ARC breaking and having to be patched up, commonly blows, has to have lots of hand-holding. As your course possibly isn’t at that level, it is too much to handle anyway and you’re not equipped to handle. But even if your course is equipped to handle, the right action is again HCO. Report this student to HCO with the label “withholdy case that ARC breaks easily” or “blow-type case.” And get HCO over to the Academy. HCO may route to HGC at the student’s own expense or get two tough staff members to stand by while the withholds are explored on a meter in case this is a real justice case or just a student-lunch thief. The reason for all that weird behavior is always a withhold condition. You can’t be bothered. HCO, however, is interested in the NO REPORT aspect of such a case. This person hasn’t told all, that’s sure. HCO can send to HGC or refund or even comm ev.
3. The Suppressive Person
The suppressive person does turn up to get trained. And when you train them (a) their case doesn’t change, (b) they cheer when their course pc loses and gloom when their course pc wins and (c) they chatter about the horrors of discipline and seek to lead student squirreling or revolt. Their dream is a society wherein the criminal may do anything he pleases without any faintest restraint. We sometimes get loaded up with these characters but they run about 1 or 2 in 80 students usually. This person has no faintest chance of making it unless handled for what he or she is in an HGC. And if you train such you lend our name to all the chicanery and injury they do with our tech and protect them with our name. You’ve seen this case in another guise of squirreting-chatter-chatter about phoney past lives when they were Cleopatra and so on, invalidating others’ actual memories, talking only whole track to raw meat. You’ve seen this one. It’s suppression pure and simple and they know it! And they don’t ever get a case change and their ARC breaks don’t heal, etc., etc., etc.! The secret here is CONTINUOUS OVERTS which are then withheld. The technical fact is they are quite gone and are SOLVING A PERSONAL BUT LONG GONE PROBLEM BY CONTINUOUS OVERTS. One can actually handle them if one knows this seemingly tiny fact. One finds, of course, the PTP, not the overts. For one has about as much chance pulling this fellow’s overts as moving the Earth by pulling weeds. The suppressive acts this person does are solutions to solve some long, long ago problem in which the pc is stuck. To an HGC this is finding conditions of environment the pc has had and discovering how he or she handled them. But this is HCO-HGC business. The longer you wait to notify HCO, the more harm will be done, and HCO will get inquisitive as to why there was no report from you on this. For here is the auditor heartbreaker, the natterer, the rumor factory, the 1.1 and the course and group wrecker. Here’s “Whee, kill everybody!” in person. Here also is the possible government agent, the AMA-BMA stooge. Here is the guy who plans to “squirrel” and “grab Scientology.” Here is the boy. Or here is the girl. But here is also a thetan buried in the mud. And if you let this person go without attention, he or she will soon become ill or die—or worse will mess up or kill others. The person is the only real psycho. And if you let him drift he’ll soon wind up in the brain surgeon’s suppressive hands. So it’s nothing to overlook. People who have to solve their problems by shooting the rest of us down are what made life such a hell in this universe. You have your hands on the implanter, the warmonger, the wrecker. But still, this is what’s left of a human being and he or she can be salvaged. But only in an HGC, not a course. Please! Here also is the criminal or the sex-crazy guy or the pervert who just had to break old Rule 25 (the old no-sex Academy rule). People who are sex crazy are over their heads in a collapsed bank that they’ve collapsed themselves with overts. Let’s be real. This person throws people back in twice as fast as we can pull them out! So why arm him with tech. Put on your label when you send for HCO “No case change despite good tries with the routine processes taught on this course that was closely supervised in correct application.” Let HCO take it from there. It’s not Academy business.
Your routine procedure on any of the three types of case is:
1. Call HCO Department of Inspections and Reports;
2. Minimize disturbance;
3. Hold the student in an empty classroom or auditing room;
4. Stand by to help if things get rough;
5. Help HCO complete its report;
6. Let HCO (and probably HGC) take over from there and get back to your students.
If you’re going to grow and get your own case changes and have a good time instructing, you’ll read this very, very carefully and put it very briskly into practice.
At first you may not agree that you should be so sharp. It may be a blow to feeling you can crack all cases. You probably can. But man, that’s an HGC hat. What are you doing wearing it as an instructor? By all means crack the routine cases. But the tough ones? That’s HCO and HGC.
The bigger we get, the easier all this will be.
But now let’s mark a start in teaching courses that are fun for all by giving the deep six to those who want a mess.
Well, do it, do it, do it.
L. Ron Hubbard
- Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩