Suppressive Person Defense League

You are here: Home / Archives for How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course

How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Two Types of PTSes

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1985R1
Revised 23 April 2001

(Also issued as an HCO PL, same date and title)

Remimeo
C/Ses
Execs
MAAs/Ethics Officers
Tech/Qual

C/S Series 121

TWO TYPES OF PTSes

(From an LRH despatch of 21 Mar. 84.)

Refs:

HCOB 28 Feb. 84R Rev. 10.11.2000C/S Series 118 PRETENDED PTS Cover-up and Justification of Black PR and Evil Purposes

HCOB 17 June 84 C/S Series 118-1 EVIL PURPOSES AND FALSE PR

HCOB 29 Dec. 78R Rev. 20.12.83 THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN A MAGICAL NEW RUNDOWN

HCOB 9 Dec. 71RE Rev. 18.4.2001 PTS RUNDOWN, AUDITED

HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS HANDLING

Modifies:

HCOB 24 Apr. 72  C/S Series 79 ExDn Series 5 PTS INTERVIEWS

HCOB 17 Apr. 72R Rev. 20.12.83 C/S Series 76 C/Sing A PTS RUNDOWN

HCOB 31 Dec. 78RB I Rev. 28.10.2000 OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING

There are two types of PTSes:

1. Pretended PTS so as to cover up black PR and evil purposes or justify them, and

2. Actual PTSness.

Although PTSness can cease simply on spotting the person accurately that one is PTS to, there are two full rundowns to handle this condition: the PTS Rundown and the Suppressed Person Rundown.

On pretended PTSness as mentioned in (1) above, your very reliable clue is that the person says he is PTS to a well-intentioned person, such as a staff member or a Scientology VIP. This is almost totally conclusive evidence that you are dealing with a person with an evil purpose. Thus he would be switched to Sec Checking geared to locating and handling evil purposes. He won’t get any relief from being found “PTS” to a well-intentioned person. From time to time one sees “PTS finding” of that nature and this probably is the first analysis given as to why and what it is all about. The person who does that has been black PRing, has O/Ws and probably under those, evil purposes.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations

Notes

  1. Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOPL: Pretended PTS

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 FEBRUARY 19841

(Also issued as an HCOB, same date and title)

Remimeo
Execs
MAA/EO Hat
HCO
Tech/Qual
C/Ses
Sec Checkers
De-PTSers
PTS Packs
SSOs
Missionaires

C/S Series 118

PRETENDED PTS

Cover-up and Justification of Black PR and Evil Purposes

(This data is being issued as an HCO PL so that executives know what to look for when somebody that they have requested be handled in Ethics hasn’t been handled.)

Refs:

HCOB 19 June 70 II C/S Series 8 CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION

HCOB 3 May 80 PC INDICATORS

HCOB 13 Oct. 82 C/S Series 116 ETHICS AND THE C/S

HCO PL 11 May 65 ETHICS OFFICER HAT

HCOB 9 May 77 II ExDn Series 24  PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT

HCOB 28 Nov. 70 C/S Series 22 PSYCHOSIS

HCO Info Letter 2 Apr. 64 TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE

Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation

It is evident that asking directly for evil purposes as part of Sec Checking has been knocked out of use over the years by SPs.

It recently occurred that, in using Sec Checking to clean up several persons who had gotten into ethics trouble on their posts, a peculiar phenomenon and pattern came to light. The persons being handled had been asked for “overts” before and had “gotten them off” but would continue committing the overts. In each case they had blamed their difficulty on having been the effect of false data and black PR fed them by bad hats long since detected and removed from the area. However, these particular cases did not straighten out with de-PTSing actions.

These persons were then asked directly for evil purposes and this action finally got to the root of the matter.

APPARENT SEQUENCE

Apparently, the sequence with such persons is:

a. They “get off overts” but then continue committing them.

b. When overt products and flaps in their areas get investigated, they palm it off as having “gone effect of others’ black PR or false data.” In other words, the person appears to be PTS.

c. They manage to convince those doing the investigating that that’s the end of the investigation.

d. If something flaps, they get off some overts and start the cycle again at (a).

In other words, they were actively committing suppressive actions while pretending to be PTS. And were busy making people around them feel PTS. While apparently the effect of suppression or black PR, they were actually generating it themselves: originating black PR to cover their own overt acts.

What had been omitted in the handlings these persons had gotten previously was the full follow-through, because routine PTS tech would of course not handle someone who was on the other side of the coin—and by pursuing it all the way through, it would have exposed the pretense.

We have in the (a) through (d) sequence above, the exact mechanism by which such people skid through the lines undetected. This may explain a great deal to many executives who have ordered staff handled and then have had to conclude that the tech didn’t work because the staff wasn’t handled. What had actually occurred is that evil purposes had been omitted from Sec Checking tech with malice aforethought and that PTS checks did not include checks for evil purposes.

This sequence shows the exact “failure” to handle people in RPFs, etc.

HANDLING

In handling a PTS, the C/S must monitor the person’s progress closely. This means inspection of all interviews and session worksheets, observing the results of each PTS handling action, his change of position (or lack of) on the Chart of Human Evaluation as evident from the pc folder and so forth.

Also, it is important that the Ethics Officer advise the D of P when a staff or public person is undergoing an ethics or justice action so that this can be noted in the person’s pc folder. In this way, the C/S can also find out if the pc has landed in ethics trouble. (Ref: HCOB 13 Oct. 82, C/S Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S) If the person is not making change, or repeatedly slipping into further out-ethics behavior, the C/S must recognize this. It is, possibly, the (a) to (d) sequence above in action. If the C/S suspects this to be the case, his action is to begin to handle the case with sec checking by a competent sec checker. And such sec checking must include questions about the person’s purposes and intentions.

Instead of only sec checking on, for example, “Have you committed an overt on the org?” one would also ask, “Have you had an evil purpose  regarding the org?”

Handled standardly in this way, the person can be expected to experience tremendous relief and case change.

CAUTION

If a person is progressing well on a de-PTSing program (such as PTS interview, PTS RD, Suppressed Person RD), is making change, keeping his personal ethics in and moving up the Chart of Human Evaluation, then it would be a C/S error to suddenly interject a sec check into his program.

ETHICS

None of this sets aside standard ethics and justice procedures. Such a person as would be found with a pretended PTS situation is quite likely already under some justice action, and in fact doesn’t deserve immediate handling other than what HCO deals out.

SUMMARY

Some executives have gotten in the frame of mind that it is a waste of time trying to handle a bad hat. It is true the bad hat probably doesn’t deserve to be handled but it is nevertheless true that we do have the tools to handle one.

We’re not out to handle the insane, but whether we like it or not we live in a pretty insane civilization. Any data which handles that or amplifies it technically or solves it is of course extremely vital.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

Notes

  1. Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOPL: Technical Degrades

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970RB1; 2; 3; 4

Issue I
REVISED 25 OCTOBER 1983

URGENT AND IMPORTANT

Keeping Scientology Working Series 5R

TECHNICAL DEGRADES

(This PL and HCO PL 7 Feb. 65 must be made part of every study pack as
the first items and must be listed on checksheets.)

Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading statement must be destroyed and issued without qualifying statements.

Example: Level 0 to IV checksheets SH carry “A. Background Material—This section is included as an historical background but has mucb interest and value to the student. Most of the processes are no longer used, having been replaced by more modern technology. The student is only required to read this material and ensure he leaves no misunderstood.” This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op Pro by Dup! The statement is a falsehood.

These checksheets were not approved by myself; all the material of the Academy and SH courses IS in use.

Such actions as this gave us “quickie grades,” ARC broke the field and downgraded the Academy and SH courses.

A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the background of any person found guilty will be activated in the case of anyone committing the following HIGH CRIMES:

1. Abbreviating an official course in Dianetics and Scientology so as to lose the full theory, processes and effectiveness of the subjects.

2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any material “background” or “not used now” or “old” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using and applying the data in which he is being trained.

3. Employing after 1 Sept. 1970 any checksheet for any course not authorized by myself or the Authority, Verification and Correction Unit International (AVC Int).

(Hat checksheets may be authorized locally per HCO PL 30 Sept. 70, CHECKSHEET FORMAT.)

4. Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any such comments as “historical,” “background,” “not used,” “old,” etc., or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS.

5. Permitting a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time on the pc’s own determinism without hint or evaluation.

6. Running only one process for a lower grade between 0 to IV, where the grade EP has not been attained.

7. Failing to use all processes for a level where the EP has not been attained.

8. Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as “I put in Grade Zero in 3 minutes.” Etc.

9. Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or labor-saving considerations.

10. Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to use or impede its use or shorten its materials or its application.

REASON: The effort to get students through courses and get pcs processed in orgs was considered best handled by reducing materials or deleting processes from grades. The pressure exerted to speed up student completions and auditing completions was mistakenly answered by just not delivering.

The correct way to speed up a student’s progress is by using two-way comm and applying the study materials to students.

The best way to really handle pcs is to ensure they make each level fully before going on to the next and repairing them when they do not.

The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the late 60s is entirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time in study and in processing by deleting materials and actions.

Reinstituting full use and delivery of Dianetics and Scientology is the answer to any recovery.

The product of an org is well-taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product vanishes, so does the org. The orgs must survive for the sake of this planet.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

Notes

  1. Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩
  2. Document studied on DSA Investigations Officer Full Hat (Section A, #3.) ↩
  3. Document studied on the Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course. ↩
  4. Document studied on the Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor Course. ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: PTSness and Disconnection

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 SEPTEMBER 19831

Remimeo
HCOs
E/O Hats
MAA Hats
Tech
Qual
All Staff
PTS/SP Course

PTSness AND DISCONNECTION

Refs:

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

THEORY

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.

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.

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.

SUMMARY

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
Founder

Notes

  1. Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Handling PTS Situations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MARCH 19831

Remimeo
PTS/SP Checksheets
All Staff
HCOs
Tech/Qual
C/Ses
Auditors

HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS

Refs:

HCO PL 5 Apr. 72RD Rev. 10.9.83 PTS TYPE A HANDLING

HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS HANDLING

The following was taken from one of my taped lectures (7511C20) and is hereby issued in HCOB form:

I coached a pc one time as to how to talk to his parents. I coached him very, very carefully. This is a sort of MAA job, not a C/S job. I made him repeat everything after me, very carefully: “And when your mother says to you so-and-so and so-and-so, what are you going to say?” It was simply good roads and good weather. I forced him, at pain of being squashed, to follow that exact pattern with the parents. It was just good roads and good weather.

“Hello Mama, how are you? How’s Papa?” you know. And she says, “Yeow, yeow, yeow, yeow, yeow and you wha-wha, wha-wha.” Just say, “Well, all right, all right.” Don’t answer back and don’t engage in any argument of any kind whatsoever. Give it an ack. I said, “You’re calling them up just because you’re passing through and you were interested in how they were, and that is your whole story.” And he did, and that was the end of the whole situation. Pc came back to battery. Relationships with the parents went totally normal.

In other words, he was keeping it going—his worry, his upset, his letters, trying to answer their questions, his conversation with them. Whereas I cut it all into just a pattern of something on the order of about a tone 3.5 straight across the boards. That was the end of the PTS condition.

A PTS condition also has outside handling steps. But you as an auditor or you as a C/S are possibly limited by the fact that you don’t have an MAA, or you do not have somebody who is sufficiently skilled in order to do this job for you. And it winds up blowing everybody’s head off.

In such an instance, just get hold of the guy and coach him in exactly what he’s going to say.

“Oh, but no, she’d never listen, she won’t, she hasn’t talked to me for seven years! She won’t talk to me in any way, shape or form!”

“Well, all right, all right, all right. That’s fine, good.” You get a little bit inventive and you say, “Well, when is her birthday?” or something like that. The pc says, “Well, as a matter of fact, it was a month or two ago.” And you say, “Well, all right, why don’t you send her a birthday card and tell her it’s a belated birthday card and that you remembered her birthday and always had kind thoughts of her?”

Now, the incoming comm may blow his head off. You just cool him off. Don’t engage in any corner of this; this is not the game you are playing. You simply acknowledge any nice part that you can find.

“Papa went hunting and you’re a dirty dog and I’ve never seen the like of you and you’re an ungrateful brat and so on, and why don’t you be like your great Uncle Oscar who is now doing time in Sing Sing and will be executed next week?”

And you say, “I hope Daddy had a fine hunting trip.”

It’s the only part of it you answer. You coach him into two-way comm that is well above 2.0 on the Tone Scale, that mostly consists of acks and mild interest in what’s going on. You’ll find out these conditions will evaporate, if you can prevent the backflash from being responded to by the PTS person. In other words, there are ways to handle this in real life.

You will find a great many people who are “PTS” are antagonizing the people. They are antagonizing them beyond belief, and they’re telling them what’s wrong with them and they’re telling them this and they’re telling them that and the person eventually gets very resentful.

Well, even that can be patched up. You are not doing anything at the other end of the line. You cool off the PT scene sufficiently one way or the other so that the person can sit in the auditing chair.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

Notes

  1. Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOPL: Your Post and Life

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 JANUARY 19831

Remimeo

Keeping Scientology Working Series 28

Establishment Officer Series 46

YOUR POST AND LIFE

A vital datum has emerged in my recent whole-track research.

IF ONE KNOWS THE TECH OF HOW TO DO SOMETHING AND CAN DO IT, AND USES IT, HE CANNOT BE THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF IT.

This applies in many, many ways and is in fact a key point of life-a fundamental that may underlie all others.

And it applies to you directly on a post and in life.

If you know the tech-and that includes policy-of your post and apply it, you cannot be the adverse effect of it. FACT!

This has many ramifications:

1. A hatted staff member is not only at cause over his post, he is safe.

2. A well-trained auditor gets no adverse reaction from auditing others.

3. A well-trained Supervisor has no adverse reaction from students.

4. A fully-trained and functioning staff can get no real adverse reaction from superiors or even an enemy.

5. An SP confronted by someone who knows and can use all the tech concerning SPs would shatter.

The list could go on and on since the datum pervades all sectors of life itself.

In fact, it is almost mystical!

There is a corollary: If one is experiencing an adverse effect on a post or in life, then he does not know or has not applied the tech or policy covering it.

There is also a limiting factor: The full benefit of the datum is not sweepingly realized in all sectors until one is all the way up the Bridge. BUT the datum is so powerful that it can be applied and will manifest itself even in small things like opening cans, much less doing a post.

And knowing that one datum can save you enormous trouble and grief and put you on the road to OT doing what you’re doing and right where you are!

Nice, eh?

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

Notes

  1. Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩