Scientology pages index  |  Contact

(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help me with my research? <<  Consult my want list here !

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

This page will give you the details about the disreputable ‘Disconnection Policy’, and various other relating to this matter.

Previously you would have found this analysis of the Practice of Disconnection included (mixed in) on my page “Scientology: The History of a Policy Letter (2) - A detailed study”. During the last couple of months I added so much data to my treatise of Disconnection that for clarity reasons I moved it to a page of its own, this I released as such on April 14, 2006.

 
Index:

		Foreword
	Introduction to Disconnection
		‘Separation Order’ & Cancellation of ‘Disconnection as a condition’ (1968)
		Introduction and explanation of ‘disconnection’ anno 1973
	Disconnection as a condition reinstated (1983)
		Prelude
		(1) HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”         - Reason for reinstatement (1)  &  A first mention of HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”         - The terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ confused         - ‘Selfdeterminism’  vs  ‘compliance required’         - HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”  vs  ‘The Scientology Handbook’
		(2) HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 September 1983) “PTS Type A Handling”         - Reason for reinstatement (2)         - HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”  turns  HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “same title”         - ‘Why’-finding as found in ‘Data Series’  &  ‘PTS/SP Course’         - a) All set for handling (1978)  vs  Return of the ‘Practice of Disconnection’ in September 1983         - b) The legal consideration & newspaper coverage from early 1984
	Further evaluations
		A brief overview of various references regarding disconnection
		Reason for reinstatement (3)  &  HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-Up”
		Regarding the authorship of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”         - A summary of arguments         - The role of RTC, ‘Lost Tech’ found!         - Who wrote HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”?
		Final considerations         - Consequences:  Cause or effect?         - Rehabilitation, a forgotten and overlooked aspect
	In the year 1996 ..., ‘disconnection’ once again ...
		The occurrence of HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” (Reiss. 10 Oct 96)         - A first introduction and initial inconsistencies found with this re-release         - A more closely inspection of this release, and the matter of ‘disconnection’ making its entry

Relevant introductive information is also found in my chapter entitled “The arrival of new information (5) - The ‘new ways’ or Turning from a selfcorrecting system into something where others can be given the power to control you?”. See my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs ‘A New Order (2)” or click here to consult.

During a short period of time during the 60's (1965-68) there was this action that was later addressed as the Practice of Disconnection. In late 1968 this was taken out of use by HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”. And it remained being cancelled for a considerable period of time. Until the issuance of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” which turned around things quite radically. On this page I offer a detailed study of all this, and I provide extensive documentation about all the facets of this phenomena. My page contains the most extensive information currently available about the subject.

Now, why do I offer this information? Firstly I had some wonderings myself about this subject. I did know about the reference that advocated the Practice of Disconnection which is HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, but then it came to mind that it had been cancelled previously in 1968 and that for a specific reason which was “Since we can now handle all types of cases”. It simply didn't make sense to me to then reinstate it 15 years later! So, I started off with a detailed comparison of all versions of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists", this policy letter played a modest role in the practice. I started finding out about things, and I got deeper and deeper involved in the issue of Disconnection. I started to involve and research various other subjects as well, such as ‘Fair Game’ and socalled ‘Declares’, subjects which are also dealt with in this policy letter. What originally had started of with a simple inquiry became a rather extensive research project. I also had to work my way through a lot of materials for finding the information that I needed. Another problem was to locate particular versions of references. Although I have a fairly extensive collection of original material I had my ‘shortages’. Familiar as I was with collecting books since many years I used my contacts to find and secure especially the old materials. Then I had to start putting the information together. All this took a considerable amount of time and effort. I don't see really someone else doing all that. To this I added my extensive knowledge of Mimeo*, which facilitated my understanding of what had happened, and how to correctly interpret various. So, I offer my findings that will allow you to make up your own mind about things. For me it is about educating the people out there. “There is no substitute for understanding.”  LRH   (from HCOB 20 Oct 76 Issue II “PTS Handling”). To be able to understand you need factual information and resources. So, here we go!

If you feel disturbed about some of the information found on this page, then feel free to send an inquiry to:

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

There used to be some practice that people were sending letters to specific persons simply informing them that they were hereby disconnecting from them. At one time this may have been enforced on people. No need to say that this practice was not very popular, and has therefore been criticized unfavourably.

Now, policy letters came about because of particular occurrences. They were written and compiled to ease matters and were to provide for some sort of guiding rule. There was this matter because of having association. In my records I have this HCO Ethics Order 219 [Saint Hill], 8 Jul 65 “Disassociation” that says: “AP is to stay completely disassociated from JT, AT, and his mother and father for the duration of his auditing.” (I changed the names in initials). These happenings/experiences urged the following policy letter and rule to be written:

We can see that it was for a specific usually very short period of time only. This was done as it may or is likely to affect this “Joe” as named in above example if he was to have contact with this “Mary” while “undergoing processing”. Strictly taken however this is something else than the reputed disconnection various are referring to.

	“It has been revealed at Saint Hill that ... auditors are permitting their preclears to be sent through to Ethics for writing disconnection letters to any person or group which the preclear thinks to have been suppressive of him and then continuing the Search and Discovery to find the SP on the list.
	This is improper. The auditor should continue the proper auditing of an S and D* until the proper item on the list is found. ...”          LRH

Now what does “disconnection as a condition” actually mean?

So this HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” simply abolished this action for reason of: “Since we can now handle all types of cases ... .”  LRH.

	“There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and KNOW ARE TRUE in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives:
	These data are:
	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”)

Many I have been in contact with and who are unfamiliar with these procedures appear to have misconceptions concerning what this actually is about and what this handling actually consists of. And because people don't know the specifics they will try to explain it to themselves in some way. To avoid feeding this kind of likely erroneous ideas and fight misconceptions it is preferable to view further quotations addressing this handling. This HCOB itself lays out some very simple steps explaining all of this. If you are puzzled I would strongly advice to consult some further excerpts taken from this HCOB (link provided will open as a pop-up window).
Try to understand the basic outline of these procedures before you continue reading below!

	“‘Handle or disconnect’ is part of current procedure on handling Potential Trouble Sources, as per HCO B 10 August ’73, ‘PTS Handling’.
	This does not mean that we are returning to the practice of publishing or writing disconnection letters to the person concerned.
	One needs to understand the meaning of the word Disconnection in order to be able to apply it. Disconnection = to break or undo the connection of, separate, detach.
	Disconnection has come to mean the actual action of writing to a person to inform him/her of the fact. This is a very extreme example of the word. A person can simply decide to disconnect and be disconnected from that moment on.
	In some cases, the item found may be dead, and the person have no other choice than to disconnect. In that event, the person simply disconnects then and there, in the Ethics Officer's office, or in session. No other action is required. Some may wish to write up a statement of such which is simply filed in his ethics file, with no other action taken. It is not mailed to anyone.
	In only a few cases will open disconnection handling be required, and when this happens, it must be handled with the utmost care so that no repercussions occur.
	Whether the PTS interview is done by the Ethics Officer, D of P*, Auditor or Qual* personnel, the actual ‘handling’ steps must be done under the jurisdiction of the Ethics Officer.”          (from HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” –1st seven paragraphs–)

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 simply as follows:
	“The following issues, which were not written by the Founder are hereby cancelled:
	HCO PL 15 Sep 73           CONFIDENTIAL, HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS”

“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.”

‘Disconnection as a condition’ reinstated (1)  (HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”)

• Reason for reinstatement (1)  &  A first mention of HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”
• The terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ confused
• ‘Selfdeterminism’  vs  ‘compliance required’
• HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”  vs  ‘The Scientology Handbook’

The term “disconnection as a condition” may be defined as a condition enforced on you by someone else to which you may be forced to comply with. This as opposed to operating on selfdeterminism.

In HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (10 Sept 83) "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists" this was changed back again into:

	“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.”

 
Reason for reinstatement  &  A first mention of HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”

Well, here I am puzzled, just tell these people to get off your back. May be “they” want to stay having contact with you. Then you tell them that you don't want to have contact with them. And if they scream, well, let them scream. They will soon get tired of doing that. Problem solved.

	“Using recent technology contained in the Data Series Policy Letters, a new procedure is possible. 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. The WHY could be that his parents wanted him to be a lawyer and so blame Scientology that he is not one, rather than the fact that he flunked out of law school and couldn't stand the thought of being a lawyer!
	Or perhaps the WHY is that the Scientologist keeps writing her parents for money or the WHY could be that the mother has just read an entheta newspaper article.
	In any case the WHY should be found and the PTS individual should then do whatever is necessary to handle.
	See the Data Series P/Ls (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why.”

The above positively confirms: “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”). I think this is quite clear.

 
The terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ confused

It is important to note here that the quotation as found in HCOB 10 Sept 83 in regards to HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA is not properly relayed. HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA relates about: “either handle or disconnect”, HCOB 10 Sept 83 focuses on “to fail or refuse to disconnect”! These are quite different contexts. HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA still gives an alternative, HCOB 10 Sept 83 does not give you any option! This appears misleading!

It is interesting to note here that it used to say in HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (1979 revision) “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”:

A comment was also made in HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” about various policy letters that had “sought to remove disconnection from a declared Suppressive person as a standard action” after which it makes the statement “whereas it is a vital technical tool in the handling of PTSness.”. Note that this was written by “CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL”.

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. Please, think this one over for a while.

The logical question we HAVE to ask now is, why then are we having reinstatement of “disconnection as a condition”?

 
‘Selfdeterminism’  vs  ‘compliance required’

	“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”)

The handling as offered in HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” is done fully by the person on his or her own selfdeterminism. The change proposed (or rather forced upon) by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is in fact that it is not solely up to the selfdeterminism of the person anymore!

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

This ‘The Scientology Handbook’ (published 1994) is a 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, link will open in separate window). One of these “19 separate aspects” found in ‘The Scientology Handbook’ is chapter 11 entitled: “The Cause of Suppression”, this appears retitled on the Internet site as “Overcoming the Ups and Downs in Life”, visit page here. It is actually referring to one of these ‘A Scientology Life Improvement Course’ that carries about that same title. Anyway this particular chapter is basically just a collection of some HCOB's which are here and there adjusted. The main sections as found in the book are as follows:

It is actually quite remarkable 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 one was aware of the sensitivity of the subject of disconnection.

	“Once in a while I hear of PTS handlings that ‘didn't work’ or ‘still PTS’ or some such. Or I'll come across such extremes as a PTS is virtually an incurable leper to be shunned and kept isolated or almost everyone is PTS to some degree so what can you really do about it. The basic thing to realize is that PTSness, like any other case condition afflicting Man, responds to plain old standard tech. But one has to have studied and understood that tech to apply it, naturally.
	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! So I recently called for a pilot to see what would be the effect of a study method of curing PTSes.”

“Before the final pilot was done, an earlier pilot was attempted by an Aide which was not conducted as laid down.”

	“The second 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 and on terminals in their life almost like an auditing session and while they were saying not PTS, no longer PTS (now that they had the data) is probably closer to the truth. All are reported to be doing well on post with no illness, roller-coaster or ethics trouble.”

	“SUMMARY
	We have had the tech of PTSness for years, but it wasn't being fully used ... . 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. This is vitally important for staff. We can handle and the person himself can handle.
	There is no substitute for understanding.”          LRH           (all above quotations are taken from HCOB 20 Oct 76 Issue II “PTS Handling”)

‘Disconnection as a condition’ reinstated (2) 

• Reason for reinstatement (2)
• HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”  turns  HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “same title”
• ‘Why’-finding as found in ‘Data Series’  &  ‘PTS/SP Course’
• a) All set for handling (1978)  vs  Return of the ‘Practice of Disconnection’ in September 1983
• b) The legal consideration & newspaper coverage from early 1984

A logical question to ask is: “Why did HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” not cancel HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” directly?

 
Reason for reinstatement (2)

They both appear to address similar reasons, that “it had been abused” or that they “took the easy course” failing to “handle the condition in their lives”. And this may be very well be true, this however does not justify the reinstatement of the Practice of Disconnection. (discussed in detail in previous chapter “'Disconnection as a condition' reinstated (1) (HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”))”. Reinstating the practice means saying that once we had the know-how to “handle all types of cases” (as per HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”) and now we do not anymore. It's just the wrong reason given for reinstatement. The exact text as I printed in the above which was taken from HCO PL 81 “PTS Type A Handling” was already known and issued in HCO PL 5 Apr 72 Issue I “PTS Type A Handling”. One is not just going to wait 11 years (till 1983) before reinstating this for given reason, if this was known already back then, now are we?

 
HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”  turns  HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “same title”

These PTS Types are categorized from ‘PTS Type A’ to ‘PTS Type J’. These are all listed in HCO PL 27 Oct 64 “Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Potential Trouble Sources”. It simply lists “Policies ... for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble. These persons can be grouped under ‘Potential Trouble Sources’”.  LRH

A complete copy of the version of this reference that introduced the by L. Ron Hubbard added section (BPL 5 Apr 72RC (Revised 29 December 1978) Issue I “PTS Type A Handling”) can be consulted here (link will open as a pop-up window).

 
‘Why’-finding as found in ‘Data Series’  &  ‘PTS/SP Course’

Data Series

A little note can be made here also to HCO PL 6 Apr 72 Issue II “How to Find a Why on a Person and Handle”. It appears released just one day apart from HCO PL 5 Apr 72 Issue I “PTS Type A Handling” which is actually interesting! It appears that the ‘Why’-finding was an important part of the development of the technology, and became the vogue of the early 70's. This particular reference was made part of the 1976-1980 Cramming Series. This HCO PL was also not written by L. Ron Hubbard although today it is fully attributed to him. I make some notes about this reference on my page “Story of the ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH?”, chapter “Notable references as found etc..” (see Scientology index page).

PTS/SP Course

In BPL 5 Apr 72RC Issue I “PTS Type A Handling” that was revised on December 31, '78, we find the following line added by L. Ron Hubbard:

As I noted earlier in this section it appears that the ‘Why’-finding as suggested by these Data Series had in fact been abandoned, judging from that 2 referrals to these Data Series simply had disappeared from HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”. Instead the focus is directed entirely towards the PTS/SP Checksheet for actual information.

Conclusion

 
a) All set for handling (1978)  vs  Return of the ‘Practice of Disconnection’ in September 1983

By the end of 1978 we were as it seemed all set for handling this PTS Type A phenomena. December 1978 gave us: HCOB 29 Dec 78 “The Suppressed Person Rundown” (a simple auditing action), HCOB 31 Dec 78 Issue II “Outline of PTS Handling” & HCOB 31 Dec 78 Issue III “Educating the Potential Trouble Source, the First Step Toward Handling: PTS C/S-1”. And we had successfully gotten rid of –as Mary Sue Hubbard expressed it– the less “sensible” solution of the Practice of Disconnection. Then rather silently disappeared the use of the Data Series in October 1981. Was it thought being superseded because of all the HCOB's being written on the subject, may be so. Then in spite of all these tools we have for handling we see that the Practice of Disconnection was to reappear in 1983. This actually is a kind of odd as we had by then developed a handling that factually would have made the Practice of Disconnection superfluous!

	“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”)

	“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: ... )”

	“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 September 1983) “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.

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 involves not being effected by it anymore even when being in contact or close to any such person. This does however not imply that one has to be in contact with such a person either. Actually handling the suppression for oneself and for example finding another job with an appreciative employer are 2 separate things!

 
b) The legal consideration & newspaper coverage from early 1984

As a rule L. Ron Hubbard is usually quite clear about things, but here things appear mystical. I find that he says things as they appear or are. If he gives a reason for cancelling some action (“since we can now handle”), it is that reason. You can not then give another reason for justifying reinstating it at a much later date (“it had been abused by a few individuals”), especially not if this reason was already known back then, and a workable solution was figured out and in actual use (‘WHY’-finding as found in HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”).

It is in actual fact the Ethics Officer who has to see to it that something is not being abused and that conditions are in fact being handled! So if it does get abused it is basically a failure of the Ethics Officer not having enforced this and only he is then to blame. Also realize that it took 15 years before it was reinstated, and 3 years after L. Ron Hubbard had disappeared from the public view. Would it not have been obvious from the beginning if reinstating some action would be the answer to the problem? It is reasonable to assume that if this was being the case it would have been reinstated at a much earlier date.

According to my knowledge this SPD 28 has never been cancelled, this would mean that it still supposedly is policy upholding “no practice of ‘disconnection’ allowed”.

	Cancellation of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”
	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 1983) "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists"
	Revision of HCOB 31 Dec 78R (Revised 20 Dec 83) Issue II “Outline of PTS Handling”

Reasons were given for the reinstatement of ‘Disconnection as a Condition’ in the HCOB that actually reinstates it, which is HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”. Further argumentation has been offered in HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 September 1983) “PTS Type A Handling” (discussed in details earlier in “Reason for reinstatement (1) & (2)”, see main index). The outcome appeared questionable insofar it was to be a valid reason. Now, could it be that we had overlooked something?

Supposedly this correction as forwarded by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-Up” would have dealt with that problem at that time. Why would it not still have worked in 1983? There are indications that other things were going on. In particular we can mention the abundance of issues released during the early 80's attributed to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard, when he in fact had not done so. The majority of them having been taken out of circulation by various HCO Admin Letters issued during 1990-91, because (as clearly noted on these HCO AL's): “None of these issues were written or approved by LRH”.

	“What makes tech correct? When it doesn't get results it is incorrect. When it gets the expected result it is correct.
	My own writings and researches are based wholly upon things that got and get results.”          LRH          (from HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Urgent and Important; Tech Correction Round-Up”)

Regarding the authorship of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”

• A summary of arguments
• The role of RTC, ‘Lost Tech’ found!
• Who wrote HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”?

 
A summary of arguments

Efforts simply have to be made to ensure that we are continue “having the correct technology” & “closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology." And that really means: “any possibility”!  (from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 "Keeping Scientology Working”). As far as I know all HCO PL's and HCOB's were handwritten. An option would be to issue HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” in LRH his own handwriting, such has been done before.

 
The role of RTC, ‘Lost Tech’ found!

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 Issue 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 the reinstatement of disconnection as a condition? Well, in fact 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.”

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 would order 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 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? 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 something ...

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

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 ‘ir’, and this, I have confirmed, was one of the typists employed at the RTRC* and she listens to the name Irene Woodruff.

One note can 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 does confirm my actual findings.

Final considerations

• Consequences:  Cause or effect?
• Rehabilitation, a forgotten and overlooked aspect

 
Consequences:  Cause or effect?

(from ‘Advance! 38’, Jan 76)

An 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.

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.

 
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 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.

The occurrence of HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” (Reiss. 10 Oct 96)

• A first introduction and initial inconsistencies found with this re-release
• A more closely inspection of this release, and the matter of ‘disconnection’ making its entry

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

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 (link will open in 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:

 
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’ anno 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.”

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:

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 and related matters”.

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

Vocabulary:

     65R, 65RA, 72RC, 71RG:
For example: ‘HCO PL 23 Dec 65R’, ‘HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA’ , ‘BPL 5 Apr 72RC’ & ‘BPL 31 May 71RG’. The date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R stands for 'Revision' and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first issued. If it is revised a 2nd time it says RA, a 3rd time RB etc..
     BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for policy letters not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
     CS-5, CS-G:
CS stands for ‘Commodore Staff’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org* actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. CS-5: The 5 refers to Division 5 (Qualification division) of a Scientology organization. ‘CS-5’ is also referred to as ‘Qual Aide’. CS-G: Commodore's Staff Guardian is responsible for the Guardian's Office over the world and this function is best described as guard and protect Scientology.
     D of P:
The ‘Director of Processing’ will interview you on matters concerning your auditing progress and the scheduling of your auditing.
     green volume(s):
Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’, this is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any administrative references. These references are mostly printed green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have green bindings. The ‘old green volumes’ refers to the 1974 release, ‘new green volumes’ refers to the 1991 release.
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’: issue-type since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address technical issues, having to do with auditing procedures and courses. 
     HCO Area Secretary (‘HCO Secretary’ in early days):
Usually referred to as ‘HAS’. The HAS is in charge of the HCO Division (Div. 1) of the organization. He has the function of establishing the organization.  
      HCO PL (Pol Ltr, P/L or PL):
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues. 
     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).
     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.
     OEC:
‘Organization Executive Course’. Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’, this is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any administrative references. These references are mostly printed green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have green bindings. Also referred to as the ‘green volumes’.
     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 (link will open in a separate window).
     PTS (Potential Trouble Source):
Those who are connected to suppressive persons or groups and are potential trouble sources. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow.
     Qual:
‘Qualification Division’. 1. It could be called the correction division or the adjustment division. But qualifications would also serve.  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.  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.
     RTRC:
‘LRH Technical Research and Compilations’.
     Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary:
This is the publication ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (first released 1976). Usually referred to as simply Admin Dictionary. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     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.” (quoted from The Organization Executive Course volume 0, 1991 edition, page 729 or 1986 edition, page 617)
     Sea Org, SO:
Abbreviation for ‘Sea Org(anization)’. This is the senior organization within Scientology that run the Advance Organizations and also see to it that Class IV organizations (lower level services) do function well. If needed they may send out missions to correct if things don't run smoothly.
     S and D:
'Search and Discovery'. As a process is done exactly by the general rules of listing. One lists for persons or groups who are or have suppressed the pc. The list is complete when only one item reads on nulling and this is the item. (HCOB 24 Nov 65)
     SP:
A usual abbreviation for Suppressive Person.

Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010  Michel Snoeck.  All rights reserved. This page revised: 9 July, 2010