During the mid-60’s there was a practice introduced that will be discussed here as “Disconnection as a Condition.” [I am distinguishing this practice separately from the technology of disconnection as I will discuss later.] In 1968 this practice was discontinued by LRH in no uncertain terms, and it remained off-policy for a considerable period of time until 1983 when things changed quite dramatically. And even though the Church officially claims that this policy is not enforced, I will easily prove that it is.

The question that is being asked is: Why if Disconnection as a Condition had been cancelled was it then suddenly reinstated 15 years later, and what are the repercussions of this important change in policy?

Why should one care you might ask? The reason is that a misapplication of Disconnection as a Condition could lead to extremely counter-productive effects for individuals and for the Church. It could also lead to creating unnecessary enemies that could have been allies instead.

[Note: Many of the references quoted here are no longer in circulation. That is due to the fact that over the years numerous references on this subject have been revised or canceled, or in some cases re-issued with altered text. This does not however change the fact that they did exist, and that at one point they were the policies or procedures that were applied at that time. The value of making a chronological study of some of these older references and how they changed over the years is that it gives one a better understanding of how a particular policy or procedure came about, and hopefully a better grasp of why it is the way that it is today.]

The “Condition” of Disconnection

To get a complete understanding of what Disconnection as a Condition really is, we must first start with a historical study of what was being done prior to the cancellation of this practice in 1968.

HCO PL 7 MAR 65 – Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists was the first Policy Letter to be released, which specifically outlined this practice.

Disconnection from a family member or cessation of adherence to a Suppressive Person or Group is done by the Potential Trouble Source publicly publishing the fact, as in the legal notices of “The Auditor” and public announcements and taking any required civil action such as disavowal, separation or divorce and thereafter cutting all further communication and disassociating from the person or group.

HCOB 20 Jul 66 – The Type Two PTS refers to this same sort of practice:

It has been revealed at Saint Hill that HGC auditors and Review 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.

There was also something called a “Separation Order”:

There are instances met with by Ethics Officers, especially in relation to husbands and wives, where there may be suppressions on individual people but not suppressive of Scientology.

In such cases a ‘Separation Order’ for a specific period of time is the best action. For example, Joe S— and Mary S— are hereby placed under a Separation Order while Joe is undergoing Processing. They are to have no contact with each other during this period from (date) ………. to ………. (in this case to the end of the Power Processing 2nd Stage Release). [HCO PL 19 Jul 65, II – Separation Order]

This is confirmed by the 1978 publication of What Is Scientology?:

What is disconnection?

Disconnection was the action of helping persons to become exterior from circumstances or people that suppress them. At one time (between 1966-1968) this was done by formally writing a letter, which in some cases caused upsets.

It was not fully understood that disconnection was usually a temporary handling, to give the person a ‘breathing space’ from a problem, while they found the true source of it.

It was also one of the penalties applied to Scientologists who behaved unethically. [pg. 204]

So, what does disconnection as a “condition” actually mean? In order to answer that, consider the following definition of a “Condition Order.”

ANY EXECUTIVE MAY ASSIGN ANY CONDITION AND IMPROVE ANY CONDITION HE ASSIGNS TO ANY PERSON IMMEDIATELY JUNIOR TO HIM ON HIS COMMAND CHANNEL OR WITHIN HIS OWN OFFICE OR AREA. [HCO PL 5 Jan. 68 II – CONDITIONS ORDERS EXECUTIVE ETHICS)

In other words, it is a condition that a person can be ordered to do. The condition could then be enforced as follows:

Any HCO Secretary may receive evidence of disconnection or disavowal or separation or divorce … . [HCO PL 23 Dec 65 – Suppressive Acts – Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists]

Here we see an example of how HCO could be involved in the enforcement of the condition of disconnection:

This type of case will probably not be dangerous but quite co-operative, and probably dazed by having to do something about his situation. He or she has been hammered with invalidation by a Suppressive Person and may be rather wobbly but if the Justice steps are taken exactly on policy there should be no trouble. HCO can take a Potential Trouble Source (but never a Suppressive Person) out of the Tech Division premises and back to HCO to complete such briefing. Remember, it is all one to us if the Potential Trouble Source handles it or not. Until it’s handled or disconnected we don’t want it around as it’s just more trouble and the person will cave in if audited under those conditions (connected to a Suppressive Person or group). [HCO PL 5 Apr. 65, I – HANDLING THE SUPPRESSIVE PERSON THE BASIS OF INSANITY]

Therefore, Disconnection as a Condition could be defined as: “the practice where a PTS person is ordered by HCO to disconnect from a Suppressive Person as a temporary solution until the PTS person is able to handle the true source of the problem.”

Cancellation of Disconnection

In November of 1968 LRH informed us:

Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled. [HCO PL 15 Nov. 68 – CANCELLATION OF DISCONNECTION]

The significance of why LRH made this change in policy probably lies in the fact that he had just completed research on a procedure that could completely handle any PTS condition. A summary of this technology was released earlier that year in HCOB 13 JAN 68 – S&D where LRH tells us:

There are three types of S & D (Search and Discovery). These are used to nullify the influence of Suppressive persons or things on a case so the person will be able to be processed and will no longer be PTS (a Potential Trouble Source).

This speaks for itself! If the person is no longer PTS, then disconnection would be unnecessary as a handling for that person.

Over the next decade a great deal of further technology was developed, which expanded on this breakthrough. This culminated with LRH finally making the following statement in HCOB 31 Dec. 78 II – OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING:

These are powerful and precision tools. With them we can handle our PTS students, preclears and staffs and get resounding one-for-one successes.

The 1978 publication of ‘What Is Scientology?’ acknowledges this fact:

Disconnection has been replaced since 1968 by ethics counselings, which are quick and effective and designed to assist a person to recover his ability to act both causatively and rightly.

As a result of this, many of the previous references that discussed Disconnection as a Condition were revised by LRH to remove this practice as a standard action. For instance, the sentence quoted earlier from HCO PL 23 Dec 65R – Suppressive Acts – Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists was revised to the following:

Any HCO Area Secretary or Ethics Officer may receive evidence of handling suppression … .

It is even specifically noted in this Policy Letter:

(Revised 31 December 1979 to remove all references to ‘disconnection’ which was cancelled as a condition by the Church of Scientology in 1968.)

This policy continues to hold for several more years, and can be seen as late as HCOB 16 Apr. 82 – MORE ON PTS HANDLING which also omits any mention of “disconnection”:

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

So, why was it that only a year later, even after all the LRH breakthroughs on PTS handlings, that Disconnection as a Condition was reinstated?

Sources of Trouble

In order to answer this question, it would be relevant to take a look at one of the reasons that Disconnection as a Condition came about in the first place. This may be traced back to the policy for handling the various “sources of trouble” that are described in HCO PL 27 Oct 64 – Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Potential Trouble Sources. This reference listed out from A to J the “types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble” and concluded with the following policy:

To summarize sources of trouble, the policy in general is to cut communication, as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no case where the types of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction. I know of many cases where they were handled by firm legal stands, by ignoring them until they changed their minds, or just turning one’s back.

This is one of the first policies written on the practice of cutting communication or disconnecting. It has never been cancelled and is still applied to this day in Orgs around the world.

However, this policy must be taken into context. First of all, it was written in 1964, which is prior to the development of any tech for handling PTSness. At that time, it was not known how to actually handle PTS persons or “sources of trouble.” So, it would have made sense to simply disconnect.

A distinction should be made here however. This policy specifically states these types of people cannot be “handled by auditing or instruction.” It is for this reason that the organization is advised to disconnect from them. This is therefore a Justice action intended to protect the group, not a Technical action for helping an individual.

Another very important distinction should be made as well, which is that only one of the “sources of trouble” specifically describes an actual PTS condition:

A. Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing, and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.

This is the PTS condition referred to as “PTS Type A” in HCO PL 5 Apr 72 – PTS Type A Handling. However, it is the only “source of trouble” that specifically describes an actual connection to a Suppressive Person. And although PTS conditions have since been completely clarified by LRH, Scientologists have continued to refer to all of these “sources of trouble” as PTS.

This is obviously a misnomer. In fact, on 15 November 1987, HCO PL 27 Oct 64 was revised, and the term “Potential Trouble Source” was completely removed from the reference. The new title became: Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Sources of Trouble. And the first line which originally was:

These persons can be grouped under ‘Potential Trouble Sources’.

Was revised to:

These persons can be grouped under “sources of trouble.”

So, why then are these different “sources of trouble” still referred to as “PTS”? It could just be a matter of semantics, i.e. “sources of trouble” sounds very similar to “potential trouble sources.” Or it could be because “Type A” actually is a PTS condition, so it is inferred that all others must be as well.

What matters is that a distinction does need to be made. To not make such a differentiation, could confuse the tech of how to actually handle a PTS person with the policies for handling people who are troublesome to the Church. This could then lead to PTS persons not receiving the help needed to actually improve their condition.

Indeed, since the development of technology for handling PTS conditions, it is not our policy to disconnect from them. Indeed, the statement that LRH makes in 1964 — “I know of no case where the types of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction” – was no longer true in 1968, and continues to be inapplicable today. Currently, many of these cases could be handled by a PTS Type A handling, a simple Green Form, or ultimately with Expanded Dianetics. Therefore, there really is no need to apply the policy of “cut communication” as a general rule.

The Technology of Disconnection

So, why is Disconnection as a Condition applied as a general policy? One reason for this could be that the practice as a technical matter had never really been discontinued, since “disconnection” was still mentioned in several technical references that were written after 1968 regarding the handling of PTSness.

For instance, HCOB 10 Aug 73 – PTS Handling gave us the following stable data to be used in handling a PTS person:

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.

It could be interpreted that this HCOB was reinstating Disconnection as a Condition. However, the crucial differentiation to make is that the form of disconnection discussed in HCOB 10 Aug 73 – PTS Handling” was NOT enforced upon the person:

You will usually find that he has named a person to whom he is still connected! So you ask him whether he wants to handle or disconnect. Now as the sparks will really fly in his life if he dramatically disconnects and if he can’t see how he can, you persuade him to begin to handle on a gradient scale. This may consist of imposing some slight discipline on him such as requiring him to actually answer his mail or write the person a pleasant good roads good weather note or to realistically look at how he estranged them. In short what is required in the handling is a low gradient.

Disconnection in this case, if done at all, was a self-determined action. In other words, it was something that the PTS person was asked if he wanted to do. He was not ordered to do it. In fact, he was discouraged not to!

Furthermore, it is also possible to “disconnect” without actually doing anything at all to the SP! For example, the item or person found may be dead, and disconnection would be predetermined in this case.

Thus, the previously cancelled policy of Disconnection as a Condition was not actually reinstated. What was being utilized here was simply a technical procedure for helping a preclear deal with a source of antagonism.

Disconnection Re-instated

The fact that Disconnection as a Condition was indeed cancelled can be seen even as late as August 1982, when SPD28 – SUPPRESSIVE ACT DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON was released with the following statement:

Where the matter concerns family relations or where a Scientologist is in the position of being closely associated to a person found to be Suppressive the materials covering Potential Trouble Sources apply. There is no practice of “disconnection” allowed in the Church of Scientology and these materials cover completely how one may use proper lines and procedures to handle a PTS condition.

However, in September 1983, everything suddenly turns around. First, many of the references which had “disconnection” removed were officially cancelled by HCO PL 8 Sep 83 – Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes. This Policy Letter carried the following note explaining the reason for these cancellations:

These Policy Letters sought to remove disconnection from a declared Suppressive person as a standard action, whereas it is a vital technical tool in the handling of PTSness.

A comment should be made here regarding the statement that various policy letters had “sought to remove disconnection from a declared Suppressive person as a standard action.” First of all, this particular comment was not written by LRH. Whereas HCO PL 23 DEC 65R, which was one of the references canceled, actually was written by LRH. This would give the impression that LRH himself “sought to remove disconnection…” The truth of the matter is that he actually DID when he released HCO PL 15 Nov 68 – Cancellation of Disconnection. However, this Policy Letter was curiously not one of those that was canceled.

Two days later, HCOB 10 Sept 83 – PTS-ness and Disconnection was published, which effectively did reinstate Disconnection as a Condition. And the revision of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 – Suppressive Acts – Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists (revised on the same date as the HCOB) ratified it:

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.

Yet, this Policy Letter also did not state anywhere that HCO PL 15 Nov 68 was canceled.

So, how is it that, although LRH considered Disconnection as a Condition no longer necessary, it was all of the sudden being reinstated as a “standard action”?

HCOB 10 Sep 83 – PTS-ness and Disconnection offers the following as an explanation:

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.

It then concluded:

The bare fact is that disconnection is a vital tool in handling PTSness and can be very effective when used correctly.

And then forwarded the following solution:

Therefore, the tech of disconnection is hereby restored to use, in the hands of those persons thoroughly and standardly trained in PTS/SP tech.

What could be interpreted from this is that the reasons for reinstating Disconnection as a Condition were:

1) It was previously abused or wasn’t correctly applied, but is in fact “a vital tool in handling PTSness.”

2) It can be utilized as a way to sever a Suppressive Person’s connection to our comm lines, i.e. as a “penalty” or Justice action.

The problem with this is that it directly contradicts the reason that LRH gave for discontinuing this practice in 1968, which was: “since we can now handle all types of cases.”

[Note: According to the under-oath declaration of Robert Vaughn Young: “I have personal knowledge that material was written and issued under the name of L. Ron Hubbard that he did not author. While working at ASI, I personally wrote material to be issued under his name for several years. This ranged from simple messages to be sent to various organizational staff on events such as his birthday or a holiday, to my composing an entire large directive that was issued under his name. In these instances, they were done without his knowledge or consent. The directive that I wrote concerned the Scientology policy of “Disconnection”. The order to do this came from David Miscavige. Miscavige said that we had to reinstitute the Policy of Disconnection and that I was to write the policy for this. I wrote it and it went through several revisions. It was not sent to Hubbard for his approval, but was issued into the Church of Scientology.”]

Compare HCOB 10 Sep 83 with the original version of HCO PL 5 Apr 72 – PTS Type A Handling which offered the following reasoning regarding this subject:

As per older, now cancelled policy, the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect from the antagonistic family member before he or she could continue with their training or processing. Many took the easy course and merely disconnected as such disconnection was only temporary for the time of their training or processing and so they did not in actual fact handle the condition in their life which was upsetting to them as Scientologists.

Scientology executives have had to promise the New Zealand government that the policy of disconnection from families would be cancelled. This was done. But since that time we have had more PTS trouble than before.

The conclusion drawn from that was:

Therefore what is needed is a legal and more sensible way to handle.

And the solution given was:

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.

Notice that this is the same reasoning that was later presented in 1983. However, the difference is that the solution offered is not Disconnection as a Condition. It instead positively confirms LRH’s original intent to discontinue such practices and replace it with technical handlings instead.

The Problem Being Solved

So, why in 1983 (15 years later) is the solution suddenly different? What changed?

To shed light on a possible reason it would be relevant to take a look at what had occurred recent to September 1983. The problem in need of a solution may have been how to deal with the growing number of people who had been declared a Suppressive Person.

There’s no way to positively confirm how many people were actually declared at that time. However, SO ED 2192 INT – List of Declared Suppressive Persons, which was released in January of 1983, does give some insight. It listed 611 names, many of which were old-time Scientologists, personal friends of LRH, high ranking Sea Org members, OT VII’s, and even Class XII auditors.

There is no evaluation being made here as to why that was the case. Obviously, no one except for those declared and those who issued the Ethics Orders know the whole story. However, that is besides the point. The point is that there were a large number of people declared at the time who undoubtedly had a lot of comm lines to other Scientologists. These were most likely the individuals referred to in HCOB 10 Sep 83 – PTS-ness and Disconnection as “those who could survive only by living on our lines.”

This created the necessity to remove these individuals from the Church’s comm lines so that they no longer had the ability to be in comm with other Scientologists. It also created the following problem described in HCOB 10 Sep 83 – PTS-ness and Disconnection:

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.

In other words, it is considered that the person isn’t going to be able to resolve the situation with the usual tech for handling PTSness. Therefore, the solution was Disconnection as a Condition.

The “Type A” Contradiction

But, what if the Suppressive Person is a family member? Utilizing Disconnection as a Condition in this case could potentially create problems even worse than the original if misapplied. And if applied according to HCOB 10 Sep 83 – PTS-ness and Disconnection creates the specific contradiction below:

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.

Then it gives the following policy:

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)

This obviously creates a significant problem in the case where the person’s family member is the Suppressive Person. In such a situation the Ethics Officer would be required to force the PTS person to disconnect from the family member, instead of handling.

In this case, the above two quotes would appear to contradict each other. For instance, how is the person going to be able to “restore good communication” if he disconnects? And how would the PTS person accomplish such a disconnection from a family member without creating even more antagonism?

A reason for this apparent contradiction may be due to the following alteration of the original policy. If you actually compare the above quotation to that given in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA – Suppressive Acts – Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists you will notice a subtle yet significant difference:

Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.

Notice that although this is the quote referred to in HCOB 10 Sept. 83 it is not the same. The original policy says: “either handle or disconnect,” whereas HCOB 10 Sep. 83 does not give that option. This gives the impression that one would not even try to handle the PTS situation.

One could even conclude that Disconnection as a Condition in itself is an actual “handling” for PTSness, even though a Standard handling was previously laid out in HCO PL 20 Oct 81 – PTS Type A Handling:

It is actually an interview with the suspected PTS person. It is often done on an E-Meter to assist the verification of data.

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 given by a qualified auditor in the HGC).

However, on 10 September 83 (the same day that HCOB – PTS-ness and Disconnection is released) the last paragraph quoted above was replaced by the following: [Text in red added in 1983.]

If the person fails to do the program or the program results in no real change in the situation, the interviewing officer must investigate thoroughly to find out what the person is doing instead of the program and check for any communication he may have sent which continued the upset, and get this corrected at once. He must also ensure the PTS A person is handling the correct antagonistic person. (Example: PTS person Jones may have thought the antagonism was coming from Smith, whereas Smith’s upset is being kept alive by Smith’s associate, Doakes, who has disagreements with and/or misunderstoods on Scientology.)

If the handling program is drawn up standardly and yet the person is sour on it or “doesn’t want to do the handling” or never seems to quite get around to doing the program, then the Ethics Officer would suspect that either:

a. A wrong item had been found, which would require an L4BRB done by an auditor in session to handle.

b. The program had been misimplemented (the pc didn’t really understand what he was to do, was miscoached 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.

If (a) and (b) above have been thoroughly checked into by the Ethics Officer to ensure that any nonstandard 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 Sept. 83, PTSness 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).

A noteworthy change is that disconnection is now officially placed prior to doing a PTS Rundown. Another notable change is that “disconnection” is now considered “enough to handle the PTSness.” However, disconnection was never before considered a “handling” for a PTS situation. Instead, a Standard handling for a PTS condition should ultimately result in the end phenomena of:

Where this terminal was antagonistic, invalidative, hostile or downright suppressive, he will suddenly have a change of heart and seek to make peace with the PTS pc. [HCOB 29 Dec. 78R – THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN, A MAGICAL NEW RUNDOWN]

This makes sense if you consider that the stable datum for a PTS condition has always been handle or disconnect, not handle and disconnect, nor just disconnect with no handling at all. Because, a Standard PTS handling would render Disconnection as a Condition unnecessary.

Furthermore, disconnection was not originally meant to be a permanent condition. It may be appropriate as temporary relief, so that an actual handling could be done. (Or, in the case where the SP is no longer around.) Then, after handling the situation in his own universe, the PTS person would be able return. That is because the once-PTS person would be “at cause” and would then have the ability to handle any situation that arises using communication alone. The difference is that the PTS person didn’t just run away from the problem and consider it handled.

This viewpoint aligns with what LRH said in 1968, i.e. “we can now handle all types of cases.” In other words, any PTS person can be handled to the point where he is no longer the effect of a Suppressive Person. Furthermore, even the SP himself could be processed and would no longer act suppressive or have suppressive tendencies. Therefore, Disconnection as a Condition would not be needed as long as the correct technology was actually applied.

However, the message of HCOB 10 Sep 83 – PTS-ness and Disconnection would seem to be contradictory to this. It could be interpreted as “a person is always considered PTS or will go PTS as long as there is any connection to an SP.” Therefore, a PTS person should always utilize Disconnection as a Condition when encountering a Suppressive Person. This viewpoint could then be supported by HCO PL 20 OCT 81R – PTS Type A Handling which inserts disconnection as a pre-requisite to doing any further PTS handlings, and even refers to it as a “handling” for PTSness in itself.

The trouble with this is that it could lead to a misconception that Disconnection as a Condition is a substitute for further PTS handlings such as the PTS Rundown and the Suppressed Person Rundown. This misunderstood could then result in the full end product of a PTS handling never being achieved. And in the case where the family member were an actual SP, there would be no handling done at all except disconnection.

Conclusion

There definitely seems to have been some changes in opinion regarding the necessity for the practice of Disconnection as a Condition over the years.

In 1964, Disconnection as a Condition was common practice for handling the various “sources of trouble”. Then, in 1965 the first of numerous technical handlings were developed to “resoundingly” handle any PTS case with “one-for-one success.” This led to LRH announcing in 1968 that this practice should be cancelled because “we can now handle all types of cases.”

This practice remained cancelled for a considerable period of time until 10 September 1983, when HCOB 10 Sep 83 – PTS-ness and Disconnection and the revision of HCO PL 20 OCT 81R – PTS Type A Handling were released. And even though HCO PL 15 NOV 68 – CANCELLATION OF DISCONNECTION was not actually cancelled or replaced by either of these references at the time, the practice of Disconnection as a Condition was effectively reinstated.

It isn’t until 28 October 2000 when HCO PL 20 OCT 81R is re-issued as HCO PL 5 APR 72RD to purportedly “restore the original date of the issue that was accidentally omitted by Mimeo” that the following notation suddenly appears:

(Cancels HCO PL 15 Nov. 68, CANCELLATION OF DISCONNECTION.)

Yet, the logical question that still has to be answered at this point is: Why did Disconnection as a Condition get reinstated if we had the technology to fully handle both PTSes and SPs?

Here’s what LRH had to say about the subject in HCOB 24 Jan 77 – Tech Correction Round-Up:

Whether because of misunderstood words (the commonest cause of out tech alterations) or other reasons, there have been a staggering number of tech sectors that have been corrupted by issues by others that alter-ised.

…

A very few people (3 or 4) have wittingly or unwittingly brought about outnesses which could easily make the difference between successful case handling and failed cases.

And the first “outness” presented was:

The first shock (which actually began this current search for out tech issues) was the discovery that PTS conditions were going unhandled across the world and had been for some time.

“PTS” means Potential Trouble Source and means the person is affected adversely by a suppressive in his life. A PTS person can be a lot of trouble to himself and to others. The condition is not too difficult to handle and to find that all the tech of handling it was in disuse explained why there had been a lot of trouble and upset on various lines.

Notable, was that LRH made no mention of anything regarding “disconnection.” The real problem was that the technology for handling the PTS person was never applied in the first place.

As discussed earlier, when handling a PTS person, we are talking about addressing a personal condition. This is a key point to keep in mind. All PTS handlings are done to the preclear not to the SP. In other words, you do not “handle” the SP with PTS technology. This is a common misconception.

All too often, the PTS person is simply told to “handle” by an Ethics Officer, but then the technology to accomplish that end is not applied. Then, the PTS person promptly goes off to handle the SP but of course isn’t going to get anywhere. Why? Because, the PTS person is trying to handle the SP instead of himself!

At this point, it could be considered that the PTS handling “didn’t work.” So, the solution is then Disconnection as a Condition. The problem with this however is that a actual PTS handling was never done! This is obvious, because the reason that the PTS person disconnects is that he is still not able to be cause over the situation.

Below is a relevant comment from L. Ron Hubbard on this matter from HCOB 20 Oct 76 Issue II “PTS Handling”:

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.

What is probably misunderstood by many is the definition of “handle” as it pertains to PTSness. The definition is given in HCOB 31 Dec. 78 II – OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING:

Once the antagonistic terminal has been located, a handling is done to move the PTS person from effect to slight gentle cause over his situation. This handling will include whatever is needed to accomplish the result, and will, of course, vary depending on the person and his circumstances.

Note that it says “whatever is needed to accomplish the result.” It then explains:

As a result of interview and the various actions connected with it as given above and in the referenced issues the interviewer must give the person a program to be done by the person. If the person does not do the program or report his actions on it, or the program results in no real change in the situation the interviewing officer must require the person to have auditing on the subject. (Ruds can be flown and/or a PTS RD must be given by a qualified auditor in the HGC.)

The original reference never mentioned anything about disconnection. It isn’t until the 1983 revision that the following line is added:

In the rare cases where disconnection is validly indicated in order to handle the person’s PTSness, the disconnection is done exactly per HCOB 10 Sept. 83, PTSness AND DISCONNECTION.

But, once again, the question is: Why do we even need Disconnection as a Condition when we have the technology to fully handle both PTSes and SPs?

Chapter 11 of ‘The Scientology Handbook’ (published 1994) offers a potential answer to this:

A person applying PTS technology to his own life or to another who is roller-coastering can encounter a unique circumstance. The PTS person correctly carries out the standard action to handle a person who is antagonistic to him or his activities, yet the antagonistic source continues to remain antipathetic to the PTS person and/or his activities. In this case, it may require the alternate step to handle, which is disconnect.

This seems to be suggest that even if a Standard PTS handling is done, the antagonistic source can continue “to remain antipathetic to the PTS person and/or his activities.” However, that would be a direct contradiction to the actual end phenomena of a Standard PTS handling (as quoted above.)

So, let’s take another look at the reasoning given in HCOB 10 Sep 83 – PTS-ness and Disconnection: (quoted again)

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.

The discrepancy here is that just because Disconnection as a Condition “had been abused” and did not previously work does not then make it a valid solution. One would have to prove that Disconnection as a Condition actually does work as a handling for the PTS person. In other words, it would have to “nullify the influence of Suppressive persons or things on a case so the person will be able to be processed and will no longer be PTS.” [HCOB 13 JAN 68 – S&D]

Of course, disconnection can be a valid tool in the handling of a PTS person (especially in the case where the SP located is no longer around.) However, it should be a temporary condition, because disconnection alone would not achieve the end result of a full PTS handling. One would still have to apply the actual technology. Plus, misapplying Disconnection as a Condition could result in even more trouble as admitted in the above quote.

The real reason for reinstituting Disconnection as a Condition is more likely expressed in the second reason given above. The problem being solved here is the presence of Suppressive Persons on our comm lines. However, what we are talking about in this case is not specifically the problem of PTSness. In other words, we are not actually referring to a personal problem. We are instead solving a Third-Dynamic situation.

Therefore, the real reason for reinstating the practice of Disconnection as a Condition was most likely for the sake of Justice in order to protect the group as a whole. This would make the most sense, and would not necessarily be contradictory, because Justice is not the same as the technology of auditing. It is simply a method of disempowering the enemies of the Church, and creating an environment where the technology can be applied.

Of course, great care would have to be taken to ensure that the use of Disconnection as a Condition does not create even more antagonism. As long as it were only applied to those that were truly antipathetic to the technology of Scientology, and were unwilling to change their minds, there should be no repercussions. Frivolous use however would be entirely counter-productive for both the individual and the Church, and defeat the whole purpose.

Disconnection as a Condition is not however an actual handling for PTSness in itself. The application of full PTS tech would still need to be applied up until the point where the person is no longer PTS, i.e. no longer roller-coastering and able to achieve stable results from auditing.

It should also be kept in mind that the door must never be closed on anyone, including the Suppressive. Doing so is only creating enemies where there could potentially have been friends made instead. Plus, the technology exists to handle all cases, even that of the SP, and it would be irresponsible to just shut one’s doors instead of offering it.

The conclusion here is that Standard Tech just needs to be applied. When it is, everybody wins! And as long as KSW #1 is kept in, the results are guaranteed.