Disconnection is Against Their Policy

The Church of Scientology is violating their own policies on PTSness and disconnection.

HCOPL Cancellation of Disconnection Policy 15 November 1968

“Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled”

Disconnection has been Cancelled!

This was not included in the altered new Miscavige versions of the Green Volumes!




Other policys being violated …


~~~~~~   ~~~~~~

“HCOPL PTS Type A Handling of 20 October 1981″

In that policy Hubbard NEVER, EVER, mentions the word disconnection. The handling according to that policy is:

 “Get in comm with the family member until the situation is resolved” 

~~~~~~   ~~~~~~




HCOB  of 8 March 1983, Handling PTS Situations

 It says perfectly clear…

“You coach him into two way communication that is well above 2.0 on the Tone Scale,

that mostly consists of acks and mild interest in what is going on… in other words, you handle this in real life..”

~~~~~~   ~~~~~~




HCOB 10 September 1983, PTSness and Disconnection

 In the section “Lost Tech” Ron says;  “Earlier disconnection as a condition was cancelled.

It had been abused by a few individuals who 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.”

This was originally posted by a friend of mine, Aida Thomas Class VIII Auditor

CLICK HERE to go to read her blog.  See what a Class VIII Auditor has to say!



Additionally – Jeremy, let’s assume the argument is that the “SP declare” that was issued on your family was an “ETHICS” action and not a technical action.  Do you have any idea how many ethics steps their own policy says should be done before “expulsion with a “declare”?   Something close to 34 steps! (Ethics Review) Guess how many steps were taken before the final step for us?  ZERO!  Oh, at this point, there is a reference that is pulled out of context that states something on the order of “if one leaves Scientology he is no longer protected by the policies of Scientology” – that is double speak!  Read it for yourself.  It’s used to serve someone’s evil purposes to be right in the inhumane treatment of someone who no longer agrees with what is going on inside that corporate entity.




~~~~~~   ~~~~~~

4 responses to this post.

  1. Dear friend:

    Your son has been given a wrong indication and a wrong item, be aware of that. And I am sure that he is not happy with what is happening either but he thinks he is doing the right thing based on their lies.

    I admire you for not givint up and I want you to know that my postulates are with you.

    Infinite ARC,

    Aida Thomas
    Class VIII


  2. Meshell, first let me say how sorry I am that your son has chosen Scientology over his family.

    But you need to read the rest of the “Lost Tech” section in HCOB 8 March 1983:

    “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.”

    This is from an unmodified, pre-DM printing of the policies. You will also find it in the 2007 printing of the Ethics book. Hubbard re-established disconnection as the proper way to handle an SP.

    Hubbard advises to handle, rather than disconnect from, family members. But if those family members are SPs, or cannot be handled, Hubbard is very clear: Disconnect.

    The policy of disconnection is immoral and unethical. It is 100% wrong. But it’s not something the Church is “forcing” on your son, Meshell… it’s what Hubbard said to do.

    As long as your son is a Scientologist, as long as he follows the policies of L. Ron Hubbard to the letter, he will be lost to you.

    Find the REAL “why,” Meshell. It isn’t David Miscavige and it isn’t the Church. Both are evil, but they aren’t the source of the evil that has taken your son from you. Find the real why!



    • Dear Caliwog,
      Thank you for commenting to me.

      I fully agree that disconnection is a very valuable tool when handling PTSness. Absolutley vital, if I say so myself and NOT because Hubbard “discovered” it, but because it’s just common sense. If you are being suppressed by someone and you are unable to become “slight gentle cause” over it and not be the effect of them, then you probably should disconnect. But that constitutes handling of PTSness, not off policy declaring of good people as SP’s just because they walk away from the “church”. The last resort in PTS handling is disconnection, and this is usually because you are so much the effect of the suppression that you can’t make “gains” in Scientology. A true SP would be one who had the characteristics of the anti-social personality. This person probably doesn’t want to see you or anyone else get better and etc etc.

      Disconnection would NOT be how to handle someone in your family who is NOT suppressing you, someone whom you are NOT PTS to. And you don’t “handle” someone as PTS if they are not. Course, according to many HCOB’s and policies I would say EVERYONE falls into the category of PTS…..I haven’t seen a single one, even so called OT’s who were not sick etc. And, yes, there are many other reasons one gets sick blah blah blah.

      I hope I’m making sense here. Point is, DISCONNECTION as a condition was cancelled. It is not the way to handle all situations.

      Now, here is the actual “why” – after you go beyond the creation of it. Jeremy’s family is not a group of SPs. Jeremy has NEVER been PTS to us and we have never tried to stop him from getting better etc. In fact, when he knew we were leaving and why we were leaving I made it very clear to him that I would never try to get him to leave it. I told him if he wanted Scientology he certainly could be involved and we even gave him money to do services. I believe he needs to come to his own truths. I told him we just wouldn’t discuss our opinions regarding it. He shouldn’t discuss it and we wouldn’t. He agreed that would be good. However, we were declared SPs BECAUSE we resigned. It was a ridiculous application of ethics tech!! I could list the outpoints involved there, but I don’t feel like it. So the bottom line is that we are not really SPs, we are just people whom the local org is pissed off at. Oh, and since they decided to rip my son from our lives with the ridiculous SP declare on us – I have been speaking out VERY publicly and doing any interview when asked. Screw them royally, I don’t agree to the policies nor do I respect any staff member in any position in the organization at all. Robots who don’t even think with why policies were written at the time or how they should be applied.

      The current leadership and staffs across the globe are creating enemies of Scientology faster than they can create good PR. This is the real why organizations have never expanded for real in the last 30 years! THEY ARE CREATING far too many enemies with stupidity and dramatization of their own “make wrong” case in their declaring people as SPs just to shut them up for being critical of WRONGNESSES. God, I could go on and on, as I know ethics policies COLD.

      When we left the church, it was completely impossible to know who might honestly be a “real” SP in this group of “ex’s”, because so many were labeled by stupid staff who were misapplying the policies for various reasons. Makes me furious that they are just lemmings with no backbone to stand up and stop misapplying it.

      Now…..furthermore, LOL, I have absolutely no doubt that the policies are a bit nuts. But let me state that a policy written for an exact situation that happened in 1954, or 1962 or 1971 etc. etc. may have been a valid policy for that situation – but move ahead 40 years and it’s freakin’ ridiculous to be still applying it to a new and different day and era. It’s like being stuck on the time track.

      Ok ok….with that all said, I am not an ex-Scn, nor am I an independent – I have learned a lot from the subject and I have moved on….all the wiser. I’m not protecting LRH, just refer to our blog at littledoubt.wordpress.com and see what we uncovered. I’m sad to say that I think I was tricked for many years with believing it was black or it was white and there was nothing else. I’d rather not belittle the subject here, on this blog, as I use this as a communication line to Jeremy and I don’t want him suppressed by it. But that is all that holds me back.


  3. I have so much to say, Meshell, but the point about creating entheta that will alienate Jeremy is a good one. I don’t want to contribute to that. Perhaps we can continue this conversation elsewhere. You have my email address, feel free to use it! I would like to write about this situation on my own blog so perhaps we can chat more.

    I sincerely hope Jeremy “comes to his senses” and sees that any group that would separate a person from his loving parents is not a health group to which to belong!!

    ML (and I do mean that),


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: