Disconnection policy
Keith Henson
Wolfgang Redtenbacher (10067...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
[snip]
: Since about 1978, Hubbard was away from the "front line" and thus would not
: have seen much of what was published in his name. He was last seen publicly in
: spring 1982. (The "official" date for his death [Jan 1986] is pure speculation,
: as his death certificate was issued without verifying finger prints etc., and
Minor correction here. Hubbard was one of the first celebs *not* to be
autopsied due to a law passed a few years before which said if you have
religious objections to autopsy, and a doctor certifies what you died of,
you cannot be autopsied. The local coroner was quite disapointed, but he
did insist on getting fingerprints before he released the body for
cremation. It this is an important matter, I think I can find the original
newspaper stories. I was not concerned with scientology or Hubbard at
the time, but the law impacted one of my other hobbies.
: his body was burned before anyone who could identify Hubbard was informed of
: his death. Moreover, even if it was Hubbard who died in 1986, there was no
: contact to/from him since 1982 that did not go through Miscavige and the
: Broekers - thus being open to any manipulation these 3 people wanted.)
It makes somewhere between little and no difference to me who was/is running
the criminal enterprise, except who we try to depose. But your analysis
seems to be otherwise accurate.
Keith Henson
Wolfgang Redtenbacher
In article <5316n9$m...@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu>, sp...@cs.cmu.edu (John Mark
Ockerbloom) wrote:
>In article <324E1B...@atnet.at>, clear baby <con...@atnet.at> wrote:
>>[...]
>Weren't you just saying in article <324622...@atnet.at> (quoting
>a former Sea Org'er):
>
>"There is no practice of "disconnection" allowed in the Church of
> Scientology."
>
>"Furthermore, I have a first-hand witness who has seen the cancellation
>of the disconnection policy in LRH's own handwriting."
While I can't answer for CB as regards her personal interpretation of "handle
or disconnect", I do have the background to set straight the historical record,
as from 1977-81 I had access to the LRH archives (at the Scientology
Publications Organization in Denmark) which were used to produce the "red" and
"green" volumes:
Disconnection was introduced by Hubbard in 1965, resulted in a lot of abuse
(especially in Australia and New Zealand) and was cancelled as a "failed
experiment" by Hubbard about 2 years later. Neither the introduction nor the
cancellation were included in the "green" OEC volumes, as Ken Delderfield (who
was in charge of the "red" and "green" books project) considered it "a
childhood illness long overcome since". Neither he nor anyone else at that time
would have conceived that decades later, David Miscavige would declare this
failed experiment as "valuable standard tech that had been put out of use by
SPs"!
>But I already pointed out where Hubbard talks about it positively in 1983,
>which is later than the 1979 quote you gave where Hubbard is supposed
>to have denied it.
Since about 1978, Hubbard was away from the "front line" and thus would not
have seen much of what was published in his name. He was last seen publicly in
spring 1982. (The "official" date for his death [Jan 1986] is pure speculation,
as his death certificate was issued without verifying finger prints etc., and
his body was burned before anyone who could identify Hubbard was informed of
his death. Moreover, even if it was Hubbard who died in 1986, there was no
contact to/from him since 1982 that did not go through Miscavige and the
Broekers - thus being open to any manipulation these 3 people wanted.)
Because of this background, I would be _very_ careful regarding the
authenticity of all HCOBs/HCOPLs issued after 1978 (including the NOTs series),
and certainly would not trust _any_ publication after 1982 if it cancelled or
seriously modified previous issues known to have been written by Hubbard
himself.
According to my research (I wrote the section on "Scientology" in the [German]
book "Jugendsekten und neue Religiositaet", published by Farin & Zwingmann
Verlag about a decade ago), the original guidance "handle or disconnect" came
about as follows:
1. Hubbard observed that people who were in close contact with others who
consistently invalidated them or their "counselling", did not improve in
auditing (or "lost" their improvements again).
2. Hubbard attempted the "disconnect" experiment. It failed miserably.
3. Hubbard found that in most cases, the PC himself had caused (at least part
of) the antagonism he/she was then suffering from. Finding this part and
correcting it usually solved the problem. (Either the antagonism disappeared
or the PC "magically" was no longer affected by it.)
4. In the cases where this approach didn't work, the "current antagonistic
person" apparently was not the real source of the PC's sufferings, but just a
"restimulator" (= reminding the PC of an earlier incident). Finding this
previous person/incident seemed to solve those problems.
In any case, the combination of (a) education (= making the PC understand the
mechanism), (b) finding the PCs own "contribution" to the situation and
correcting it and (c) checking for any "restimulated" incidents and removing
the emotional "charge" contained therein, was intended to handle the situation
fully.
Hubbard's bulletins for "case supervisors" make it clear that "disconnection"
is just a temporary measure to get the PC out of restimulation _while being
audited_ (i.e. for a period of a few days or weeks) and is not to be considered
a handling in itself. The PC always has to reconnect and fix the situation as
the last step of any "PTS" handling.
Obviously, the current CofS management is using "disconnection" in a rather
different way. Since Miscavige re-introduced "disconnection" as a "standard
tech" in the early '80s, it has become a _substitute_ for handling and a method
of _punishment_. This I consider quite a radical change from Hubbard's
intentions ...
Wolfgang Redtenbacher
10067...@compuserve.com
Emerald
Wolfgang Redtenbacher <10067...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> Disconnection was introduced by Hubbard in 1965, resulted in a lot of
> abuse (especially in Australia and New Zealand) and was cancelled as a
> "failed experiment" by Hubbard about 2 years later. [...] decades
> later, David Miscavige would declare this failed experiment as
> "valuable standard tech that had been put out of use by SPs"!
As I recall, disconnection was introduced in the mid-1960s and caused
a lot of bad PR for the cult, which led to some furious backpedalling
by Hubbard. He made a big show of cancelling disconnection to placate
the British press, but disconnection continued, as the attached
"confidential" HCO PL shows. The only difference I can see is that
the cult was a little more careful about having people write
disconnection letters.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1973
[...]
C O N F I D E N T I A L
HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS
[...]
"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.
[...]
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
application of the word. A person can simply decide to disconnect
and be disconnected from that moment on.
[...]
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.
[...]
The entire HCO PL can be found in SCAMIZDAT #11.
--
Emerald <eme...@nym.alias.net>
Wolfgang Redtenbacher
In article <5316n9$m...@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu>, sp...@cs.cmu.edu (John Mark
Ockerbloom) wrote:
>In article <324E1B...@atnet.at>, clear baby <con...@atnet.at> wrote:
>>[...]
>Weren't you just saying in article <324622...@atnet.at> (quoting
>a former Sea Org'er):
>
>"There is no practice of "disconnection" allowed in the Church of
> Scientology."
>
>"Furthermore, I have a first-hand witness who has seen the cancellation
>of the disconnection policy in LRH's own handwriting."
While I can't answer for clear baby as to her personal interpretation of
"handle or disconnect", I do have the background to set straight the historical
record, as from 1977-81 I had access to the LRH archives (at the Scientology
Publications Organization in Denmark) which were used to produce the "red" and
"green" volumes:
Disconnection was introduced by Hubbard in 1965, resulted in a lot of abuse
(especially in Australia and New Zealand) and was cancelled as a "failed
experiment" by Hubbard about 2 years later. Neither the introduction nor the
cancellation were included in the "green" OEC volumes, as Ken Delderfield (who
was in charge of the "red" and "green" books project) considered it "a
childhood illness long overcome since". Neither he nor anyone else at that time
would have conceived that decades later, David Miscavige would declare this
failed experiment as "valuable standard tech that had been put out of use by
SPs"!
>But I already pointed out where Hubbard talks about it positively in 1983,
Wolfgang Redtenbacher
In article <1996100706...@anon.lcs.mit.edu>, Emerald
<eme...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> He made a big show of cancelling disconnection to placate
> the British press, but disconnection continued, as the attached
> "confidential" HCO PL shows.
> [...]
>
> HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
> Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
>
> HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1973
>
> [...]
>
> C O N F I D E N T I A L
> HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS
> [...]
The text of this HCOPL clearly contradicts Hubbard's statements which I have
seen in his own handwriting (where he called it "failed experiment" and
"unworkable").
Is there any proof as to the authorship of this HCOPL 15 Sep 73?
Just for your info: When I studied the LRH master library, I found that a lot
of "HCOPLs", "HCOBs" etc. that had been previously mimeoed with the signature
"L. Ron Hubbard, Founder", had in actual fact been written by other people
(e.g. Flag executives or tech personnel). This is one of the reasons why only
verified material was included in the "red" and "green" volumes. (Note: I only
checked the original edition done by Ken Delderfield - I don't guarantee
anything for the later "purified" (???) volumes done by RTC/Miscavige.)
Wolfgang Redtenbacher
10067...@compuserve.com
PS: Sorry for having posted my original article 2x. The first copy didn't make
it to my news filter (reference.com) within 2 days, so I assumed it had been
"lost in cyberspace" and re-posted it.
Emerald
Wolfgang Redtenbacher <10067...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> In article <1996100706...@anon.lcs.mit.edu>, Emerald
> <eme...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>> He made a big show of cancelling disconnection to placate
>> the British press, but disconnection continued, as the attached
>> "confidential" HCO PL shows.
>> [...]
>>
>> HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
>> Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
>>
>> HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1973
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> C O N F I D E N T I A L
>> HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS
>> [...]
> The text of this HCOPL clearly contradicts Hubbard's statements which I
> have seen in his own handwriting (where he called it "failed experiment"
> and "unworkable").
> Is there any proof as to the authorship of this HCOPL 15 Sep 73?
The author is listed as:
Ens. Judy Ziff, CS-5
for
Capt. Mary Sue Hubbard, CS-G
Authorized by AVU
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
BDCS:HE:MSH:JZ:cc of the
Copyright (c) 1973 CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
A short quotation from Roy Wallis' 1976 book, The Road to Total Freedom:
"In the face of fierce criticism from the press and various national
parliaments, the Church of Scientology, in November 1968,
promulgated a Code of Reform, including:
"1. Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from
familial suppression.
"2. Cancellation of security checking as a form of confession.
"3. Prohibition of any confessional materials being written down.
"4. Cancellation of declaring people Fair Game."
Disconnection, sec checking, and writing down of confessional materials
have continued within Co$ to this day. And while Co$ may no longer
*declare* people Fair Game, they continue to apply the Fair Game law to
critics and "enemies".
--
Emerald <eme...@nym.alias.net>
Richmann
Wolfgang Redtenbacher wrote:
>
> In article <1996100706...@anon.lcs.mit.edu>, Emerald
> <eme...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>
> > He made a big show of cancelling disconnection to placate
> > the British press, but disconnection continued, as the attached
> > "confidential" HCO PL shows.
> > HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
> > Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
> >
> > HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1973
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > C O N F I D E N T I A L
> > HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS
> Is there any proof as to the authorship of this HCOPL 15 Sep 73?
>
> Just for your info: When I studied the LRH master library, I found that a lot
> of "HCOPLs", "HCOBs" etc. that had been previously mimeoed with the signature
> "L. Ron Hubbard, Founder", had in actual fact been written by other people
> (e.g. Flag executives or tech personnel). This is one of the reasons why only
> verified material was included in the "red" and "green" volumes. (Note: I only
> checked the original edition done by Ken Delderfield - I don't guarantee
> anything for the later "purified" (???) volumes done by RTC/Miscavige.)
This "confidential PL is NOT in the newly compiled work of certified
*pure* references of L.Ron Hubbard, copyrighted in 1991.
My issue is the *new* green books,ISBN 87-7336-761-3,ed. published in
the USA by Bridge Publications, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Richmann Rich...@sympatico.ca
“Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker”
“That which does not kill me, makes me stronger” Nietzsche
**********************************************************************