Possibly Helpful Advice

Finding your way after leaving the cult of Scientology

Perverted PTS/SP Tech Aids and Protects Miscavige

If you ever wondered how CofS ethics handlings got so haywire that a PTS person cannot name a senior Scientologist or big IAS donor as the Suppressive on his case, wonder no more. Plain Old Thetan has done the research that will answer your questions once and for all:

Perverted PTS/SP Tech Aids and Protects Miscavige

One of the hidden – and false — data lines that’s cropped up with in the Church of Miscavology is that “A Scientologist Can’t Be An SP”.

This has horrendous collateral effects within the Church and its parishioners.

Here’s how I figure it came about.

LRH says in HCOB 20 October 76 PTS HANDLING basically that people with evil purposes and destructive intentions claimed they were PTS to explain their aberrated behavior. The discovery that led to a handling was that these people didn’t understand what PTS was or meant.
Hence, DM’s blanket TIP that everyone had to do the PTS/SP course. (Of course, it doesn’t explain why everyone had to redo, and redo, and redo the PTS/SP course.)

The issue says that studying the actual PTS material had a tendency to blow charge on past bad PTS handlings. (I have observed this to be true. I did the PTS/SP drills with an OT VII who’d been mishandled on PTS lines at Flag and she ended up in tears when she was able to ask me questions that I was then able to show her the references for. She moved from “PTS/SP tech doesn’t work” to “the Church’s mangled, perverted PTS/SP tech doesn’t work” in two and a half hours.)

That same issue brings up the notion of False PTSness, but it points out that “unhattedness, ignorance of Scientology basics for handling life, past bad auditing uncorrected, as well as unhandled bad intentions and personal out-ethics can be mistaken for PTSness and won’t resolve as PTSness.”

The original reference on False PTSness is actually HCOB 15 December 1973 THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H AND CONTINUOUS OVERT WITH DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS AND FALSE PTS CONDITIONS. This issue says that a person who doesn’t respond to PTS handling should be dealt with as a person with continuous missed withholds and/or continuous overts.

Another LRH reference that applies is HCOB 24 April 1972 I PTS INTERVIEWS (C/S SERIES 79 / EXPANDED DIANETICS SERIES 5. It says “A somewhat suppressive pc will find the good hats suppressive. […] He is PTS to SP people, groups, things, or locations no matter how SP he is. […] DO NOT BUY ALL THE GOOD PEOPLE he is PTS to.”

The important, but always overlooked piece of that issue is that the PTS person, EVEN IF HE IS SOMEWHAT SUPPRESSIVE, is STILL PTS to SP people, groups, things, or locations.

Isn’t that interesting? Even a somewhat suppressive pc remains PTS to SPs. Real SPs.
And of course HCOB 24 November 1965 SEARCH AND DISCOVERY says: “lf, however, there is no success in finding the SP on the case or if the person starts naming org personnel or other unlikely persons as SP, the Ethics Officer must realize that he is handling a Type Il PTS and, because the auditing will consume time, sends the person to Tech or Qual for a Search and Discovery.”

Finally, in HCOB 21 May 1985 TWO TYPES OF PTSes it is stated that “On Pretended PTSness […] your very reliable clue is that the person says he is PTS to a well-intentioned person, such as a staff member or Scientology VIP. This is almost totally conclusive evidence that you are dealing with a person with an evil purpose. Thus, he would be programed for auditing geared to locating and handling evil purposes. He won’t get any relief on being found “PTS” to a well intentioned person.” (I am suspicious of this issue as its date is well within the dates that DM was influencing and issuing things under LRH’s name.)

Note that it does not say to refuse the item. Note that it does not say to stop the PTS handling and route him to Sec Checking/FPRD immediately.

Now, we know that the reactive mind operates on the mechanism A=A=A=A.

Due to that mechanism, this whole PTS/SP haywire mess has become altered, perverted and warped into the following:

“If the PTS person names a Scientologist, especially a senior Scientologist or big IAS donor, don’t accept that answer, and send the PTS person for sec-checking, because he has evil purposes.”

Even though the LRH tech says nothing of the sort.

(This has become so pervasive that I myself wasn’t allowed to name executives of a Scientology company individually on a PTS terminal list because…“He can’t be an SP because he’s OT VIII and gives lots of money to the Church.” Turns out that company has collapsed into dust since I quit. Hmmmmm.)

And the situation has become so insidious that a person I know went to Flag, got an S&D, named David Miscavige as the item, which blew down and F/Ned, and THE AUDITOR AND C/S REFUSED TO GIVE THE PC HIS ITEM BECAUSE IT WAS PRESUMED TO BE A “GOOD HAT”. The pc was promptly Sec Checked and list-repaired into apathy.

The pc had been out-list for over 10 years because of it.

I recently had this person on my C/Sing lines as a pc, and I ordered a list correction, because he was manifesting the horrendous bypassed charge and self-listing an out-list can generate.

He BD’d, F/Ned, and recovered from 10 years of hopelessness instantly when he was allowed to put the refused item back onto the list.

Notice how clever this is.





The complication that’s avoided if you don’t accept these people onto a PTS terminal items is this: if you accept the item, you then have to ask “DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE OR DISCONNECT?”

No Church Ethics Officer who wants to keep his head is going to suggest that you “handle” David Miscavige.
No Church Ethics Officer who wants to keep his head is going to suggest that you “disconnect” from the glorious wonderful Church that is draining your bank account in order to make a shiny but empty org.

So the INVENTED and OUT-TECH solution is to say “you can’t put him on your PTS terminal list.

Another Flag pc I know got an S&D, and named an OT VIII completion as the item on that list, which blew down and F/Ned, and THE AUDITOR AND C/S REFUSED TO GIVE THE PC HIS ITEM BECAUSE IT WAS PRESUMED TO BE A “GOOD HAT”. (This is the worst kind of evaluation and invalidation: an IN-SESSION refusal of an item.) The pc was promptly repaired into apathy. (“Sad effect” and “a down tone and slow case gain” are the consequences of this nonsense, which could have been predicted per Laws of Listing and Nulling number 13 and 20.)
This happened even though the OT VIII in question couldn’t hold a post as a Div 6 Registrar, Dissem Sec, HCO Sec, Bookseller, or Course Supervisor. It happened even though the OT VIII in question physically attacked an IAS Reg in the parking lot of the org. This happened even though the OT VIII in question refused to be hatted on OCA evaluation technology. This happened even though the OT VIII blew staff and refused to do a leaving staff confessional.

No, he was an OT VIII, a Scientologist, and gave us lotsa money. So he couldn’t be a PTS terminal for someone.

Whaddaya know? A does equal A does equal A does equal . . .

In case you didn’t add it up, “OT VIII” = “Big donor” = “not-an-SP”.

Accepting the OT VIII as the PTS terminal for someone would mean at least one thing. Flag and the Freewinds let someone with obviously unhandled 3rd dynamic aberrations, service facsimiles and evil purposes onto and through OT VIII. They even took his time on staff — disrupting the org — as the evidence that was needed to allow him onto OT VIII.

It would mean Flag and the Freewinds totally f’d up. All because a pc was able to use the smokescreen of “donating lotsa money to the Church”.

It doesn’t matter if you have an OT auditing on interminable OT VII because YOU MADE THEM OUT-LIST, DOOMING THEM FOREVER TO AN UNRESOLVABLE PTS SITUATION.

(This approach totally ignores the possibility that the person you name as an SP strung you up by your thumbs and flailed the skin off your body…ten thousand years ago…and may be in Scientology today and have given a million dollars in donations to the Church. So he’s not an SP …to your Ethics Officer… even if he’s an SP to you!)

Now, let’s take a look at the OTHER PTS terminal.

HCO PL 16 October 1967 SUPPRESSIVES AND THE ADMINISTRATOR; HOW TO DETECT SPs AS AN ADMINISTRATOR gives a 6-item checklist for detecting a suppressive person:

  1. No ethics change
  2. No case chance
  3. No admin change
  1. Thick ethics files
  2. Thick (or no) case files
  3. Thick, full (or no) comm baskets.

The only auditor’s certificate I’ve heard anyone claim for David Miscavige is Provisional Class IV, from over thirty years ago. I don’t know of any processing level he’s genuinely demonstratively achieved.
I certainly haven’t heard how he attained ANY GAT training certificate. Is he an FEBC? I haven’t heard that, either.

He’s got a fat ethics folder. I’ve sent in dozens of KRs myself. Other parishioners have as well. This site and others, as well as published books, contain reports about DM’s savagery.
And DM didn’t commit any overts (just ask Jenny Linson). If anyone committed overts, it was those awful Sea Org members at the Int Base who struck people. So DM must be PTS to them. And since they’re so obviously “bad hats”, that automatically absolves DM of any FPRD or Sec Checking.

He certainly can’t be Sec Checked or FPRD-audited by anyone anymore. He obviously didn’t get any case gain from any Sec Checking or FPRD he received as he still physically attacks people and demands women get abortions. He’s alienated or emasculated or demoted or imprisoned anyone who could audit him from altitude.

What we do have is reports that the last auditor who Sec Checked DM — while LRH was still alive — who turned in those auditing reports and an ally of DM’s had those auditing reports removed from the report line to LRH, contrary to LRH’s orders.

And what also exists however are dozens of witnesses with tales of DM’s vicious physical assaults on subordinates; the assignment of probably well-intentioned people into an inescapable hole; the dismissal and invalidation of peoples’ case level improperly; the elevation of peoples’ case level improperly; violating the Auditor’s Code by using records of their Confessional sessions for entertainment purposes; false targeting well-intentioned people and assigning them hideous inhuman punishments and hordes of other crimes large and small, mostly imagined.

So DM has thick (or no) case files.

He enforced altered tech on auditors who are now no longer auditing, calling it a “Golden Age of Tech”, and declared or removed the certificates of auditors who refused to participate in that same mishmash.

Somehow, though, he can’t be allowed to be even on a parishioner’s PTS terminal list.

No wonder the parishioners of the Church of Scientology are PTS.

They’re denied the right item daily.

— written by Plain Old Thetan

P.S. If “A Scientologist can’t be an SP”, how come so many Scientologists are now declared SPs?

P.P.S. Is the difference between a “declared SP” Scientologist and a Scientologist in “good standing” a one-million dollar donation to the IAS?

P.P.P.S. Isn’t that the kind of thing that led to the Protestant Reformation?

Number of views:14655

One Comment

Yo. ur humble servant  on August 21st, 2010

Great analysis. I don’t see how anything could be further out tech than refusing a pc her item because it the item wasn’t “politically correct.”

I suppose the reason people can get to be “OT VIII” with no real case gain or limited case gain is that a lot of it depends upon their own personal attests, and that in turn depends upon their own personal integrity–while at the same time some “auditors” and “examiners cannot really observe pc indicators or spot a real F/N. Thus people who are kidding everybody, including themselves, may make it through to “attest to OT VIII” when they are actually in Nowheresville. Especially if they have donated a lot of money!

They sure will have picked up some by-passed charge though.

Leave a Comment