Regarding Disconnection

Part 6 – Regarding Disconnection

Disconnection is one of the most controversial practices that is practiced in the church.  Just like so many things that I have mentioned earlier in this long article, disconnection is possibly the most altered and abused practice that I have witnessed in the church.

In my opinion, enforced disconnection is used in the church these days as a means of covering up for the abuses, crimes and squirreling that rampantly occurs in the church.

When someone speaks out about something major that they see wrong, they are threatened and if they can’t be persuaded to compromise their reality about what they see, they are declared! Then when someone is declared, the people still in the church are indoctrinated, or have already been indoctrinated, into the idea that they must disconnect from the person who has been declared.

I know that there is a line in the policy on the suppressive acts policy that enforces disconnection of anyone who has been declared.  It says in the list of suppressive acts:

Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a suppressive person or group by HCO.” – HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, OEC Volume 1 page 876

Here’s what I have to say about this rule.  A couple of things actually.  These are my opinions.

This rule is ONLY effective, it is ONLY for the greatest good, IF the people enforcing it have their ethics in.  If the people enforcing it do not have their ethics in, then they can use this rule to cover up their unethical actions.

I have come to the conclusion that COB has no other purpose for using this rule than to cover up his crimes.  The only way he can continue to get financial support by church members is by those members thinking that his ethics are in and that he is helping the world at large.  The more people who don’t think this, the less support he gets.  The more people who think he is forwarding the tech and policy, the more people in the church who will support him.

When someone becomes wise to his unethical actions, there is one less person who will support him AND there is the danger that that person will spread the word about him and that others who had been supporting COB will catch on.

But if he enforces that the other people disconnect from the person who has woken up to his crimes, there is less chance that they will be exposed to what he is actually doing.  People think that their eternity is threatened by their staying connected to the so-called “SP” simply because it is enforced that way – that if they continue to be connected to the “SP” they are told they can’t get their OT levels.  They haven’t come to a point where they see that violating their integrity is a far worse threat to their eternity than to be denied their OT levels in the church.

Any rule that could be a good rule can also become a bad rule.  It is the intention behind the enforcers that matters.

There are many other acts listed as suppressive in that policy which also assume that the enforcers have their ethics in.  These policies as to what constitutes a suppressive act only work for the greater good if the enforcers themselves are not the suppressives.  Someone making a public statement against the church is only committing a suppressive act if the statement he is making is false, not if he’s telling the truth!

I have stated here my viewpoint on the disconnection policy just by what I know to be the case by common sense, not necessarily by anything LRH says about it.  There comes a point where you just have to know things because you know them, not because someone tells it to you.

BUT, I also have been shown evidence that LRH cancelled disconnection as a requirement and that COB engineered reinstating it without LRH’s approval.  A study of this was posted on an internet site by a guy named Jim Logan who used to be an senior Qual terminal in the C of S.  He goes over a sequence of events along with references that came out in that sequence and he shows how the alteration occurred.  You can read it if you want to if you want to get the full concept and history of what LRH and others have written about disconnection and how it has been used and misused.

In his article he quotes a reference that you cannot find in the current OEC Volumes.  It says:

Since we now can handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.” – HCO PL 15 Nov 68 Cancellation of Disconnection

You can investigate this and work out whether or not you really believe that LRH cancelled disconnection or if Jim Logan is really a horrible SP who lies in order to fool people into thinking that COB is a squirrel.

But in my opinion, it shouldn’t matter.  Disconnection as it is practiced in the church today is WRONG.  You don’t need a policy to tell you that.

People in the church are being convinced that they need to disconnect from people who are NOT SPs and who are NOT GUILTY OF SUPPRESSIVE ACTS.

The stories and accounts of how disconnection has unnecessarily broken up families and caused heart-wrenching sadness are horrible to behold.  You can feel the agonizing that a mom is going through when her son refuses to speak to her ever again.  I’ve never been a parent but I can get an idea of how this must be.

It would be one thing if the person being disconnected from really was an SP who was causing misery in a person’s life by his or her covert invalidations and who was beyond the ability to be helped and beyond the ability to reform or constructively communicate.  But these disconnections that I am speaking of (and there are multitudes of these horror stories in the church’s history) are NOT like that.  Family members who truly and intensely love their relatives are being forced to never communicate with them again because their relatives refuse their communication, and the resulting misery is unspeakable.

Now THAT is a suppressive act no matter what the policies say, and no matter which policies are authentic and which ones aren’t!

The church spokespeople defend this disconnection by saying that the person who is disconnecting from the other person is doing it on their own self-determinism, that they have a choice in whether they want to do it or not and nobody is forcing them.

Well, I disagree.

Sure it’s true that the person usually can say “No, I will not disconnect from my mom no matter what threats are cast on me,” in which case he or she will also be declared. Case in point, I did not disconnect from Sindy.

But when a person is falsely led to believe that his eternity depends on disconnecting from the people he loves, that is something I call mind manipulation, not self-determinism.  This so-called “self-determinism” is based on false data which says that your eternity is threatened by communicating with the people who love you and care about you.  In the case of the church it is done to cover up criminal activities and that adds to the evil of it all.  The church leads people to believe that they deliver total freedom and they don’t deliver total freedom.  Then people believe, because their eternity is more important than any relationship with another person, that they have to disconnect from the person because if they don’t, they won’t achieve total freedom.  They disconnect from the people they love and it is totally unnecessary.  And it’s cruel.  Only a person with ulterior motives would order something like this and only people who have been duped into believing that it is the greatest good will enforce it.

Disconnection, as it is practiced in the church today, is more blatant evidence of a very corrupt management.

Next…Out-Tech in the Church – Section 1

5 thoughts on “Regarding Disconnection

  1. Momo says:

    COB enforces disconnection to protect himself not the church. This is so obvious. He has to hide his overts. People reading about his overts should be hindered from telling the good people about it.

  2. Your humble servant says:

    May I just point out that “continued adherence” is not the same thing as “remaining in communication with.” In my opinion, Ron was talking about situations where some rabid enemy of Scientology was found to be attacking Scientology, and someone who had been supporting and helping that person, after learning that that was the case, continued to give support to him or her in spite of the fact that it had become known that he or she was an enemy of Scientology. Of course, in such a case, a Scientologist should quit providing the support that he or she had been providing, so as not to be indirectly contributing to attacks upon Scientology. This is not the same as saying that he or she should not “communicate” to such person or that he or she is required to “disconnect” from such person.

    Also in my opinion, Ron did not do nearly as fine a job in thinking through the ramifications of the ethics codes as he did in working out the tech. They were an effort to solve current problems. They were not perfect. They are easily subject to misinterpretation and misapplication.

    And yes, I agree: DM reinstituted the policy of disconnection as a tool of control, pretending that LRH had reinstituted it. And, even when it had been in use in earlier days, it was never a matter forcing people to disconnect from anyone or making it an “ethics offense” if they failed to do so, as is apparently the case now. It was simply a tool in PTS handlings meant to assist a person in making gains.

  3. The Oracle says:

    Disconnection is not the bad thing in my view. People disconnect from other people all over the planet 24 hours a day. They disconnect by firing someone. They disconnect by “breaking up”. They disconnect when a contract has been fulfilled by both parties. And they disconnect when they don’t want someone in their life for whatever reason. They disconnect by relocating!

    The problem is:

    A. The church lies about it when they don’t have to.


    Because of the overts behind it the Church has. Disconnection is used as a threat and a ser fac. It has been misused. And it has been misused to the point of injustice.

    That is why they do not admit it. That is why people are complaining about. It is the underlying INJUSTICE connected to it. Enforced disconnection bypasses charge. Declaring people suppressive over petty squabbles like not resigning contracts. etc etc. It is the INJUSTICE that flows with these cycles that makes it necessary ti LIE about it.

    And THAT is why it has become an issue.

  4. davefagen says:

    Yes, there is nothing wrong with disconnection done truthfully and ethically.

  5. ashura jr says:

    There is nothing right about it. It’s one of the most unethical practices that Scientology engages in.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s