PTS/SP Technology

PTS/SP Technology

Page last updated: Янв 15, 2019 @ 5:55 пп

Now that Hubbard implemented a subversive form of processing undermining people’s ability to make independent evaluations of others and themselves (see: Overt-Motivator Sequence and Withholds), he then provided his followers with “mental filters” which they could use to evaluate themselves and others in place of direct awareness and evaluations of their own – enter the PTS/SP Technology (Potential Trouble Source / Supressive Person).

Under this subject, Hubbard essentially framed people into two basic categories – Social and Anti-Social (or Suppressive) – and established a supposed relationship between the two that he claimed as some natural law or mechanism. To make his message more clear, he equated Anti-Social Personality with Anti-Scientologist so any person having some negative disposition toward Scientology would be viewed as a “suppressive person” or someone who was under the influence of a “suppressive person” – a potential trouble source (PTS).

Hubbard somehow came up with 12 “distinct” characteristics which people can watch out for in evaluating whether someone was an Anti-Social Personality or a Social Personality.

This is again presented to the public on this official website:

… as well as in this YouTube clip:


The subject of Merchants of Chaos also relates to this – another form of vilification of someone “out there” trying to ruin your day.



It is not very clear how Hubbard came up with the 12 characteristics, but what is clear, once you really look at it, is how the Social and Anti-Social paradigm formulated by Hubbard can be used effectively to suppress dissent and unwanted thoughts and reactions toward Scientology itself while providing a “blue print” for the “right” form of behavior. Let’s take a look and evaluate some of Hubbard’s ideas in this area and how they can influence the formation of someone’s perception.

The main reference for these characteristics is: HCOB 27 Sept. 1966 The Antisocial Personality The Anti-Scientologist.

Before Hubbard even begins to describe the characteristics, he begins the reference with a following sentence:

There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which cause about 20 percent of a race to oppose violently any betterment activity or group.

Since Scientology promotes itself as a betterment activity and a group, the very first sentence in the reference implies that it is about those who oppose Scientology specifically, even though it does not state so directly. The title “THE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST” also gives it away.


In addition to “opposition” Hubbard also links FAILURE as being caused by “antisocial personality hard at work.”

When we trace the cause of a failing business, we will inevitably discover somewhere in its ranks the antisocial personality hard at work.

In families which are breaking up, we commonly find one or the other of the persons involved to have such a personality.

Where life has become rough and is failing, a careful review of the area by a trained observer will detect one or more such personalities at work.

Failing business?! How about not enough demand or other economic factors? There are so many potential factors behind something failing, yet, within the logic in this reference, it all comes down to “antisocial personality” as some hidden cause of all that is wrong in the world.

FAILURE IS A PART OF NATURE (and what is and isn’t a “failure” is subject to perception and considerations). No form of manifested reality can exist forever especially when we speak of realities related to human existence. Existence requires continuous effort (energy) to maintain creation. Don’t feed the body and with the right foods, and it “fails.” Don’t make correct business decision or do nothing, and business seizes to exist. Same with relationships – if partners in a relationship do nothing to continue creating it, it “fails” – no “antisocial personality hard at work” required. Yes, someone working to undermine some form of reality (for whatever reason) can be a factor, but it is only ONE OF MANY potential causes – each situation needs to be properly evaluated to determine what the true causes are behind the apparent failures.

A good way to evaluate the true causes behind failure or success is to use Hubbard’s own description of Cycle of Action:

(September 1956) The Fundamentals of Thought, Chapter 2 “Basic Principles”:

THE ACTUAL CYCLE OF ACTION is as follows: create, create-create-create, create-counter-create, no creation, nothingness.

CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness = CREATE.

CREATE-CREATE-CREATE = create again continuously one moment after the next = SURVIVAL.

CREATE-COUNTER-CREATE = to create something against a creation = to create one thing and then create some thing else against it = DESTROY.

NO CREATION = an absence of any creation = no creative activity.

Someone working to undermine an activity would fall under COUNTER-CREATION, but there can be so many possible reasons including CONFLICTING POSTULATES.

A staff member in Hubbard’s totalitarian organization may be working on a postulate of “saving the planet” or “helping people” and so constructively contributing to the organization, but the same staff member may also struggle with conflicting postulates of wanting more freedom to pursue one’s own goals that don’t align with that of the organization. Such postulates could prompt the person to not be as productive or even start taking actions to undermine one’s position and the reality of working at Hubbard’s organization if postulates for an alternative reality for one’s own life begin to gain in power. This would be completely understandable… In the same wise, a relationship can also “fail” because the involved parties can simply grow in desire to move in different directions.


Hubbard ends off the introduction by setting up a clear US vs THEM paradigm:

As there are 80 percent of us trying to get along and only 20 percent trying to prevent us, our lives would be much easier to live were we well informed as to the exact manifestations of such a personality. Thus, we could detect it and save ourselves much failure and heartbreak.

It is important then to examine and list the attributes of the antisocial personality. Influencing as it does the daily lives of so many, it well behooves decent people to become better informed on this subject.

Who exactly is Hubbard aggregating under his concept of “us?” There are so many different people and groups in the world with different cultures, world views, and attitudes that do not always align with each other and can in themselves result in conflicts. Conflict itself is a part of the natural world where livings forms compete with each other for resources, areas of control, procreation opportunities and so on. To say that anybody that doesn’t fall under “antisocial” category must fit into a narrowly defined “social” band and not take into account multitudes of other factors that determine human behavior is guaranteed to result in false expectations and some real lack of understanding of how people, especially in groups, actually operate.


CHARACTERISTIC 1: Making Generalizations

1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities. “They say…” “Everybody thinks…” “Everyone knows…” and such expressions are in continual use, particularly when imparting rumor. When asked, “Who is everybody…” it normally turns out to be one source and from this source the antisocial person has manufactured what he or she pretends is the whole opinion of the whole society. This is natural to them since to them all society is a large hostile generality, against the antisocial in particular.
1. The social personality is specific in relating circumstances. “Joe Jones said . . .” “The Star Newspaper reported. ” and gives sources of data where important or possible. He may use the generality of “they” or “people” but seldom in connection with attributing statements or opinions of an alarming nature.


Because of this characteristic #1, Scientologists become very sensitive to both making and hearing GENERALIZATIONS. This implied prohibition against generalizations can in itself become a suppressive factor toward reaching and communicating potentially negative CONCLUSIONS about the group at large. Someone who had lived through Scientology abuses or has read or heard about it somewhere can say things like: “They lie to people…” “Stay away from Scientology, they’ll take all your money…” “They’ll lock you up and brainwash you…” which would be immediately filed under suppressive generalizations for someone indoctrinated into Hubbard’s “anti-social” characteristics. That’s why these are presented as early as possible when someone first enters Scientology.

Even Hubbard himself said that “people tend to generalize,” and indeed an ability to generalize is an important ANALYTICAL SKILL.

AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE ABLE TO BOTH GENERALIZE AS WELL AS DIG INTO DETAILS. Being stuck in one or the other is “an aberration” as Hubbard would say. If someone cannot actually look into details, their generalizations may be off and unfounded. If someone always looks at details and never generalizes, they won’t be able to see the big picture or arrive at a general conclusion about something. This is one of the contributing factors that keeps people psychologically entrapped in the grip of Scientology – inability to reach conclusions about the movement at large but instead forced to look at specific incidents in line with “social” characteristic.

As an example: If someone stayed, say, in three different locations of the same hotel chain where service was bad, it is a perfectly normal function of the mind to generate a conclusion about the entire hotel chain having bad service even though it may have hundreds of other locations. Sometimes, even ONE incident is enough for a conclusion to emerge that will rightfully keep an individual from repeating the experience. Yet Scientologists can go through incident after incident that “screams of red flags” (troubling observations) for years and be unable to form generalized conclusions because of an idea that making generalizations is a “suppressive characteristic” – on one side – while bombarded by direct suppression of bad thoughts and criticism on another (under Overt-Motivator theory and practice).


CHARACTERISTICS 2 & 3: Passing communication, bad news, and criticism


2. Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, invalidation and general suppression.
“Gossip” or “harbinger of evil tidings” or “rumormonger” once described such persons.
It is notable that there is no good news or complimentary remark passed on by such a person.

 3. The antisocial personality alters, to worsen, communication when he or she relays a message or news. Good news is stopped and only bad news, often embellished, is passed along.


2. The social personality is eager to relay good news and reluctant to relay bad.
He may not even bother to pass along criticism when it doesn’t matter.
He is more interested in making another feel liked or wanted than disliked by others and tends to err toward reassurance rather than toward criticism.

3. A social personality passes communication without much alteration and if deleting anything tends to delete injurious matters.
He does not like to hurt people’s feelings. He sometimes errs in holding back bad news or orders which seem critical or harsh.


Here we go again. If someone starts to communicate about something that is seen to be negative – “bad news,” criticism, contradictions to Scientology’s claims (invalidation) – there it goes under “anti-social characteristics.” It is worth noting that it is one of Scientology’s tactics to flood or invalidate any criticism or “bad news” about itself with an overwhelming amount of “success stories,” (as well as attacks toward the source of criticism) and if someone says: “But wait… what about all these stories of harm…?” etc. – it will be filed under “Such a person deals mainly in bad news.” It can also be framed under another one of Scientology’s suppressive concepts: “spreading entheta” (enturbulating information) or “forwarding enemy lines,” or being a “merchant of chaos.”

It should be noted that it is a form of BIOLOGICAL PROGRAMMING of the mind to pay bigger attention to alarming information and stimuli that could present a threat to survival than something that does not. Having “bad news” on the mind is natural because it is a form of information that can prevent an organism from getting into a potentially non-survival situation. Also, someone who “deals mainly in bad news” about Scientology itself could actually be a very SOCIAL personality that tries to go out of one’s way to warn others about the dangers of Scientology.


CHARACTERISTIC 4: Response to corrective measures

4. A characteristic, and one of the sad things about an antisocial personality, is that it does not respond to treatment or reform or psychotherapy.
4. Treatment, reform and psychotherapy particularly of a mild nature work very well on the social personality.
Whereas antisocial people sometimes promise to reform, they do not. Only the social personality can change or improve easily.
It is often enough to point out unwanted conduct to a social personality to completely alter it for the better.
Criminal codes and violent punishment are not needed to regulate social personalities.


It is a matter of Hubbard’s policy that if someone does not seem to respond to Scientology’s “betterment techniques” – such a person can be filed under a “no gain case” meaning a suppressive person. Scientology does have some authentic betterment techniques, but many of its techniques are also directed at reconditioning a subject’s behavior, making a person believe that certain freedoms such as being able to communicate with whoever one chooses, research information of one’s choice, or communicate on matters of concern to others or the public at large are re-evaluated in Scientology as being out-ethics or committing suppressive acts or crimes (within Scientology’s own justice system). If someone, say, refused to be reconditioned and submit to or be effected by Scientology’s behavior reconditioning techniques – such a person of actually strong will and determination could and most likely would be labeled as a “suppressive person.”


CHARACTERISTIC 5: The state of surrounding people

5. Surrounding such a personality we find cowed or ill associates or friends who, when not driven actually insane, are yet behaving in a crippled manner in life, failing, not succeeding.
Such people make trouble for others.
When treated or educated, the near associate of the antisocial personality has no stability of gain but promptly relapses or loses his advantages of knowledge, being under the suppressive influence of the other.
Physically treated, such associates commonly do not recover in the expected time but worsen and have poor convalescences.
It is quite useless to treat or help or train such persons so long as they remain under the influence of the antisocial connection.
The largest number of insane are insane because of such antisocial connections and do not recover easily for the same reason.
Unjustly we seldom see the antisocial personality actually in an institution.
Only his “friends” and family are there.

5. The friends and associates of a social personality tend to be well, happy and of good morale.
A truly social personality quite often produces betterment in health or fortune by his mere presence on the scene.
At the very least he does not reduce the existing levels of health or morale in his associates.
When ill, the social personality heals or recovers in an expected manner, and is found open to successful treatment.


Here is another very misleading evaluation point. Those in high end organized crime networks or a sphere of corrupt politics or corporations can live a very abundant life if they continue to “follow along with the program” or not get caught and overpowered by some greater forces such as law enforcement, while often time it is the otherwise social personalities driven by false convictions can become quite oppressive to their friends and family members. The history is replete with examples where the “good doer wannabe’s” committed some of the greatest atrocities under influence of false convictions either from religious dogma or some utopian political system. Under Christian dogma for example, some parents could want to be so “good” and “righteous” that they could actually oppress their children’s self-expression to result in all sorts of miserable conditions for them, while someone who was not specifically a “good doer” and didn’t give a heck (for the lack of a better term) could be more permissive and tolerant of the natural forces within his or her child or other persons.


CHARACTERISTICS 6 & 7: Determining causative factors and finishing cycles of action


6. The antisocial personality habitually selects the wrong target.
If a tire is flat from driving over nails, he or she curses a companion or a noncausative source of the trouble. If the radio next door is too loud, he or she kicks the cat.
If A is the obvious cause, the antisocial personality inevitably blames B, or C or D.

7. The antisocial cannot finish a cycle of action.
Such become surrounded with incomplete projects.


6. The social personality tends to select correct targets for correction.
He fixes the tire that is flat rather than attack the windscreen.
In the mechanical arts he can therefore repair things and make them work.

7. Cycles of action begun are ordinarily completed by the social personality, if possible.


Really?! If such was the case, then no criminal network or system of political corruption would be able to develop and flourish for an extended period of time – some are so well planned out and executed that they can literally last for generations.

Also, according to Hubbard’s own definitions, a cycle of action consists of “start, change and stop” and would include any form of action such as going to a grocery store or driving a car. Someone would have to be mentally incapacitated to be unable to finish a cycle of action (as a general ability) such as someone with short memory loss who kept forgetting what he was trying to do in the middle of a cycle and so unable to finish it.

It is interesting that Hubbard cited such people as Napoleon, Hitler and Dillinger as examples of anti-social personalities, yet Napoleon and Hitler completed many successful cycles of action to conquer much of the world before they were stopped by other forces, while John Dillinger managed to rob 24 banks, 4 police stations!, and escape from jail twice! before he was eventually apprehended and killed by law enforcement ( – these just do not seem like men who could not finish cycles of action or skilfully analyze a situation to determine causative factors (i.e. selecting right targets to accomplish their aims).


CHARACTERISTIC 8: Confession and guilt

8. Many antisocial persons will freely confess to the most alarming crimes when forced to do so, but will have no faintest sense of responsibility for them.
Their actions have little or nothing to do with their own volition. Things “just happened.”
They have no sense of correct causation and particularly cannot feel any sense of remorse or shame therefore.
8. The social personality is ashamed of his misdeeds and reluctant to confess them. He takes responsibility for his errors.


Starting with the early 1960’s Scientology itself became all about confessions and guilt induction over its participants for even thinking “bad thoughts” or criticism about Scientology. Guilt is effectively used by all kinds of manipulators to subdue people into compliance with their wishes, that’s why it is actually a matter of spiritual development to be able to overcome feelings of guilt and process it out of one’s system. If someone learns to look at actions and events in “raw format” as a fact of past occurrence, as something that “just happened” that could stem from many different factors, such a person yet again would fall under an “anti-social characteristic.” Finger pointing and guilt tripping is a big part of Scientology’s manipulative system where the concept of “taking responsibility” takes a grand stand.

Again, what is considered a “misdeed” is subject to considerations, and shame is a feeling that is most directly associated with a group culture that one is in that can evaluate one’s actions as either good or bad. Even such a passive event as having some portion of a body exposed could be subject of “shame” in one group setting while a matter of fashion in another.

Also, it could be a very much false and misleading claim to state that an anti-social personality will not be connecting one’s actions with own volition or “have no sense of correct causation.” Quite on the contrary, those that steal, kill, or commit other crimes can often times plan their activity in advance and with great precision. Not feeling a sense of remorse has to do with a lack of empathy or whatever faculty in one’s mind that causes one to feel the suffering of others. It has little if anything to do with a sense of “correct causation,” and in fact those that are in the business of inflicting suffering usually very clearly understand what they are doing and use the fact of their “causative ability” for further intimidation and achievement of their aims.


CHARACTERISTICS 9, 10, 11: Attitude toward constructive and destructive groups and actions


9. The antisocial personality supports only destructive groups and rages against and attacks any constructive or betterment group.

10. This type of personality approves only of destructive actions and fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities.
The artist in particular is often found as a magnet for persons with antisocial personalities who see in his art something which must be destroyed and covertly, “as a friend,” proceed to try.

11. Helping others is an activity which drives the antisocial personality nearly berserk. Activities, however, which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.


9. The social personality supports constructive groups and tends to protest or resist destructive groups.

10. Destructive actions are protested by the social personality. He assists constructive or helpful actions.

11. The social personality helps others and actively resists acts which harm others.


Of course, Scientology goes to great lengths to advertise and propagandize itself as a “constructive group” that helps others and wants to better the entire human race in its drive toward a New Civilization. Though in some sense these characteristics may hold true of truly antisocial and social personalities, they are used in Scientology to identify and label Scientology critics (many of whom are ex-Scientologists) as suppressive persons.


CHARACTERISTIC 12: Attitude toward private property.

12. The antisocial personality has a bad sense of property and conceives that the idea that anyone owns anything is a pretense, made up to fool people. Nothing is ever really owned.
12. Property is property of someone to the social personality and its theft or misuse is prevented or frowned upon.


This is absurd! Someone would have to be seriously mentally incapacitated in order to not understand the notion of private property. A more likely explanation why a true psychopath would have no trouble robbing people of their possessions is desire (for possession) combined with ill-intent and lack of empathy preventing the psychopath from feeling the loss and suffering of another person.



The basic reason the antisocial personality behaves as he or she does lies in a hidden terror of others.
To such a person every other being is an enemy, an enemy to be covertly or overtly destroyed.
The fixation is that survival itself depends on keeping others down” or “keeping people ignorant.”
If anyone were to promise to make others stronger or brighter, the antisocial personality suffers the utmost agony of personal danger.
They reason that if they are in this much trouble with people around them weak or stupid, they would perish should anyone become strong or bright….
The social personality naturally operates on the basis of the greatest good.
He is not haunted by imagined enemies but he does recognize real enemies when they exist.
The social personality wants to survive and wants others to survive,  whereas the antisocial personality really and covertly wants others to succumb.
Basically, the social personality wants others to be happy and do well, whereas the antisocial personality is very clever in making others do very badly indeed.
A basic clue to the social personality is not really his successes but his motivations.
The social personality when successful is often a target for the antisocial and by this reason he may fail. But his intentions included others in his success, whereas the antisocial only appreciate the doom of others….


Okay… So According to Hubbard, Hitler or Dillinger had a “hidden terror of others” since he cited these individuals as prime examples of antisocial personalities. According to Hubbard’s own Tone Scale well described in his book “Science of Survival,” TERROR (or FEAR in its milder form) is a very low emotional state with POOR PERCEPTION and POOR COMMUNICATION ABILITIES. John Dillinger robbed banks, police stations, and escaped from jail more than once – does it really seem like a person who was terrified of others? Adolf Hitler worked himself up to essentially become a dictator of Germany for over TEN YEARS ( and managed to rile up the entire nation into a global war – this just doesn’t seem like a person who was terrified and who had poor perception and communication skills.

On the other hand, Hubbard’s description of the “social personality” resembles that of a superman who “naturally operates on the basis of the greatest good,” fights against evil, can recall and relay specific details (does not generalize), determine correct causes, and has a high sense of ethics to struggle with shame and guilt over one’s own misdeeds. This is supposed to be 80% of the world population? How many people on the planet actually if only just give a thought to such a concept as “the greatest good?” Beyond “changing a tire” or recalling some basic details, most people need professional education and training to be able to operate with competence in more complex areas of life.


Additional references:

Tech Vol 5: 2 Apr. 1964 Two Types of People (HCO Info. Ltr.)
Tech Vol 6: HCOB 28 Jan. 1966 Search and Discovery Data-How a Suppressive Becomes One



Hubbard did not just stop at defining a new term of “suppressive personality,” he also moved on to misdefine a well known psychiatric term “psychosis” and connect it to his made up notions of SP and PTS.

In the reference below, Hubbard describes a “psychotic” in very much the same terms as he described a “suppressive personality”:

Tech Vol 6: Feb. Psychotics (Certainty Vol. 13, No. 2)

. . .

The true psychotic is not always found in an institution. Behind those grey walls you mainly discover his victims. The true psychotic is one who causes hysteria, apathy, misconceptions and the reactions of stress in others. That is the identity of the being that is the source of psychosis.

He is, by and large, rather unconfrontable as a being, talking in the widest generalities, and sounds quite sane unless you listen to him closely. Then it will be found that the reasons he gives do not quite make sense, but are all directed toward the necessity of smashing or brutalizing anyone and everyone or selected groups, or material objects.

The actual psychotic is covertly or overtly destructive of anything the rest of us consider good or decent or worthwhile.

Sometimes such a being is “successful” in life, but the end result of his activities are what you would expect—total smash. Some notable examples were Hitler and Napoleon. Not even historians are quite brave enough to state that these two beings were totally, completely and incomprehensibly separated from reality and acted without good cause, reason or justification other than an obsession to destroy, ruin and bring misery to millions.

How Napoleon, for instance, justified beginning an attack on Russia too late in the year for his troops to operate there at all is very hard to see. Why Hitler had to destroy the Jewish people in Germany as a “necessary act in prosecuting his war against the world outside of Germany” has no other answer other than madness.

The true psychotic brings about an hysterical, apathetic, or deranged mental condition in others. He or she does it for “many good reasons”, does it for no reason at all, or doesn’t even notice that he is doing it.

The true psychotic worships destruction and abhors reasonable, decent or helpful actions.

Although history affords us innumerable examples, they are so common in the society around us that one does not have to go into a study of mass murderers to find them. The phenomenon is by no means rare and at the absolute minimum is 2½% of the population.

This individual fills the institutions with victims, the hospitals with the sick and the graveyards with the dead. The statistics of psychosis are not going to lessen in the society until this type of personality is completely isolated and understood. The first problem one confronts in identifying the true psychotic is that anyone detecting in himself, or herself, some destructive urge is likely to believe that he or she is psychotic. This is definitely not the case. One of the primary characteristics of the true psychotic is a total lack of introspection, a total irresponsibility to the pain or suffering of others, coupled with a logic which explains it all away but uses reasons which are not sensible to any of the rest of us.

. . .

Therefore, under the subject of psychosis, we have the actual psychotic and the victims of the psychotic. As long as we only studied the symptoms of the victims we could not discover the source of their difficulty.

. . .

Last and not least, any true psychotic can be counted upon to attack or attempt to destroy Scientology groups or activities as these help people. The source of such attacks traces back usually to pretty dangerous psychotics who aren’t in institutions or even suspected, some in public places where not only Scientology groups suffer from their actions. Thus it isn’t likely that Scientologists will do much to help cure them even if Scientology was in the business, which it is not.

. . .

The total indicated therapy cure for an institutional psychotic who is, after all, only the victim of an actual psychotic is to locate the actual psychotic in that person’s life. There is a very magic response to this action. The technology now exists. It is called “Search and Discovery”.

. . .

And if this leaves you wondering whether or not you are insane, all you have to do is ask yourself the questions:

1. Have I ever helped anybody or wanted to?

2. Am I violently opposed to those who help others?

If you can answer “Yes” to 1 and “No” to 2 there is no slightest doubt about your sanity. You are quite sane and those times in your life when you have wondered about your own wits you were only in connection with an actual psychotic somewhere in your environment.

The actual psychotic sometimes climbs to high places in the society, as witness Napoleon and Hitler. But even so he can be identified. Those who advocate violent measures as the only means of solving problems—such as advocating war—those who are violently opposed to organizations which help others are easily identified.

And in the smaller world when you see a cold, indifferent smile to the agony of another, you have seen an actual psychotic.

. . .


In the next bulletin, Hubbard states that:

HCOB 28 Nov. 70 Psychosis C/S Series 22

About 15 percent to 20 percent of the human race apparently is insane or certainly a much higher percent than was estimated.

In this reference he also links psychosis to the same symptoms as for a PTS Condition as well as to continuous destructive actions and departures which unwittingly brings the theme of Overt-Motivator Sequence and Withholds into the mix. In here, Hubbard also brings up the concept of insanity and effectively ruins it by limiting it to a very narrow definition:



In a later reference, Hubbard further misrepresents and discredits psychiatric understanding of psychosis and arbitarily links it to an evil, destructive purpose which leads to destructive activity.

HCOB 9 May 77 II Psychosis, More About

. . .

The actual basis of all psychosis is motive. It is NOT competence or incompetence.

Below all psychotic conduct lies an evil purpose.

Because psychiatry and psychology did not have this single technical fact they defined psychosis as “incompetence,” had the wrong target and so could not and never did understand psychosis and were thereby led into atrocities such as shocks and brain surgery and, in the country where these subjects originated (Germany), slaughtered 300,000 insane in gas chambers some time before Hitler came to power.

A true psychotic can be brilliant or stupid, competent or incompetent. It is his general motive or purpose that determines whether or not he is insane or sane.

Famous psychotics like Napoleon, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin and Hitler were all quite brilliant yet wound up destroying everything in sight including their own people.

They had a destructive basic purpose. Every psychotic has one. It is usually covert, hidden, but in full play against his unsuspecting friends.

The sole difference in motive is whether it is destructive or constructive.

Everyone has a basic purpose. The psychotic has a destructive one.

The test of a personality, then, is whether the result of a person’s activity is destructive or constructive.

. . .

The progress of psychosis then begins with a belief something is evil. This is followed with an effort to stop it. This stop becomes general. A basic purpose is then formed which contains an evil intent.

The being then goes on from disaster to disaster, seeking overtly or covertly to destroy everything around him.

At a guess about 15 percent to 25 percent of living human beings are psychotic and bring covert disaster to those around them and themselves.

The evil purpose is expressed by committing harmful acts and withholding them.

Ordinary Overt/Withhold Processes, as in Grade II Expanded, can handle this condition providing the person can be audited and providing the evil purpose is also brought to view.

. . .


Get this, according to Hubbard in the above reference as many as 25% of humanity may be psychotic – that is, according to Hubbard’s definition of the term – harboring evil purposes and engaging in destructive activities. That’s 1 in 4 persons. This sounds quite insane (within a more proper definition of the term).

When everything is said and done, Hubbard actually occludes a true understanding of insanity and conditions like psychosis and psychopathy and instead groups everything into one pile in order to stigmatize and vilify anyone with a hostile disposition toward Scientology itself.

Hubbard slips up in one place where he states that “The progress of psychosis then begins with a belief something is evil.” which points to a (faulty) PERCEPTION as being the ultimate cause behind the formation of intention and resulting actions. Hence, using PERCEPTION as a reference point, a much simpler, clearer and ultimately more correct understanding of INSANITY and various conditions such as PSYCHOSIS can be developed – as being linked to the quality of someone’s thinking and perception. See following pages for further analysis:

Problematic Conditions

Also, there is an earlier reference on this subject – HCOB 18 Dec. 1957 Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists – that follows a rather different logic (more in line with 1950’s Scientology about CAUSE and EFFECT). Though there might be something to it, overall it seems to be too abstract and does not describe the actual realities of mental conditions such as psychosis and neurosis nor does it provide a clear definition of insanity, and yet it purports to be literally “the ONLY THING THERE IS TO UNDERSTAND about neurotics and psychotics” which is in the usual Hubbard’s thought limiting delivery style. At best, this reference can be used as an additional explanation to consider when assessing the actual reality of these conditions described in the two pages linked above.



The mechanics behind the PTS/SP phenomena, according to Hubbard, are based on his definition of a problem on one side and Overt-Motivator Sequence on the other.

Hubbard’s view of a problem and its relationship to PTS/SP is best described in the lecture below.

[14 OCTOBER 1965] 6510C14 SHSBC-431 Briefing of Review Auditors (selection 15:38 – 32:16 min) [Скачать]

All right, now, let’s take number two, and this is the main thing I want to talk to you about: A rolly coaster equals a suppressive person in that person’s vicinity. In other words, rolly coaster – PTS. If a person rolly coasters, it’s PTS. A PTS is a connection with a suppressive. I’ll give you the exact mechanics of it; I’ll let you sort them out on your own time.

And that’s postulat-counter-postulate is the anatomy of a problem. And this belongs in actual fact at Grade I. And it’s just this: postulate-counter-postulate. Postulate versus postulate. That is the definition and the anatomy of a problem. And there is no other definition to a problem. There can be several counter-postulates; there can be several going out like this, but that makes several problems. The central problem is always postulate-counter-postulate.

So the guy has had a purpose in life and somebody has suppressed it, or a guy has had a purpose over a twenty-four-hour period and somebody suppressed that purpose. In other words, his purpose was his postulate, the other person saying he couldn’t do it was the counter-postulate. Do you follow?

So that is simply the anatomy of a problem and it belongs at Grade I. And there is no other reason for rolly coaster. This is the “no other” data I’m giving you. There just is no other datum.

People don’t rolly coaster because they got into an engram. People don’t rolly coaster because the auditor misread the action. People don’t rolly coaster because his father was a Methodist and has been dead since birth. Do you understand? So don’t, as a Review Auditor, ever fall for two seconds for any other reason for a rolly coaster than postulate-counter-postulate. There isn’t any other reason.

Now, SP is a version of this. It’s a version of a problem and is a specialized kind of problem, and that is what causes the rolly coaster. The individual has run into a postulate-counter- postulate since his last improvement, which makes him a potential trouble source.

Potential trouble source means the case is going to go up and fall down. And he’s a trouble source because he’s going to get upset. He’s a trouble source because he’s going to make trouble. And he’s a trouble for the auditor and he’s trouble for us and he’s trouble for himself and so forth. And he really does make trouble. That’s very carefully named.

The SP isn’t making trouble. See? He’s just poisoning the whole universe, you know? But it isn’t – he isn’t making trouble; he’s just going squash! Do you see? Anybody says anything to him – squash! You see? It’s the PTS who makes the trouble. Do you see this?

Now, this is the whole backbone of ethics. And there isn’t anything more to ethics than the – this basic purpose of ethics is ethics exists to get tech in. If you ever see ethics being put in that throws tech out, then ethics is being used in a suppressive fashion. Now, the only way that you could use ethics suppressively is use it in such a way that it threw tech out. Because the purpose of ethics is to put tech in. If you’ve got ethics, you can get tech in. You carry on ethics long enough to get tech in, and that’s all the longer you carry it. But in the process of getting tech in you very often will run into a rolly coaster – and that is, a case worsens after it improves, as easily as that.

The case did all right in yesterday’s session; comes to this session, falls on his head. That’s a rolly coaster. And there’s no other cause for it, see, than postulate-counter-postulate.

You’ll see a process come out and an HCOB come out on a process that will be called “Search and Discovery.” And Search and Discovery is just to find the purposes – to find the suppressions the person has had in life. And one of the broad ways of finding it, unfortunately, will make a Problems Release in minutes. You say, “What has been your main purpose in life? Thank you very much. Who opposed it? Thank you very much.” And in a large percentage of cases, Problems Release! Do you understand? It’d be an interesting percentage on which this would occur.

Of course, the person doesn’t know about problems – they aren’t cleaned up about problems worth a nickel – but they’ll go release on the subject of problems, and they’ll stay released. And now you try to run problems on them and you’re going to get a high TA. Do you see? They’ve solved all their problems.

The way you solve a problem is to find the source of the counter-postulate. You find the source of the counter-postulate; that’s the way to solve a problem. Now, man gets solutions to problems. In other words, he leaves the counter-postulate and his own postulate in place, not knowing the definition of a problem, and then solves the resulting collision, as in dialectic materialism.

You want to read that some day; that’s very interesting. It’s the anatomy of a problem gone mad. “Any idea is the product of two forces” is the backbone of it. It’s quite interesting. It’s the – it’s a current philosophy. But in actual fact, that’s based on a problem. Two forces going together make a squash, so therefore, that’s it!

Now, if you want to really solve a problem and see it solve in the physical universe and have an awful lot of fun with it, then you had certainly better look over the whole perimeter of counter-postulates: What is the source of the problem?

And if you hit it right – if you’ve got a problem with Joe Jinks and he’s in Toronto, Canada – if you hit it right, don’t be surprised if you get a phone call from Joe Jinks telling you the problem is all solved. It happens, routinely and constantly. And I had to run down what process was it that was causing this phenomena, because we ran into the problem very often.

We’d run Problems of Comparable Magnitude on a pc in an HGC or an ACC or something like this, and the next thing you know their long-lost husband or something, that they’d had such awful problems with, is very sweetness and light. Do you follow? You see, the problem evaporated. But the funny part of it is, in the physical universe it’ll also evaporate for the other person sometimes. So that’s quite interesting. And that’s very interesting for you to know that in connection with ethics. Because when you see that the disconnection, or the handle or disconnect, causes an enormous problem for the person or for the other person from whom they are disconnecting, you have invariably found the wrong person.

Now, Ethics… The policy letter that moved them over to “Suppressives must be located by Review” – and that’s where you’re coming in and that’s why I’m talking to you. We’re not permitting Ethics, anymore, to locate suppressive persons. They’re going to be located by Review Auditors in regular session. Do you see that? Because Ethics just flubs it too often. They’re not equipped for auditing and so forth. They’re interested in justice and that sort of thing, and they don’t go ahead with it and do a good job of it. So therefore, anybody walking into Ethics who is PTS, who has rolly coastered and so forth, is sent to Review. And that is the route.

Actually, an HGC auditor should send directly to Review and then Review sends to Ethics. Ethics has to have some notation of this. That’s the only reason they go to Ethics after Review. Do you see? Because when they’re sent to… when somebody says, “Well, this person is PTS,” and so forth, you could send them directly, don’t you see, over to Ethics and then to Review in all cases. But I know very well that if one of your Examiners was to find a PTS, and know very well that that Examiner would inevitably and invariably send that person directly to Review, wouldn’t send them to Ethics. Why? Review is closer. Do you see?

So after the person has been found to rolly coaster and then Review cleans up the SP, why, they can go over to Ethics and get a statement of handle or declare, don’t you see? But it’s all cleaned up. They’re not any longer – they’re not even vaguely worried about it. Do you see?

Now, that’s the way it’s going to be handled, and that’s the change of route. So therefore I’m briefing you. And the reason why I’ve called you in is just to give you this datum and just tell you that although around you will hear occasionally that there are other reasons for rolly coaster, that’s for the birds! That’s not true. There are no other reasons for rolly coaster than PTS. And PTS is the manifestation of a postulate-counter-postulate.

Now, you notice that I haven’t said how long. You know, the person didn’t have to be a PTS for two and a half years before he became up to Review’s attention – I mean, up to the attention of Ethics. He might have only been PTS for twenty minutes. And it’s very interesting that you can overrun a person who is trying to tell you he’s already gone Release and the person becomes a PTS. Who’s the suppressive?

Audience: The auditor.

Isn’t that interesting? Of course, the suppressive – it’s merely a suppressive action. You don’t declare the auditor a suppressive person. Do you follow? You don’t have to then go through the endless action of “the Pc must separate from the auditor and disconnect and…” That’s a lot of balderdash, isn’t it? But still, the mechanics are there: rolly coaster – PTS. Well, just who? Where? How? What? And that’s your job in Review.

Now, you can use listing. You can list the person’s purposes: “What purpose of yours has been thwarted?” I mean, unfortunately, in handling this you’re going to have some Releases on your hands. But watch it! Get them declared when they occur; that’s a Grade I Release.

Now, don’t let somebody shake you off of this datum that a rolly coaster is a PTS. And the definition of PTS is: connected to a suppressive person or action. See? Person or action. A guy can inadvertently suppress something. You’re driving down the road and somebody steps out in front of your car – believe me, when you hit him, you suppressed him. You certainly didn’t intend to and that doesn’t make you a suppressive person. Do you follow?

So just looking at this from straight technical mechanics and so forth: a rolly coaster – PTS. Now, if that PTS is not handled the person does become, then, a trouble source. And “PTS” – very well named. You overrun somebody, oh boy, you’re going to have trouble. They’re going to make trouble. There’s going to be all kinds of trouble.

What’s your main consideration, then, in handling anybody sent to you from Ethics or from the HGC, in the review? Your main consideration is, promptly and immediately, this person has been up against a suppressive action or person. And don’t go nutty and try to do ARC breaks on him and sympathize with how badly they’ve been hit. Nothing like that. All you’ve got to do is find the suppressive person. Now, the person may only have been suppressive for five minutes. Or the person might have been suppressive for a lifetime. But you find the right one and instantly the good indicators will come in, and watch it, because you’re liable to make a Release right at that moment.

Now, also watch it that by getting off the SP you rehabilitate the state of Release which was being overrun. You see now, the person came in to you with a high TA, and all of a sudden you recognize the person is PTS, also. Do you follow? Person felt better, now feels worse. Well, your action is to locate the suppressive action or person, of course. But you might have the high TA because the person has had an overrun on a process. But it’s still a suppressive action. See, completely aside from rehabilitating the process, what have you got?

Now, a suppressive person is not somebody with horns; it’s a person who has had a counter-postulate to the PC you are handling. But a suppressive person who is routinely suppressive in life, invalidative of Scientology and trying to keep people from getting well and that sort of thing, is a social menace.

Now, he’s the problem of Ethics. Your problem in Review is to find him. And if it’s just a momentary suppression and so forth, you don’t go declaring somebody suppressive because he accidentally overran the PC, and the PC says, “I feel good now and I don’t want to answer any more auditing commands.”

“Well, you’d better answer this next auditing command.”

“Well, I don’t want to answer any more auditing commands.”

“Well, you’d better answer this next auditing command.”

The person will now behave to some degree on the basis of PTS. You not only have got an overrun release, or something of that sort is lurking around there, but you in addition to that have a PTS. Do you follow? So both of those actions would have to be handled. But please, please don’t let somebody shake this datum for you. Because when they can’t find the SP by any means, then they will drop the datum. Do you see? They drop the datum, huh? They say, “Well, all right. It was because he ate bananas last night.”

Well, I’m afraid that somebody in auditing wouldn’t rolly coaster if he just ate some bad bananas last night. He’s not roller coastering in auditing. So he doesn’t feel so well this morning; well, he knows damn well what did it. If he wanted to – if you wanted to be an absolute perfectionist on this, you could say, “Well, who insisted you eat the bananas?” Don’t you see? And probably at that moment, why, his tummyache would go [snaps fingers].

But that sort of thing is too minor. We’re talking about a real honest-to-God rolly coaster, see? The person was doing fine in the – audited in London, doing fine; appears here, doing badly. Oh boy, that’s a rolly coaster. He signs all over the wall, that’s rolly coaster. Don’t you see? Did all right last week; isn’t doing well this week. Well, that’s a rolly coaster. And always there is a suppressive action or person – invariably, inevitably. And Review’s job, then, when somebody sends to Review a PTS, is to find that.

Now, Review also, as I told you, might find also an overrun – may find two things while looking for one. And the only mistake you can make is, two things being present, find the wrong one and say the person is now okay, when the other one still has to be handled. See, you’d handle both of them. If two things are wrong, you’d handle both things – if the person has had an overrun and is also a PTS from some other course – or source.

PTS – potential trouble source; SP – suppressive person
Grade I – a level of Scientology processing that addresses Problems and is said to result in an “ability to recognize the source of problems and make them vanish.”
HGC – Hubbard Guidance Center – a department for auditing
ACC – Advanced Clinical Course – a series of courses Hubbard organized for auditors especially after releasing new discoveries.
Overrun – continuing to run some action such as an auditing process in Scientology beyond the point of a successful completion (in Scientology indicated by a “floating needle” on an e-meter and/or VGI’s – very good indicators – preclear happy and having cognitions). Overrun often results in a worsening condition.
High TA – a type of a read on an e-meter that indicates a certain state of preclear’s mind – in this case Hubbard says it indicates an overrun. TA stands for Tone Arm (on a dial of an e-meter).

Note: a part of this lecture was later turned into HCOB 14 Oct. 65 Potential Trouble Source, Mechanics Of


The following reference relates PTS/SP to the Overt-Motivator sequence.


a. To be PTS in the first place, the PTS must have committed overts against the antagonistic source; and
b. When one has committed overts, his confront and responsibility drop.

The reference was issued in 1983 so it may have not been written by Hubbard, but something similar is stated in the following reference from 1978:


This is how it works. The PC, due to some act or acts previously committed, has gone the effect of the antagonistic terminal. The terminal then attempts to suppress the PC. The PC, already the effect of the terminal, becomes the effect of the suppression. So the PC’s own postulate to improve himself and his conditions is countered by the suppressive terminal’s counter-postulate, and he is thus given a present time problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain, as only a present time problem will halt the progress of a case. To the present time problem are added ARC breaks with the antagonistic terminal, and as only ARC breaks will worsen a case, the result is no gain or deterioration of a case by reason of the suppressive connection in the environment.


In HCOB 05 FEB 1966 S AND D WARNING there is also an indication of manipulation of preclear’s perception by a suppressive person to create an impression of a dangerous environment:

Remember that the real Suppressive Person (SP) was the one that wove a dangerous environment around the pc. To find that person is to open up the pc’s present time perception or space. It’s like pulling a wrapping of wool off the pc. The SP persuaded or caused the pc to believe the environment was dangerous and that it was always dangerous and so made the pc pull in and occupy less space and reach less.

When the SP is really located and indicated the pc feels this impulse not to reach diminish and so his space opens up.

The difference between a safe environment and a dangerous environment is only that a person is willing to reach and expand in a safe environment and reaches less and contracts in a dangerous environment.

An SP wants the other person to reach less. Sometimes this is done by forcing the person to reach into danger and get hurt so that the person will thereafter reach less. The SP wants smaller, less powerful beings. The SP thinks that if another became powerful that one would attack the SP.

The SP is totally insecure and is battling constantly in covert ways to make others less powerful and less able.


Then there is the CAN’T HAVE / MUST HAVE mechanics:


A person who is connected to a suppressive person, group or thing will dramatize a “can’t-have” or an “enforced overt-have” on an org or staff members.

A “can’t-have” means just that – a depriving of substance or action or things.

An “enforced overt-have” means forcing upon another a substance, action or thing not wanted or refused by the other.

The technical fact is that a PTS person got that way because the suppressive was suppressive by depriving the other or enforcing unwanted things upon the person.

The PTS person will dramatize this characteristic in reaction to the suppression.


Clear “can’t have,” “couldn’t have” as DENIAL OF SOMETHING TO SOMEONE ELSE. Clear “enforced have” as MAKING SOMEONE ACCEPT WHAT THEY DIDN’T WANT.

The theory is that SPs are SPs because they deny Have and enforce unwanted Have. They also deny do and enforce unwanted do. They also deny be and enforce unwanted be.


Scientology Technical Dictionary states something that is closer to what would be commonly understood by suppression:

Suppression  is “a harmful intention or action against which one cannot fight back.” Thus when one can do anything about it, it is less suppressive. (HCO PL 26 Dec 66)



Tech Vol 6: HCOB 24 Nov. 1965 Search and Discovery
Tech Vol 6: HCOB 21 Jan. 1966 Search and Discovery (Ethics Type Cases, PTSs)-S & D Errors
Tech Vol 6: HCOB 05 Feb. 1966 S and D Warning

Tech Vol 8: HCOB 10 Aug. 1973 PTS Handling
Tech Vol 11: HCOB 20 Oct. 1976 PTS DATA [indicates PTS/SP Checksheet: BPL 31 May 71RF Re-Revised 4 Mar 77 / 1976 version PDF]
Tech Vol 11: HCOB 20 Oct. 1976 PTS HANDLING
Tech Vol 8: HCOB 21 Oct. 1974 PTS Rundown (revision of 9 Dec. 1971)
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 8 Dec. 1978 PTS Rundown, Audited (re-revision of HCOB 9 Dec. 1971) [auditing focus: includes ARC breaks, problems, overts and withholds, can’t have / must have, and other]
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 8 Dec. 1978 PTS RD Addition (revision of HCOB 20 Jan. 1972) [C/S errors and remedies]
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 8 Dec. 1978 PTS Rundown, Final Step (re-revision of HCOB 3 June 1972) [auditing focus: can’t have / must have]

Tech Vol 12: HCOB 29 Dec. 1978 The Suppressed Person Rundown
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 6 Jan. 1979 Suppressed Person Rundown Problems Processes
(revision of HCOB 30 Dec. 1978)

Tech Vol 12: HCOB 31 Dec. 1978 Outline of PTS Handling
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 31 Dec. 1978 Educating the Potential Trouble Source, The First Step Toward Handling: PTS C/S-1

Section Pending



Section Pending



As with some other areas in Scientology, the PTS/SP tech ultimately creates more problems then it solves. The benefits of some useful indicators and processes that may help someone identify problem individuals and address potentially bad influences is overwhelmed by a number of very serious problems that this area of Scientology introduced.

As is noted on page ROBOTISM in Scientology, authoritarian and limiting style of delivery of material in Scientology (by claiming that something is the only explanation or the only solution) traps the followers’ minds to think only in terms of Scientology data at the exclusion of other possibilities and evaluation criteria which in turn results in a form of conditioned perception which may actually be incorrect (divorced from the reality of what is being perceived) or incomplete (not covering other forms of reality that may exist).

This can be seen quite clearly in Hubbard’s limiting and in some way unrealistic division of people into “anti-social” and “social” categories.

What Hubbard described as “antisocial” or “suppressive” is actually something that may more closely resemble a PARANOID individual – hidden fear of others, lack of differentiation of people (generalizing), lack of trust, and fixating on the negative which basically what paranoia is about. Lowered ability to complete projects is also likely to be found among those suffering with paranoia since they are not in good control of their minds to begin with, and irrational fears of others could prevent them from working toward finished results they can share with others. These can also deal in “alarming generalizations” since this is actually a manifestation of their own perception of people. Someone who was afraid of others and saw some evil in them could also be worried if they were helped or made more powerful, and so a truly paranoid individual (or group) could very well try to protest some form of a “betterment activity.” Unfortunately, Hubbard did not cite any specific and detailed cases that anyone else could look at to back up his claims so it’s hard to say what he based his reasoning on to arrive at the “12 distinct characteristics.”

Perhaps, Hubbard’s description could have been more plausible if he used the word paranoia instead of “antisocial personality” which is a term taken from psychiatry and is most often associated with Psychopathy or Sociopathy which for the most part do NOT align with Hubbard’s version of “antisocial characteristics.” Scientologists fixated on characteristics described by Hubbard may be able to recognize someone who is paranoid, but utterly fail to recognize a psychopath or a sociopath – types of personality that could be far more dangerous than someone who is paranoid (and is therefore not very capable). For a more correct and expansive view on various conditions to look out for, see page Problematic Conditions.

To a false or misleading view of a “suppressive person” is then added conditioned perception of self or others in “connection” to “suppression” as “PTS” – a Potential Trouble Source. Someone who is deemed to be “connected” to “suppressive person or action” is labeled as a PTS – which is yet another identity label in Scientology. Being “PTS” means that someone is likely to cause “trouble,” experience “Roller Coaster” (getting worse after getting better), will not be able to have steady gains, will make mistakes, be chronically sick or have a difficult time at recovering from sickness, and experience general failure. Those who have been labeled PTS, per policy, are prohibited from training and processing (receiving auditing) until their “PTS condition” is handled.

This is done in Scientology in a seemingly complete disregard for one of its own primary axioms that reality is a “product of agreed upon considerations.”* In common terms, “PTS condition” can manifest due to the belief in such a condition to begin with. Someone assumes a consideration (or more correctly a “vision”) that they are PTS which then comes with a set of other considerations about failing, being sick, making mistakes and so on. Such a person may actually then manifest failure after having success, if they believe themselves to be PTS and start envisioning a “down turn” on a “Roller Coaster” as an inevitable manifestation of being PTS. In other words, could the very act of envisioning oneself as being “PTS” manifest in the suggested manifestations of such a condition, especially when the reality of such manifestations is also projected onto the person by other members within a group?

Doesn’t the belief, in itself, that experiencing some form of suppression can result in so many problems for the target individual make the suppression seem that much more powerful and effective?

*Scientology’s view that even the physical universe is a product of “agreed upon considerations” may obviously be false, but this does not negative the fact that people’s beliefs and visions of reality projected on themselves and each other may have an effect in the form psychosomatic conditions and behavior.

There may be attempts at suppression of something about the target individual (or group), but they can simply be viewed as a from of action toward the target individual that may or may not be effective depending of the STATE of the individual with respect to such actions. Yes. The mechanics described by Hubbard (such as struggling with chronic sickness, making mistakes, or experiencing periodic failures) may in reality take place due to persistent suppression, but once the individual became educated on the subject, became more aware and generated a state of power to become proof to a form of suppression that may have overwhelmed him or her beforehand – none of these “mechanics” would any longer apply to such a person… yet that individual would continue to be “locked in” the visions of reality connected to the PTS/SP tech since the “labels” are based on evaluations by an outside observer (such as Scientology Ethics Officer) of someone being an SP and a member being PTS due to being “connected,” and not on the STATE of the individual considered PTS with respect to an individual/group viewed as an SP. In this case, it is actually the Scientology group that would act as a suppressive influence moving forward.

This brings us to the subject of suppression itself. What is SUPPRESSION? According to Hubbard, the basis of suppression is basically a conflicting opinion (counter-postulate) to one’s own which makes it obvious that even the very notion of “suppression” was not clearly identified and understood in Scientology as it can actually exist in its various forms. See page UNDERSTANDING SUPPRESSION.


Loss of Responsibility with respect to realities associated with “suppression”

Let’s consider yet another problem by starting with the following quote:


It is the resistance alone which brings about the dwindling spiral, the descent into less ability. Life does not will this descent into less ability unless Life is cognizant of the principles involved. Life resists itself into this less-ability. There is a primary rule working here: that which one fears, one becomes. When one refuses to duplicate something, and yet remains in its environment, his very resistance to the thing he refuses to duplicate will cause him eventually to become possessed of so many energy pictures of that thing which he refuses to duplicate that he will, to have any mass at all, find himself in possession of those energy pictures, and without actually noticing when it happened, is very likely to accept, at their level, those things which he refused to duplicate earlier.

One wonders why all the nurses and doctors in contagious wards do not immediately pick up the illness, and here we have another factor which is the same factor as understanding, but couched in a different way. People do not acquire obsessively those things which they do not fear. An individual has to resist something, has to be afraid of something, has to be afraid of the consequences of something before it could have any adverse obsessive effect upon him. At any time he could have a self-determined duplication of it, but this, not being obsessive, not being against his will, would not produce any ill symptom beyond the length of time he determined it.

Obviously, Scientologists indoctrinated into the visions of a Social Personality vs Anti-Social (or Suppressive) Personality get an idea that they want to be (or should be) a Social Personality and NOT BE (not create or have responsibility for creating) anything having to do with an Anti-Social Personality or “suppression.” This is where one steps into yet another trap in Scientology universe, where we have a group of people actively creating and yet at the same time resisting VISIONS of suppression and suppressive persons (as they are defined in Scientology). There is perception of what someone may be doing, or saying or thinking (such as “counter-postulates”) and then there is an additional (created) perception of those action as being “suppression” and the person creating such thoughts or actions as being a “suppressive person.”

It is consciousness that creates any form of perception; therefore an individual, as a form of consciousness, must be creating (visions of) everything that he or she perceives in another. When we protest or resist something that we see about another, we end up in a position of seeing (or experiencing) a form of reality while taking no responsibility for actually creating the visions (experiences) of such reality since within the action of resisting, there is also an idea that only the other person is creating that form of reality (action or thought; some form of attitude or behavior) that we are trying to resist. Through this mechanism, an individual can ultimately empower the visions of resisted realities to such an extend that (s)he will actually start dramatizing these envisioned realities. So it is not uncommon to see people who, for example, have been resisting (fighting, protesting) negative thoughts or hate or intolerance to actually dramatize these things quite strongly while being seemingly unaware of actually doing so. Since they are unwilling to take responsibility for the creation of realities that they resist (such as some form of thinking or behavior); they also become unable to recognize the creation of such realities in themselves.

In this way, through creating visions of suppression and suppressive persons and then resisting them, Scientologists actually end up dramatizing whatever it is they envision to be suppression and a suppressive identity.

When someone tries to be “good” and yet resists against what (s)he envisions to be “bad” or “evil,” the more of it that person could end up dramatizing in the end. There are plenty of examples of this principle in action in Scientology and throughout other areas of human endeavor.

It is of course necessary to be able to recognize and confront whatever it is that someone may deem to be bad, evil, or “suppressive” but the next step up from there is transcendence of that reality – increased responsibility – so one ends up occupying MORE space… not negation or some form of avoidance of that reality (i.e. disconnection) so one ends up occupying LESS space.

So in the end, even though addressing the general subject of “suppression” could initially result in some improvement by increasing individual’s awareness of the potentially bad influences he or she may not have been aware of before, the way this area has been framed and resolved in Scientology (through “disconnection” and its own attempts at suppressing suppression) lead to the creation of the very problems that it sought to resolve – becoming a victim on one side and actually perpetrating suppression on the other.



A concerned parent complaining about Scientology having taken control over his or her children, through the application of PTS/SP tech among Scientologists, can “magically” become (be perceived as) an evil “suppressive person” (an SP) bent on destroying Scientology and undermining “the only hope of mankind”… or someone who is being influenced by a suppressive person or group – a PTS. In this sense, Scientology’s PTS/SP technology is in fact a cleverly disguised form of brainwashing* which makes Scientologists incapable of perceiving actual realities of other people and the true causes behind their potential criticism or upset with Scientology. This so called “technology” works especially well in combination with an earlier technology of Overt-Motivator Sequence and Withholds that targets individual’s “critical thoughts” and the development of one’s own perception of other people and their actions.

*Brainwash: make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure. [Oxford Dictionary]

Brainwashing, as a term, could be understood as a forceful programming of human thinking and perception. The force factor in a given brainwashing methodology does not have to be apparent; in fact, brainwashing is usually more effective when the forceful nature of its methodology is cleverly disguised such as being for the benefit of the recipient.

The PTS/SP technology in Scientology is seen as being “absolute” and is enforced with no room for disagreement.

The subject of programmed perception is further discussed on pages covering the subjects of induced psychosis and subversive manipulation:
Problematic Conditions
Mechanics of Abuse and Subversive Manipulation

Page initially published on: 15 октября, 2014

Добавить комментарий

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *