Scientology 1.0.0 – addendum 5
‘SP’ and ‘PTS’ are behavioural categories, not a licence for witch-hunts. This addendum simply describes patterns and risk management. The purpose here is to point to the material in Scientology regarding how to identify the SP and their enablers; this information outlines the attributes of SPs and PTSs, helping others understand a bit more about who is who and, by extension, what might actually be happening in our oh-so-baffling world.
Prefatory
Because I believe that the inability to recognise and confront evil is among the most significant issues facing mankind, I thought I’d present some additional notes on the subject for the reader’s consideration. Although some points have already been touched on in chapters 38 and 39, I thought it might be advantageous to add a few further notes.
While this issue may not be the most grave (the most serious being whatever keeps people from better thinking), it is consequential enough to warrant emphasis. If there is any possibility of addressing the real problems we all face, taking steps to alleviate the trouble caused by SPs and PTSs in the meantime could determine the success or failure of our current civilisation.
I mean, it’s quite possible that simply recognising and confronting evil rather than denying it could be enough, by itself, to slow or even stop SPs and PTSs from tearing things down, as is happening to Western civilisation right now. That recognition and confrontation might even be sufficient to help us progress to a higher level of civilisation much sooner.
Evil fiction
Today, screens — especially on our phones — are amongst the biggest cultural influences, along with films and TV (just more screens, actually); each era has its influences, after all (print media and radio once upon a time). But it seems some modern influencers, pundits, and screenwriters lean on the idea that somehow it’s society that’s at fault for ‘producing’ villains. The message being conveyed to the audience is that certain individuals are simply ‘confused’ or ‘just made that way’ due to factors like bad parenting, neglectful institutions, or similar influences, suggesting that no one is truly ‘evil’. The film Joker, for instance, links Arthur Fleck’s descent to such things as poverty, mental health neglect, and abusive social systems that ‘failed’ him. This approach shifts the focus from specific cause to the vague concept of ‘society’ (an example of the generalities referred to in point 1 of SP attributes), which can allow the villain to remain at large.
And then, what is one supposed to do with these ‘misunderstood’ individuals, people who are just ‘confused’ when they happen to cause so much harm to others? Tell them ‘Naughty, naughty’, give them a disapproving little smack on their botties, and hope they’ll change their ways? This whole agenda may be part of the ‘inclusivity’ politics that say no one should be discriminated against, even evil-doers — a phenomenon that’s recently been cleverly termed ‘toxic empathy’.
However, the ‘victim of society’ paradigm doesn’t explain, of course, the greater multitudes of people in similar situations who are not SPs and remain social. In other words, if this theory were true, and because life is often brutal and unfair, we would likely have long ago been so overwhelmed by sociopaths that humanity may never have progressed beyond the Bronze Age, if it had even got that far.
I think what the very people who support such deflections are shying away from is the recognition of how much they themselves might be doing personally to enable the malevolent actors littered throughout society. In my view, being wishy-washy about the harmful behaviours of others has the effect of encouraging further destructive acts. Going further, failing to curtail the bad behaviours of others, when warranted and possible, has the unfortunate result of not only allowing insanity to spread, but also making one complicit.
With the information regarding SPs and PTSs, the baseline claim is simple: evil exists; enabling exists; and pretending otherwise just hands not only the helm but the entire ship over to the worst actors in the room.
The practical question is how to spot the pattern early and respond in a proportionate way.
Why assess?
Whatever one thinks of the culture war framing, the practical question is: how does one spot evil in real, everyday situations? That’s what the material regarding SPs and PTSs is attempting to help with.
Such information could be particularly vital in regard to evaluating or electing our so-called ‘leaders’: SP/PTS data combined with the Tone Scale can be useful when figuring out the behaviours of those in power, or who would seek it, because SPs are drawn to power like flies to… sugar.
Civilisations decay much faster when antisocial personalities gain power and gather enablers to help them maintain it. Therefore, identifying SPs before they gain power is crucial for ensuring that society endures long enough to navigate already challenging waters and potentially reach the shores of a new Renaissance.
For that reason, the material available in Scientology on this subject is not only interesting but also important; quite possibly pressing.
Further assessment
Obviously, people rarely announce to the rest of us that they are an SP. Most SPs tend to be unconcerned about hurting others; a key trait of these individuals is their topsy-turvy understanding of their characters, which often leads them to believe they are completely in the right — and tell the rest of us this amazing fact over and over. Such certainty is truly great camouflage, especially to those who tend to ‘listen’ rather than look.
Part of the reason for this confusion of motives is that many SPs excel in one or more areas. They can be so skilled (or just attractive or charming) that we let them take power and cause chaos.
In chapter 33, I talked about mind levels. An individual can access the aesthetic mind while creating, but exist in the reactive mind when doing the regular, mundane things that make up most of life. Some of the most insane people I’ve met are fantastically good at making movies, for instance, but the residual costs of the damage they do when they are not working are so formidable that one wonders if their value to society is actually offset by these more creative endeavours. It’s an intriguing debate, anyhow.
Once, a friend of mine got close to a very successful entertainer. His talent was prodigious, but he was so malevolent and manipulative in day-to-day life it could fairly take your breath away. It was easy to hide, too, because the people he allowed near him — despite being cowed, constantly sick, and having bizarre ‘accidents’ — couldn’t reconcile that with the public image of such a soft-spoken, ‘sympathetic’, and talented being. Those armed with the information regarding SPs and PTSs, however, were able to spot him quickly. Eventually, more of the world saw it too, and his story ended pathetically the way these stories often do. My friend never really realised what she had been party to, and she died tragically some years later.
There’s another point. When they are familiar with the Tone Scale, individuals who are seriously stuck below 2.0 — a band often associated with psychopathy — tend to announce themselves as very high on it. Not just at 4.0, no, no, that’s for dweebs and losers, but rather at 20.0 (if they consider themselves busy types) or 30.0 (if they’re inclined to believe they have supernatural abilities). I have known quite a few real nut-jobs stuck at 1.1–1.5 to claim their tone level is 40.0, which makes sense because people in that band tend to be incredibly narcissistic.
The point is, despite the challenges of self-evaluation faced by individuals below 2.0, the free theta quotient allows them to experience a crisis of conscience, recognise their non-survival actions, and make positive changes as do those who are PTS. The SPs, though? Not so much.
This is why material on antisocial personalities in Scientology has been assembled, not only to help calm the chaos that is becoming more normal in society but, quite possibly, to save lives as well.
Abuse
Any system that transforms SP/PTS labels into forced shunning, threats, or organisational punishment is not ‘technology’; it is abuse.
One can reasonably assume that any SP with sufficient power within an institution and ‘armed’ with PTS/SP information will view anyone they dislike as an SP and may even attempt to expel them. They will tell the group that any contact with the alleged ‘SP’ will result in scrutiny, potentially compelling members to sever ties with their families and friends or face banishment. As for the PTS, they can, of course, be relied upon to accept the diagnosis and prescription each time.
In terms of identifying PTSs, it is possible for SPs (and PTSs agreeing) to interpret the most minor inconveniences, such as a paper-cut or a sniffle, as justification to label anyone as PTS, thereby placing them in a programme aimed at identifying the SP — which, naturally, they cannot do. Moreover, if they are indeed PTS, they will certainly not be permitted to discover the SP if the SP in question is in a position to oversee said programme. The correct principle is this: if someone is chronically ill, frequently has accidents, or experiences a great deal of ‘bad luck’, one could suggest that this individual should be evaluated for PTSness. If they improve when assisted and then deteriorate again (experiencing a rollercoaster of ups and downs), it is a reasonable assumption that they are, in fact, PTS — but it is still essential to verify.
Using information about PTSs and SPs, my father was attempting to safeguard his group as well as pass along some very useful information to the world. The thing is, if more people could think critically and readily accepted that evil and enablers are the problem that they are, and understood the phenomenon from the Scientology perspective, the world would be a much calmer place. However, if the ‘2 in 5’ rule-of-thumb is even roughly right, and as many as 2 in 5 people are either a PTS or an SP (as discussed in chapters 38 and 39), chances are that any attempt to address the problem is likely to encounter not only resistance, but also some abuse.
By the way, it’s a dangerous thing passing along any information of any kind at any time; of course it is, especially about anything hard to look at. However, there are indeed SPs that need to be identified and sequestered, as well as actual PTSs that require a remedy — the challenge lies in determining how to go about it.
Misuse
There are those who say that as long as the individual is subject to being human, they are PTS. The argument can even be extended: that as long as one is not fully awake (40.0), then one is PTS. I grew up around some people who held these views and puzzled over them for years. Then I understood; it’s another manifestation of the kind of absolutism taught by SPs and bought into by people stuck below 2.0. Such views have a use, though: as long as no one can get fully better, they’ll never be well enough to be sovereign (a fully functioning 1st dynamic). Ergo, ‘Come under my control, friend, and I’ll show you the way … forever, and ever, and ever.’ This tactic is the eternal bypass so beloved by the power-hungry (‘bypass’ is part of the Executive Danger formula, but it is not the everlasting condition an SP executive would have it be).
The reality is that these inanities often contain some truth; otherwise, they would lack traction. I won’t speak here about the levels above the human game (8.1 and up), but I do realise that as long as one cannot come and go from the human body at will, then one can be the direct effect of dire external forces. (It’s apparently possible that if an individual could sustain tones at 4.0 or above, then relinquishing one’s corporeal identity becomes that much simpler.)
Then there’s the hard fact that many systems we consider normal — money, government, food, the law, medicine, etc. — are so deeply compromised that only those in the ruling class can ever expect to remain immune (not that they do); the rest of us are rarely free enough to stabilise our lives sufficiently to truly understand the condition of being human (not that the elite know anything either). One could argue that as long as we are whipping out those credit cards and fixated on our screens, then we are all PTS, to one degree or another, much of the time.
I think this is where ethics comes in: is one failing to do what they know they should be doing? Conversely, is one doing something they know they should not do? This simple self-assessment can stabilise one’s whole life — and make it far easier to stay relatively immune to the rollercoastering society has come to accept as normal.
In Scientology 1.0.0, though, a person is not considered PTS as long as, or as soon as, they achieve steady and stable improvement, even when accounting for the occasional illness or mishap that resolves in a usual amount of time. The key word here is ‘occasional’. The relatively rare misfortunes in life should be planned for and dealt with accordingly as part of the Normal Operation formula, unless a person is in the middle of a Scientology process, in which case PTSness is checked for to ensure steady progress.
That bad things happen does not automatically make one a PTS — only their frequency, or their consistent failure to resolve appropriately.
Judgement
It’s important to evaluate those around us, understand their motives, and predict their likely future actions — so we know who to trust, who to avoid, and when to do our best to protect ourselves and others. If one is not judging and acting accordingly, then what to do? Just ‘take the knee’?
There are those who say, ‘Don’t judge’ or ‘Don’t diagnose’. If what they mean is ‘don’t automatically think poorly of others’, then that’s perfectly right. But if what they mean is ‘don’t look’, then all I have to say is that deciding to see something — or not see something — is itself a judgement.
For some, the only ‘safe’ thing might be to pretend SPs and PTSness don’t exist (and replace them with the safer ‘misunderstood’ and ‘unfortunate’ labels), then decide that anyone or any group that identifies them as such is evil — a rather judgemental way to go, no?
Actually, the only reliably safe thing to do is judge, but judge properly. If people are not judging the people in their lives, then they’re not discerning, and may the Good Lord help them, because they’re easy prey — if not today, then tomorrow. I’d say a workable rule is: don’t judge people until you have some facts about them — discernment based on evidence. The principle of being innocent until proven otherwise seems a reasonable approach.
As for diagnosing: if you’re not a professional, you’re not diagnosing. Professionals ‘diagnose’. The rest of us judge.
Treatment
It’s a fact that most people stuck below 2.0 can be helped with the right techniques, often quite easily. When help is given correctly, most people can quickly and rapidly improve their lives.
However, anyone might find it difficult to help when they’re dealing with either an SP or a PTS. The techniques for handling SPs and PTSs are different.
For an SP, the most effective approach I have found is to stop trying to help them altogether. Like PTSs, SPs may retaliate against you for your attempts to assist them. I’d say all you can do is walk away.
To help a PTS, one should identify who in their life is constantly invalidating them and blocking their recovery. After finding out who the SP is — and there may be more than one — see if they can walk away; use Scientology techniques to help them remove the SP from their lives or remove themselves from the SP’s influence until they get better and stabilise. When the person who was formerly PTS is doing better and is stable in life, they can, if they’d like to, review their former connection with the SP (who hasn’t changed, never changes, mind you) and, armed with the right technology, renew the relationship. Maybe.
This business of sequestering or walking away is called ‘disconnection’ in Scientology and is sometimes poorly understood and abused. Often, the PTS is so dependent on the SP in various ways (financially, logistically, emotionally) that the SP, leveraging this dependency, will recruit the PTS to attack anyone they suspect of trying to sever their relationship. On top of that, the PTS’s life may become so much more difficult — even ‘impossible’ — after losing the things they depended on, the PTS may ‘come after’ anyone attempting to help, even without any prompting from the SP.
For the professional: an auditor can quickly tell if a client isn’t improving (SP). A recommended boundary-setting rule is to tell them you’re sorry that this auditor/client relationship isn’t a good fit and (as is best practice in this framework) refund their money. The trick is not to be so foolish with money that one has spent it all already. A professional therapist should place all received payments into a separate account until the promised results are achieved and the client provides written, voluntary testimony of satisfaction.
If the client is PTS, it’s discovered eventually: they get better, relapse, get better again, relapse, and so on. Check for PTSness. If the assessment is accurate, ask the client who in their life is the SP. Occasionally, the SP is someone the client already knows they want to remove from their life or even harm, whether consciously or unconsciously, for self-preservation; in these cases, they can usually identify this person without hesitation. If the SP is less obvious to them, it may require some investigation to uncover their identity. There is a process that can identify the SP, and such a discovery can have Lazarus-like effects.
If the client does not improve and stabilise quickly, it might be wise to inform them that this professional relationship is not a good fit and, as a best practice, refund their money. Attempting to disconnect or sever ties between individuals can be a risky endeavour, as it can easily backfire on the practitioner (auditor), who may find themselves accused of attempting to ‘destroy relationships’. It’s not like there aren’t millions and millions of other people out there who can’t be helped in a fraction of the time it takes to help a PTS. One could provide them with a pamphlet about the SP/PTS phenomena, without naming the SP or SPs, and allow them to make their own decision. Perhaps even recommend an expert in abusive relationships (a person called an Ethics Specialist in Scientology).
Disconnection and association
‘Disconnection’ should mean voluntary boundary-setting. Any system that turns it into threats, forced shunning, or punishment-by-association is abuse. That said, here are some remarks:
One of the hallmarks of a sane society is something called the freedom of association. This is a magical factor that allows ever-spreading networks of cooperation that, when not interfered with, can enable enormous numbers of people to cooperate with one another. Freedom of association is part of the ‘invisible hand’ equation described by Adam Smith and allows millions upon millions of people to form networks that do not need any central authority to coordinate them (and any central authority trying to oversee the activities of groups much larger than perhaps a few thousand is doomed to failure).
For example, next time you stretch luxuriously after a good night’s sleep and meander into the bathroom to turn on a tap and brush your teeth — stop! Stop and think: where is that water coming from? How did the tap get there? Who made this brush I’m holding? What’s in my toothpaste, and how did all the ingredients get in this tube? This thought experiment was originally popularised by Leonard Read in his 1958 essay ‘I, Pencil’. If you take a moment to consider every single person involved in creating these simple items, you will not only be able to calculate a total that represents a majority of the world’s current population, but also acknowledge all the individuals who contributed to their development throughout history. This includes billions of people who are currently living, and billions more who are not.
It’s a staggering proposition, especially considering that you were just trying to brush your teeth at six o’clock in the morning (maybe you should have poured your first cup of coffee first). Then: where did this mug come from? Who grew and roasted these beans …
None of this could have happened if people were forced to associate or, conversely, forced to disassociate. Minimal interference regarding whom people should associate with is one of the drivers of the boons of our affluent world. When authorities excessively interfere with the freedom of association, things tend to become overly complicated and may even go awry.
Both the freedom to choose who one associates with and the freedom not to associate are kind of a sacred thing, similar to ethics; it just can’t be enforced, and if it is, it indicates either your SP or PTS.
In short, this is why one doesn’t mess with who should be in communion with or communicating with. If SPs and PTSs want to dance with one another, then, past informing the PTS of the SP/PTS dynamic, don’t interfere. After offering education, it’s nobody’s business but theirs. Disconnection must be voluntary, informed, and non-coercive, and any organisational enforcement should be considered illegitimate.
As for any group or institution, they too have the right of association. As long as any organisation has an instrument whereby members, or ex-members, can seek redress for any justice action perceived as unjust and receive a fair hearing, there should be no problem.
Any group might accept and reject members, but shouldn’t regulate their associations. Accept and reject members, but don’t regulate their associations. If a member chooses to maintain an association that results in poor performance, then fire or them, or ‘expel’ them, or get rid of them on grounds of poor performance, not because they’re hanging out with the ‘wrong people’.
Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard 