HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Exec Sec Hats
HCO Area Sec Hat
Section 5 Hats
ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY(Continued)
(This PL augments HCO PL 15 Feb. 66, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY.3)
When you hold up an image of freedom, all those who oppress freedom tend to attack. Therefore attacks, on whatever grounds, are inevitable. Holding up a freedom image is however the only successful forward action even though it gets attacked.
It remains then to take the handling of attacks off emergency, predict them and handle them by proper tactics and administrative machinery.
The first group of actions have not been effective in handling attacks: (The G stands for Group, the following are 3 different Groups of actions):
G.1.1 Hiring expensive outside professional firms;
G.1.2. Writing Scientologists to write their representatives in government;
G.1.3. Advertising the attack to the Scientology “field”;
G. 1.4. Being carefully legal in our utterances.
This second group of actions has been of some small use in deterring attacks:
G.2.1. Direct letters from the org to a Congress or Parliament (ruined the US Siberia Bill4 );
G.2.2. Circulating pamphlets about the attack (got rid of Wearne5 out of the Enquiry);
G.2.3. Suits against sources of libel and slander.
The third group of actions have been positive in stopping attacks:
G.3.1. 1. Investigating noisily the attackers;
G.3.2. Not being guilty of anything;
G.3.3. Having our corporate status in excellent condition;
G.3.4. Having our tax returns and books accurate and punctual;
G.3.5. Getting waivers from all people we sign up;
G.3.6. Refunding money to dissatisfied people;
G.3.7. Having our own professionals firmly on staff (but not halfway on staff);
G.3.8. Going on advertising total freedom;
G.3.9. Surviving and remaining solvent by stepping up our own usual activities;
G.3.10. My catching the dropped balls goofed by others and hired professionals;
G.3. 11. Being religious in nature and corporate status.
As you read over the above you should be able to see where our funds should be placed.
In the first group you can see large possible outlays to professional firms, attorneys, accountants. This is money utterly wasted. They flop and we have to do it all ourselves anyway. The fantastic cash cost of mailings to Scientologists was evident in DC where it ate up all their “freedom funds”. And by advertising the attack to Scientologists we only frighten them away from the org and lose our income as well. So we must never do these three things.
The second group above are not very costly and constitute a proper line of defense and should be undertaken. But they must not be counted on to do more than impede an attack. They will never stop it cold. This second group is like an infantry defensive action. It is necessary to oppose the enemy but just opposing will not finally win the fight. That is done only by taking enemy territory.
The third group contains the real area for the outlay of funds and stress of planning. This group has an excellent history and has ended off a great many attacks beginning in 1950. Therefore one should take care not to leave any of these out whenever an attack is mounted on us.
It is a curious phenomenon that the action of investigation alone is head and shoulders above all other actions.
This is most like Scientology processing, oddly enough, where the practitioner seeks the hidden points in a case.
As soon as they are found the case tends to recover, regardless of anything else done.
Groups that attack us are to say the least not sane. According to our technology this means they have hidden areas and disreputable facts about them.
As soon as we begin to look for these, some of the insanity dissipates.
It is greatly in our favor that we are only attacked by mad groups as people in that condition (1) invariably choose the wrong target and (2) have no follow-through. Thus they are not hard to defeat providing one (A) looks for their hidden crimes and (B) is irreproachable in his conduct himself.
We discovered this more or less by accident. The basic discovery was that the interrogation of a policeman produces a confusion and an introversion; it is his job to interrogate—so you reverse the flow, mix up his “hat” so he doesn’t know who is which, and you reach for his own doubts.
These people who attack have secrets. And hidden crimes. They are afraid. There is no doubt in their minds as to our validity or they wouldn’t attack so hard at such cost. Society tolerates far worse than we are. So they really believe in us. This hampers their execution of orders—their henchmen really don’t share the enthusiasm for the attack for after a bit of investigation it becomes obvious to these henchmen that the attack smells. This impedes follow-through.
And when we investigate, all this recoils on the attacker. He withdraws too hurriedly to be orderly.
An attacker is like a housewife who tells City Hall how terribly her neighbors keep house. But when you open her door, the dishpans and dirty diapers fall out on the porch.
All you have to do in lots of cases is just say you are going to rattle their door knob and they collapse.
I can count several heavy attacks which folded up by our noisily beginning an investigation of the attacker.
Our past liability in this was that we depended on outside firms, enquiry agencies, etc. And these have too many clients and we have too little control of their direction. The answer is to organize and maintain our own proper corps for this action.
The other items in the third group are self explanatory and if any of these are missing then we will be less successful.
For years and years I have had this “hat” of attack handling. In January 1963 I took a calculated risk and devoted my time to research. I knew we had better get all our answers and complete our technology. But in doing so I could give only a small amount of time to the US and Australian attacks. DC followed orders and we got out of the US morass. Australia didn’t and sank. But it became plain to me that we had to set up a part of our orgs to handle this “hat” as obviously I can’t be there forever. So even #10 in the third group— my catching dropped balls goofed by others and hired professionals—will have to have help.6
To hold up to man an image of spiritual freedom is adventurous. Man is suppressed. And those who oppress him have a peculiar frame of reference. This is:
1. If anyone became free or powerful, a suppressive believes he would promptly be slaughtered. He never realizes that it is the suppression that gets him knocked out, not the character of man.
2. If any advance were made that would improve man, then all old commercial interests with their answers, would become worthless. It never occurs to such to advance with the times.
3. They have dirty houses.
Thus, in meeting any attack we must:
A. Recognize an attack in time to act;
B. Get Group 3 above in full action with an emphasis on investigation;
C. Get Group 2 in action as needful for defense.
Thus we have LOOK, INVESTIGATE, DEFEND as the short formula. And all the while hold up an image of total freedom and have ourselves clean hands.
L. Ron Hubbard
Hubbard, L. R. (1966, 18 February). Attacks on Scientology (Continued). (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter). The Organization Executive Course Executive Division (1991 ed., Vol. 7, pp. 1026-1029). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
- Document studied on Confidential GO Intelligence Course. PDF format. ↩
- Document studied on DSA Investigations Officer Full Hat. PDF format ↩
- See HCOPL: Attacks on Scientology ↩
- 1991 ed., editor’s note: “Siberia Bill: a bill proposed in the US Congress in the mid 60s which would have made it possible for government officials in the US to simply pick up anyone on the street and send him to Alaska to be given “mental treatment”; its purpose was to use “mental health” practices to remove political dissenters. Called the “Siberia” bill after the Russian practice of sending political dissenters to Siberia, a remote, desolate region of the USSR.” ↩
- 1991 ed., editor’s note: “Wearne: Phillip Wearne, instigator of the Melbourne Enquiry in the early 60s. He later confessed and fully documented his lies and guilt in connection with the Australian attacks on Scientology. Died in 1970.” ↩
- 1974 ed.: “So even #10 in the third group—my handling counterpropaganda—will have to have help.” ↩