OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS
1 September 2006
OSA Network Order No. 11
All Execs & Staff
PURPOSE OF DEPARTMENT 20
(Written by LRH on 26 January 1975.)
There has not been an official issue on the purpose of Department 20.
It is time to upgrade the purpose and spearhead with it.
The decline of civilization is very apparent. This goes with inflation, rise in crime and drugs and ideological changes occurring.
It is fairly certain that in due course there will be further ideological changes.
In a movement such as ours, which is apolitical, meaning not political and dedicated to no sides, changes in government philosophy can be dangerous unless worked out in advance.
We must have an answer to this scene.
It should not matter to us what ism comes into power.
Therefore, the purpose must take this into account.
The new purpose is:
ESTABLISHING THE INDISPENSABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY
This is no more than the truth.
I have begun a survey of a new type to assist this.
Several projects are in view with regard to it including handling all the crime and drugs in a whole country.
The projects of Social Reform and Social Betterment aim in this direction.
PR actions are easily grooved over in this direction.
For instance, the repeating question of why an indispensable public activity is being hit holds those who hit it in question.
We have to move in the direction of repeating something so often it is repeated.
This new purpose does that.
It follows that orgs must likewise have their ethics and tech in so that they are indispensable in the community.
The Volunteer Ministers Program coming up can fit into this.
In other words we can groove anything we are already doing into this channel.
No other movement can handle psychosomatics, drugs, education, crime, insanity and a long list of social ills.
If anything is going to come out of the rubble of this civilization, we will have to do it. Nobody else will.
If the action is done right, then any political force seeking in the future to take over would look insane to the public if they sought to count us out.
This will get us through these changing times.
If each Bureau applies this to its work, even by just injecting it into each argument and action, the fact will materialize in the real world that Scientology is indispensable.
Each Bureau is to do this one in clay so as to see how it will fit in to their actions.
L. RON HUBBARD
THE CAUSE OF CRIME
They say poverty makes crime. They say if one improved education there would be less crime. They say if one cured the lot of the underprivileged one would have solved crime.
All these “remedies” have proven blatantly false.
In very poor countries there is little crime. In “improving” education, it was tailored to “social reform,” not teaching skills. And it is a total failure. The fact that rewarding the underprivileged has simply wrecked schools and neighborhoods and cost billions is missing.
So who is “they”? The psychologist and psychiatrist, of course. These were their crackpot remedies for crime. And it’s wrecked a civilization.
So what IS the cause of crime? The treatment, of course! Electric shocks, behavior modification, abuse of the soul. These are the causes of crime. There would be no criminals at all if the psychs had not begun to oppress beings into vengeance against society.
There’s only one remedy for crime—get rid of the psychs! They are causing it!
Ah yes, it’s true on cases and cases of research on criminals. And what’s it all go back to? The psychs!
Their brutality and heartlessness is renowned.
The data is rolling in. Any more you pick up off a criminal or anyone, send it in.
On crime we have an epidemic running on this planet. The wrong causes psychs assign for crime plus their own “treatments” make them a deadly virus.
The psychs should not be let to get away with “treatments” which amount to criminal acts, mayhem and murder. They are not above the law. In fact, there are no laws at all which protect them, for what sane society would sanction crimes against its citizens even as “science”? They should be handled like any other criminals. They are at best dramatizing psychotics and dangerous, but more dangerous to society at large than the psychotics they keep in their offices and loony bins because they lie and are treacherous. Why the government funds them I do not know. They are the last ones that should be let loose to handle children.
L. RON HUBBARD
Hubbard, L. R. (1982, 6 May). The Cause of Crime. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology. (1991 ed., Vol. XII, p. 407). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
Something I’ve just discovered. That in view of the fact that they have criminal backgrounds or in view of the fact that investigation will reveal this, our investigation should therefore go forward on the discovery of crime.
In a case of entheta1 or enturbulation, that we should go forward on this matter to the discovery of a crime as a first action. That we should act on this crime, not use it as blackmail or make some illegal use of it, but just as a public body and reform organization act on this crime, and then when it is acted upon — then we sue. This is about as malicious and vicious perhaps as one could get but then you are suing a discredited source and this would become hallmarked after a while.
They’d say, “The Scientologists must have done that because first he was jailed and then he was sued.”
And so that you could lead to an expectancy that if somebody was very ambitious in spreading malicious gossip and rumour against Scientology or its principles, that they would be investigated with an effort to discover a criminal act; that the organization would then act to have them incarcerated and at that time, when they are discredited in this line, they would then be sued for libel and slander.
Now I have had to step up the bargaining of Ethics on the public front — that is to say the duress that we apply because we obviously aren’t applying quite enough pressure to cause the people’s banks to behave while we get on with our job.
Now with Ethics lines you see, you’ve got to apply just enough restraint — you don’t ever apply too much restraint — and you don’t apply too little: you’ve got to apply enough restraint.
Well obviously we have Ethics and we are putting it in a public front — we aren’t putting it in with enough velocity. Now, if we expect to get technology in in the world we must then, first, get in Ethics.
Now Ethics springs up as enturbulence against Scientology — when Ethics comes up with enturbulence against Scientology it makes it impossible for us to get on with the job.
Now this is regardless of any operation which comes up, OT Base or any operation of this kind. It’s obvious to me, after my study of four months, that we will have to get in Ethics on a broad social level before we can ever get in technology because these people are just too crazy and it’s like trying to help a wounded buffalo out of a wallow and that is not the same activity.
We say to this fellow, “You’ve got a lot of worries,” and “You have a lot of family trouble,” and that sort of thing.
“Well, we can make you more clever and if you were a bit more clever you could handle your problems.”
And we say this and instantly we get gored. So it’s a case in point.
So this, I’m officially telling you that this is the new policy; it’s on a broad social basis. We concentrate on getting in Ethics and then we follow that up with tech. And that is the policy. And then where possible — where we have discovered a great deal of entheta coming back at us, then we intend to get this handled by investigating it back to a criminal act by the person.
A criminal act is disassociated from the entheta of course but that’s what they are trying to defend or something and we get that and then we put on the pressure publicly to have that person prosecuted for that particular act and then when they have been prosecuted — or are being prosecuted — or are just beautifully discredited at that particular moment, then we serve them with a summons [?] law and order, assault and battery or whatever they did is not of interest to us except to discredit them and then we serve that with a suit for libel or slander.