OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS
1 September 2006
OSA Network Order No. 51
All Execs & Staff
SUPERIOR ORGANIZATION AND TECHNOLOGY
(Excerpted from a briefing of 21 March 1970.)
A small organization with good technology, which is organized well and which operates with good intelligence, can hold its own against a tremendous amount of huge roaring monsters. That is proven by Sweden.
Sweden has good industrial technology, it is a fantastically well-organized country internally and it has a superlative, superb intelligence service. That is how Sweden has stayed alive and how it stayed out of the World Wars and how it can live cheek by jowl with Russia and go right on being Sweden. That’s how they do it. But remember, it takes a superlatively well-organized organization. It has to be very well-organized, it has to have a superior technology and it has to have superb intelligence.
Part of the functions of intelligence is briefing. It is merely the collection of observations, their summarization and their dissemination to the group.
Parallel to intelligence activities is PR. And PR is a powerful force, but the more powerful force is intelligence. What you can do with PR when you have the intelligence is fantastic. To that, if we were to add the tool of PR and we were to use what existed on our intelligence lines, we would be kingpin.
L. RON HUBBARD
OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS
1 September 2006
OSA Network Order No. 771
(Taken from a despatch of 23 May 1982.)
Your PR sphere of influence is moving global.
The US tends to be isolationist and concentration usually is confined to the US. But properties are now moving more than ever into “foreign” lands. The Way to Happiness and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and others are (and will increasingly be) reaching new publics.
I do not think any PR plans exist for UK, DK, Germany, Italy, Japan or China to name a few. A vacuum of info in such lands is likely to be filled by intelligence services.
Each of these lands is a different public. Each needs positioning, etc.
L. RON HUBBARD
OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS
31 October 1987
OSA Network Order No. 21
REPUTATION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND LRH
(Originally written on 22 July 1976.)
In some recent communications on lines it has been seen that some PRs are of the opinion that Scientology and LRH are in some disrepute.
This issue is written to properly orient that opinion and also possibly de-PTS some PRs.
By the nature of his work the PR comes into contact with the writings of and the questions of the front line suppressives on the planet—the media, the guiders of the media, the executive branches of governments and their officials.
What the public thinks and what these individuals think are entirely separate things.
General surveys show that people do not trust or believe what they read in the papers. Other surveys show the executive branches of government to be held in the most thundering contempt.
To tune your statements and issues intended for the publics of Scientology to what some media weirdo or government psycho is going to say or think is to admit defeat in the dissemination of Scientology, to express personal overwhelm and actually to further a 26 year studied campaign by the bad hats to squash one of the brightest hopes for mankind.
The public is not looking for statements that we are “harmless and innocent and kind of like psychologists or Christian Scientists but kind of different you know.” The public is looking for something that will take them out of the swamp and spin of their lives and the morass of a degenerating society. To moderate your statements away from the fact that we can do that and become defensive and mild is to lose the game.
This war is actually a war of thought and utterances. It is won with the best think and the best speak.
The R in PR has to also stand for Reality.
When you degrade your statements about Scientology into a pale defense, you are out-R. In fact you are being a bald-faced liar.
If you have any doubts about what Scientology can do, and if you think its results are all bad even in some tiny mission or org, you should get in touch with the production lines and actually talk to some people about what Scientology has just done for them. It isn’t slight. There is no other agency on Earth that could have done that for them.
Sure, tech gets its failures. You may hear about those. But the percent is slight. The psychologist and psychiatrist get nearly 100% failed case reports—as well as suicides, murders and deaths. And as to our failures, few as they are, why is it so many freeloaders actually pay their debt? And why is it the leading opponent in Canada self-audits and gets gains? These are staff failures, organization failures—they are not tech failures and for sure they are not my failures if you saw how hard I work to keep tech in and how many I recover.
But on reporters—have you ever seen one write anything nice about ANYBODY? Really glowing nice? Look at the papers and see what they write about other people. Most of them are lies and nearly all of it is entheta.
And as for the government—any government today—have you ever seen it going out of its way to be decent or to make people happy?
You can grind away with the media and the officials and after a while you think Scientology isn’t respected in the world and that everyone thinks Hubbard is a bum.
And by taking such an attitude you can unwittingly further it.
I’m reminded of a tough old marine sergeant, sour of the world, posted at the Apollo in Corfu by his SP officers (who let their men starve in rat-infested transports) to forbid any marine or sailor from coming aboard the Apollo. The officers (acting on government orders) had briefed their men to stay away and the men hadn’t—they wanted to help paint a building we had and to talk about Scientology. The old sergeant had his orders and being a marine he carried them out and didn’t let his patrol let anybody from those navy ships aboard. But when asked by an Apollo crew member if he’d heard of Hubbard the sergeant said, “Hubbard? He’s a good man. Yes, I’ve heard about L. Ron Hubbard.”
So don’t get conned into carrying an enemy line.
Defensive PR may be necessary in a flap. But start specializing in offensive PR and to hell with whether the SPs consider it offensive to them—since it is!
Say what Scientology really is.
And if you have any doubts about what I am and what I do, then find out for yourself.
It will be your theta that pushes them and their entheta into the common grave of historical oblivion. WE are the future. Not them. Always play it on the bright and winning side. That’s us. And me.
L. RON HUBBARD
8-C AND CIRCUITS1
Don’t go being an effect of the public. Every once in a while you see some auditor half starved to death. He gets hold of a pc whose fee he needs, so starts doing anything he can to get that fee and makes himself an effect. It’s quite remarkable, but he generally winds up not getting it. That’s because he is too much the effect of the fee. He then has to be the effect of the pc to such a degree that he has to put up with anything, and he then finally abandons 8-C and really doesn’t handle the problems of the pc. All these things go together in a package.
You would be amazed how many restaurants you could walk into, find people sitting by themselves, sit down across from them and start a session. You would be just amazed how many people you could do that to without a preliminary or anything. I’ve seldom been successful in getting Scientologists (except those doing professional auditor training levels) to go out and just grab people off the street. It’s quite remarkable how often this works, if you, yourself, have a totally brave attitude toward it.
People respond to 8-C. All the social machinery people have actually breaks down in the face of direct intention. But the thing that causes difficulty in moving people along this line of methodology has a great deal to do with the notion of privacy—that a reactive mind has a right to “privacy.” You very definitely have to be willing to invade its “privacy.” When you
 8-C: the abbreviation of the name of a Scientology process called Routine 8 Control. It is also used to mean good control. Thus if one is “8-Cing” a person he is said to be exerting good control over him.
 circuit(s): a part of an individual’s bank that behaves as though it were someone or something separate from him and that either talks to him or goes into action of its own accord, and may even, if severe enough, take control of him while it operates. A tune that keeps going around in someone’s head is an example of a circuit.
 methodology: a system of methods and procedures.
 reactive mind: a portion of a person’s mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control, and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. The reactive mind is where engrams are stored. Also called reactive bank or engramic bank or bank.
 invade: break into; intrude upon.
realize that the highest point of aberration on the third dynamic was the first time you decided not to invade somebody’s privacy and that nearly everything you’ve suffered from since was a determination not to invade somebody’s privacy, you will see at once where this connects on 8-Cing somebody into a service zone.
If you have a hard time invading people’s “privacy,” you’ll have a hard time 8-Cing them into a Book One co-audit or any other Div 6 course, because you think the reactive mind has rights. No! It does not have any rights. What has rights? That machinery? Those dramatizations? Those computing circuits? Those things have rights? The next thing you know we’ll have laws out saying reactive minds have a perfect right to kill everybody.
It began when you first decided that somebody was entitled to privacy— another thetan. There he was, over there, and you decided he was entitled to the privacy of his own thoughts. It was perfectly all right to grant him beingness. But to get on this kick that he was the only one who could invade that particular sphere and spatial area and that you mustn’t, of course wound you up in the mechanics of mechanical communication and started you straight into the overt act-motivator mechanism. It’s just as fast and as simple as that.
You said, “Well, there’s Joe. I mustn’t invade Joe’s privacy and find out what he has over there. I’ll stay over here and I will talk to him and when I say something to him then he says something to me, and then he says something to me and then I say something to him. Then if he does something to me then I do something to him.” This is where it got to and what happened.
So I would thoroughly recommend that anybody having anything to do with the Public Divisions should have a clean conscience and be cured of guilt. Because otherwise the person will walk in and say, “What is this? I’ve heard something about this.” And the person with a guilty conscience will say, “Well, we’re not doing very much, you know. I mean, we’re not
 third dynamic: the urge or effort of an individual to survive as a member of a group, or through a group, whether civil, political, racial or just a number of individuals who compose a group, such as a community, a state, a nation, a social lodge, friends, companies, or, in short, any group. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be part of the third dynamic.
 Div 6 (Division 6): Division 6 of a Scientology organization has public contact work, public advertising, Field Staff Members, public book sales, contacts with missions, basic public courses, etc., all of which are actions meant to reach the broad public. Div 6 looks outward into society. The organization’s main thrust into the world outside itself is Division 6.
 dramatization(s): the duplication or acting out of an engramic content, entire or in part, by an aberree in his present time environment. A person in an irrational rage would be an example of a dramatization.
 spatial: adj: existing in space. (Also spelled spacial.)
 overt act-motivator mechanism: a system used by a person to lessen the effects of his having committed an overt act and to make it all right for him to commit more. It works like this: The person commits an overt act. He then believes he has got to have a motivator (an aggressive or destructive act against himself, done by another) or he believes he has had a motivator. Motivators are then likely to be used by the person to justify his committing further overt acts. Motivators are called motivators for this reason—they motivate (push or prompt into action) a new overt act.
trying to do very much. You can come in if you want to. But it’s all right. We’ll be happy to … do you want to know something about it? Well, all right.”
There’s a symptom amongst pcs: when they no longer care whether the auditor talks about their case or not, they’ve kind of made it. This is a little index I use and I use it quite frequently. When I find somebody getting desperate and caring desperately whether or not his case is mentioned, I know the boy hasn’t made it yet. I don’t know anything cruel about him; I just know he hasn’t made it yet, that’s all. Because he still has a withhold-reach mechanism which is all frozen up into a thing called secrecy. And when he continues on with auditing and has that undone, he’ll then find out that the facts he has always considered so sordid aren’t very sordid, now that he doesn’t consider them sordid. It’s quite remarkable. In the general add-up of a case, that is about its make-break point.
We now can move people in faster than we used to be able to, so it doesn’t take so long to establish. But the basic thing is that an individual today, as he walks in off the street, is not in communication. He is more or less being a total effect; he is trying not to be affected by anything. He is very, very hopeful there will be no kind of an effect; he wants some sort of a thing that will do something, but he doesn’t want to do anything.
If you’re going to have trouble 8-Cing this person, then you had better go do some Upper Indoc. There’s no difficulty in 8-Cing this person: circuits never talk back until you talk to them; that’s something to remember in handling people. If you were to ignore the person and talk to the circuit, with the being sort of sitting there as a spectator, more or less relaying what the circuit said, that validated circuit would get stronger and bigger and more powerful. The circuit would say more and more “won’t” and “can’t,” until finally you’d hardly have anybody there at all. So when somebody walked in, if you were to validate their circuits and objections and get into it, you would be talking to circuits, not people. And the more you talked to those circuits, the more trouble you would get into.
Instead, politely and courteously 8-C the situation straight through. Never validate circuits.
As soon as you move a person a short distance into Scientology, only very bad mistakes could boost him out of it. But you would have to make a lot of bad mistakes. The main thing to do is not make those mistakes. Go ahead, render excellent service, just do it straight, directly and move him on up the line. Now, it’s just as important to have individual service that he can get some place in the world—like HGC auditing in Div 4— as it was to get him onto a Div 6 course in the first place. You don’t want
 sordid: base, low, dishonorable, etc.
 Upper Indoc: a shortened version of Upper Indoctrination Training Routines. Indoctrinate means to instruct or teach. The Upper Indocs are Training Routines 6 to 9 which teach the student to maintain a high level of control in any circumstance. They are taught on the Hubbard Qualified Scientologist (HQS) Course.
him stopping halfway up the line. Therefore, that problem would have to be solved.
But all of these problems are solved only with the cooperation of all Scientologists, by going in a particular desirable direction, resolving the difficulties with good communication, and resolving those difficulties on an optimum solution basis. Doing that sort of thing we can make it.
Exactly how do you get the chance to sit down and give enough auditing commands to a pc, or get somebody to give enough auditing commands to a pc, to make Clears? How do you do that? Well, you do that by 8-Cing people through various precise steps, with good administration, straight on up to the goal. If you neglect this methodology of how you get them in and get them graduated up along the line, you will never get the chance to supervise them being given commands nor the chance to give them commands yourself, enough to make them Clear. And the whole project of clearing the planet would break down at once, not because of technology, not because of your desires, not because of the pc’s desires, but simply because the methodology did not exist to permit him to arrive at the goal he desired to arrive at.
I hope we won’t make that mistake.
 Clear: noun: a thetan cleared of enforced and unwanted behavior patterns and discomforts. A Clear is a being who no longer has his own reactive mind.
- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Dissemination Course (Bridge Publications, Inc. 1986). ↩
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
SUPPRESSIVE PERSONS, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF
It is interesting in the detection of suppressive persons that they use “policy” to prevent purpose.
In one org which went into a serious decline a suppressive person was in a high position.
Every time org personnel returned from Saint Hill and proposed that the org get going, they were told by this SP that their proposals were “against policy.”
Not one of these people, hearing this, ever alerted to a glaring fact. The SP in this case was renowned for never being able to pass a bulletin, tape or policy letter!
So how would that person have known WHAT was against policy for that person NEVER was known to pass a hat check!
So that person’s statement that “It’s against policy” was obviously false since the person was incapable of passing hat checks or bulletins and wouldn’t ever have known what any policy was, for or against anything.
Thus, we see one of the characteristics of an SP is:
1. THE NEGATION OF POLICY WITHOUT KNOWING IT AND THE USE OF “POLICY” TO PREVENT SUCCESS IN SCIENTOLOGY IS THE PRIMARY TOOL OF THE SP AGAINST ORGS.
Dissemination is a prime target of the SP.
Magazines ordinarily have half a dozen SPs on their lines. These people write in and complain about ads. If you don’t watch it, these half dozen become “everybody” and the mag is beaten down into not advertising.
“Soft sell” is another recommendation of the SP.
And “build it quietly” and “get only decent people” are all part of this.
When somebody is demanding less reach, that person is an SP.
Therefore, we have another characteristic:
2. SPs RECOMMEND INEFFECTIVE DISSEMINATION AND FIND FAULT WITH ANY BEING DONE.
A suppressive will try to sell off the property or buildings of an org, and in one case tried to give them away when temporarily in charge.
3. A SUPPRESSIVE WILL TRY TO GET RID OF AN ORG.
Good staff members are a prime target for SPs. In one org where an SP got a foothold, 60% of the staff was gotten rid of and the org almost crashed.
They do it by making people too dissatisfied to produce and so make it impossible for the org to earn.
4. AN SP WILL SEEK TO UPSET AND GET RID OF THE BEST STAFF MEMBERS.
Bad news, particularly if false, is the only comm line of the SP.
The executive who is getting bad news as a steady diet on his lines has SPs about.
5. ENTHETA IS THE SOLE STOCK IN TRADE OF THE SP.
The triumph an SP feels in not getting rid of things the auditor has tried to ease is quite malevolent.
6. AN SP IS SATISFIED WITH AUDITING ONLY WHEN HE GETS WORSE.
7. SPs are happy when their pcs get worse and sad when their pcs get betters.
8. AN SP IN AN EXAMINER POST WILL ONLY DECLARE RELEASED THE BAD RESULT CASES AND WILL NOT PASS ACTUAL RELEASES BUT WILL ARC BREAK THEM.
9. Cover invalidation is the level of an SP’s social intercourse.
An SP can only restimulate another; he has no power of his own.
10. An SP deals only in restimulation, never easing or erasing.
11. The persons around an SP get so restimulated they can’t detect the real SP.
The whole rationale of the SP is built on the belief that if anyone got better, the SP would be for it as the others could overcome him then.
He is fighting a battle he once fought and never stopped fighting. He is in an incident. Present time people are mistaken by him for past, long-gone enemies.
Therefore, he never really knows what he is fighting in present time, so just fights.
12. The SP is sure everyone is against him personally and if others became more powerful they would dispose of him.
The SP usually commits continuing overts. These are hidden.
I have had two or three SPs blow up and shout or snarl at me. When I investigated, I found, in these cases, they were committing daily crimes of some magnitude.
13. An SP commits hidden overts continuously.
14. Back of a crime you will find SP characteristics.
15. Because an SP uses generalities in his speech “everybody,” “they,” etc., the SP is hard to detect.
SPs have an experiential track that is poor. SPs know how to needle and commit overts and hold others back.
When released, the SP has so little decent background experience that he or she has a very hard time.
16. Releasing an SP does not make a worthwhile person. It only makes a person who can now learn to get along in life.
“A cleared cannibal is a cleared cannibal.”
SPs don’t get case gains. Sometimes they pretend them. They are held back by their continuing overts. If we were found by them to be decent, their past conduct would swell up and engulf them.
They are in a continual PTP of their fight with mankind. And they follow the rule that pcs with PTPs get no case gains.
Real SPs comprise about 2½ percent of the population. By restimulating others, they make another 17½ percent into potential trouble sources. Therefore, about 20 percent of the population is Ethics type.
We must not allow this 20 percent to prevent the 80 percent from crossing the Bridge.
We are no enemy of the SP. But he can’t have friends, can he?
So we handle the SP and his PTSes and carry on with our job.
L. RON HUBBARD