Notes
- Document studied on Confidential GO Intelligence Course. PDF format. ↩
enemy
Write up: PRO Area Control
HCOPL: Confidential Enemy PRO’s
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, SussexHCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 19691; 2
Issue III
Cen O Con
Guardians Offices
Intelligence
PROsConfidential
ENEMY PROs
You will find, in looking over press clipping that certain person[s] called by the press to give an anti-Scn opinion give a deft and expert twist to their answers SO AS TO RE-EXPRESS THEIR CURRENT PARTY LINE.
These are non-sequitur responses, given to further their campaign.
The Communist planted spokesmen also have this peculiar trick. It is a good PRO trick. It is the use of the non-sequitur to forward current party line.
We could also use this trick. Called on for an opinion you bend your remark to forward our attack line.
The wog world does not have good TRs. They do not answer the quest[ions.] A PRO turns it into an attack that forward the party line.
If you see this in a news cutting you KNOW YOU HAVE IN THAT PERSON A FULLY TRAINED KEY SPOKESMAN. He is an expert. He gets his orders.
Did you ever notice that on major events like an assassination the press promptly over the world gets certain persons to comment. These have a coordinated response that follow and forward some PRO campaign. When Kennedy was killed over the world a dozen widely scattered figures all said “It was the Rightest element _____”. This was a planned response. Twenty-four hours later they found a Communist had done it. Party line over the world then bec[ame] “We don’t know who really did it.” If you went back to that first day and looked up who these “It was Rightests” spokesmen you would have a network in view that is skilled and determined to forward party line and who get their orders. If you ran each name back you would find the organization they have in common.
This is only given as an example.
It is happening to us.
So look for the very expert PRO response, the non-sequitur curve. These are the KEY figures who get their orders what to say, what to push.
These men are actually top PRO-intelligence operatives.
The press know who to call from its files and so you also know who sends a flood of stuff to the press.
These people have about the same level of safety of any enemy agent. But they brass it out some way.
-2-
The numbers of people with whom one is dealing is very small. The enemy is not numerous. He is trying to crystallize public opinion his way. He can be stopped.
The point at which he is exposed is his key trained response spokesman.
L. RON HUBBARD
FounderLRH: bw
Copyright (c) 1969
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Notes
- Document studied on Confidential GO Intelligence Course. (Incomplete) PDF format. ↩
- Document studied on DSA Investigations Officer Full Hat. (Complete) PDF format. ↩
HCOPL: Targets, Defense
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, SussexHCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY, 19691; 2
Cen O Con
Guardians Offices
Intelligence
PROIssue IV
Confidential
TARGETS, DEFENSE
It is quite obvious that Scientology has to maintain a defense perimeter. In 19 years of continual attacks it is obvious that Dianetics then Scientology must have lain across some concerted plan by another older group to do something else.
To analyze what the others intended, it is only necessary to review what Dianetics and Scientology intended to do and assume the reverse.
Experience has shown that defense is only effective when one sorties or attacks.
When we did not give a lot of time and energy and funds to knocking out real enemies we came close to losing the lot.
The errors we have made have been
1. Defending only.
2. Defending on Scn ground.
3. Being reasonable and assigning mild motives to the enemy.
4. Failing to attack early and hard.
5. Undervaluing the broad social value of Scn.
6. Individuating from other similar organizations.
7. Not learning enemy tactics and using and bettering them.
8. Failing to heavily contest for public opinion and public media.
9. Failing to identify the enemy early and hit him hard.
A. Our best defense is that we are sincere, that we are effective and that we commit no crimes.
B. Our next best defense line was being sure the public knew we were a Church.
C. Our next best was being quick and able and using very fast comm lines.
We must not repeat the errors of 1 to 9.
And we must reinforce A, B and C.
TARGETS
The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:
T1. Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.
T2. Taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media.
T3. Taking over the control or allegiance of key political figures.
T4. Taking over the control or allegiance of those who monitor international finance and shifting them to a less precarious finance standard.
T5. Generally revitalizing the societies in which we are operating.
T6. Winning overwhelming public support.
T7. Use all other similar groups as allies.
These, of course, are very long range targets. But it is what must be done to continue the longevity of our organizations.
Our only justification for doing these things is that Scientology is the only game where everyone wins.
The names and connections, at this time, of the bitterly opposing enemy are:
1. Psychiatry and psychology (not medicine).
2. The heads of news media who are also directors of psychiatric front groups.
3. A few key political figures in the fields of “mental health” and education.
4. A decline of monetary stability caused by the current planning of bankers who are also directors of psychiatric front organizations would make us unable to function.
5. The cold war is being fought on home ground and has an apparent target of degrading western society to a point where we are finding it difficult to operate; a degraded society can be swallowed up easily by an enemy.
6. The public is somewhat sympathetic already but in a democracy trials are by public opinion. To win all the way, the bulk of public opinion must be at the level of love us … hate the enemy.
7. Many groups exist with similar aims. They need organizing and uniting.
At first glance the targets T1 to T7 are a pretty big handful. But we have to start somewhere. And we might as well start in the direction of the total target as per T1 – T7.
Nearly everything we are doing is already tending in that direction T1 – T7.
We have the advantage of new vital technology and a monopoly on it. New technologies are the things which made progress.
We do not have a Utopian dream or a planned society. We are trying to survive. Our theory is that if individuals become more honest and less harassed they will be capable of building a better society.
The fact is we would have gone along happily minding our own business. But these fantastic and continuing attacks have pushed us more and more into developing a technology and direction of defense.
We now have a lot of experience. We have been hurt, we have been held back. It has cost us millions. Normal channels of the society have let us down. Therefore we are on our own. Obviously. To our actual and factual view, the West is prostrate and near helpless and the rest of the world is a big slave camp.
If we don’t do anything about it we and everyone else are gone
So we may as well have a go.
If we unite all groups into an interplay and use all forces extant and channel them we have a very big chance of winning.
Therefore from an appreciation of all data to hand and experience it seems that T1 to T7 is beneficial. Things that don’t are a relative waste of time.
If we, doing our jobs, doing no wrong, breaking no laws, are having trouble operating, what about the rest of the West? We’re not the only ones in hot water. In fact we are probably in far better shape than many many other groups and for sure in better shape than other individuals.
So we can and must take the lead.
And we ourselves must develop many leaders.
We may as well start now and push all we are doing in defensive actions into T1 to T7.
L. RON HUBBARD
FounderLRH:bw
Copyright (c) 1969
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Notes
- Document studied on Confidential GO Intelligence Course. PDF format. ↩
- Document studied on DSA Investigations Officer Full Hat. PDF format. Targets, Defense was reissued with updated distribution on 24 September 1987. ↩
HCOPL: Battle Tactics
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, SussexHCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 19691; 2; 3
ISSUE II
REISSUED 24 SEPTEMBER 1987(Reissued with updated distribution.)
Limited Distribution:
IMEC
OSA NW
LRH PRsConfidential
BATTLE TACTICS
(This is a defense paper on material developed after 18 years of ceaseless attack by a foreign enemy. Nothing in this paper advocates physical violence or invites the physical destruction of persons.)
In these days of “cold war” when actual warfare is impossible due to atomic weapons, the warfare is waged in the press and public in the form of ideas.
If you uniformly apply the tactics and strategy of battle to the rows we get into, press or legal or public confrontation, you will win.
The enemy uses ” groups” and meetings of groups like one would use squads.
If we and they are considered as two hostile and opposing nations at war, then a huge array of tactics and strategy become visible.
One parallels in the field of thought what is used and done in the field of battle in other ages.
You don’t have to know too much about the tactics and strategy of warfare to apply this but it helps.
The end product of war, according to Clausewitz, the authority on it, is (condensed) “to bring about a more amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy.”
But there are also wars of attrition. We are engaged in one where total destruction of us has been the enemy’s aim for, at this writing, 19 years. This is barbarian warfare, thus the enemy must have had very positive fears and terrors about us. Since he fought for total attrition. In this case it is not safe to hope for any half-way win. We must ourselves fight on the basis of total attrition of the enemy. So never get reasonable about him. Just go all the way in and obliterate him.
It is bad warfare to fight battles on your own terrain, in your own subject area. It is not good to fight in the territory of allies. Fight battles wherever possible only on enemy terrain, in and about his subject and his people, not ours. You can gauge your relative success by this. When all your battles are fought on his terrain, you are winning.
A good general expends the maximum of enemy troops and the minimum of his own. He makes the war costly to the enemy, not to himself.
Copyright (c) 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard.
All Rights Reserved.
HCO PL 16.2.69 II
Reiss. 24.9.87-2-
One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. He deprives the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes over enemy territory. He raids and harasses. All on a thought plane – press, public opinion, governments, etc.
Seeing it as a battle, one can apply battle tactics to thought actions.
Intelligence identifies targets and finds out enemy plans and purposes, enemy connections, dispositions, etc. It is fatal to attack a wrong enemy. But it is good tactics to make the enemy attack wrong targets or persons himself.
Good intelligence pinpoints who when where what.
Good PRO plans an action and operations fights the battle.
Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win.
You can win a battle even without legal and by PRO alone.
You intend to win it without legal wherever possible.
The prize is “public opinion” where press is concerned. The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy. This means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing, complete with atrocity, war crimes trials, the lot. Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That’s the enemy. What they love. That’s you.
You preserve the image or increase it of your own troops and degrade the image of the enemy to beast level.
Always be ready to parley but watch for tricks. Don’t give the enemy breathing space.
Capture and use his comm lines. A press magnate on your side is a big win.
You have in one of these publicity wars all the factors of modern wars complete with artillery, cavalry, infantry.
For example at this writing, all fighting has been on our terrain; they knew our generals we didn’t know theirs; they had all the press, funds, government control. We are reversing this. We are fighting now on their ground. But we have a long way to go.
We will make it all the way providing we look on this in terms of active battle and not as a “if we are saintly good we will win.” The people who win wars have a saintly image but they win the war by clever and forceful use of the rules of tactics, strategy and battle.
Wars are composed of many battles.
Never treat a war like a skirmish. Treat all skirmishes like wars.
HCO PL 16.2.69 II
Reiss. 24.9.87-3-
The cold war is a war. The West is losing it because it is fighting by other rules than the rules of war. We mustn’t lose it.
L. RON HUBBARD
FounderAdopted as official Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONALLRH:CSI:jk.ja
Hubbard, L. R., (1969, 16 February). Battle Tactics. (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter).
Notes
- Document studied on Confidential GO Intelligence Course. PDF format. ↩
- Document studied on DSA Investigations Officer Full Hat. ↩
- Important Note: We have webbed both Hubbard’s original Policy Letter “Battle Tactics” of February 16, 1969 and the reissued version of September 24, 1987 in their entirety for purposes of comparison by students and scholars, as proof of Scientology as a hate group at war with good people for over thirty-four years, and as a warning to everyone of the cult’s malevolent intent. The two documents show a categorical continuity between the nature and actions Hubbard postulated for Scientology and Scientologists during his Guardian Office period and the nature and actions Miscavige requires of the cultists in this, his RTC-OSA era.
We believe that the organized beastification of good people is a crime against humanity. We believe that the obliteration of people, which “ Battle Tactics” clearly orders, is impossible without violence, indeed without murder. The order to get public opinion “in a frenzy of hate against the enemy” — by which Hubbard, Miscavige and Scientologists mean hate against the good people who oppose their criminality — demonstrates beyond any doubt that Scientology is a hate group. This document states emphatically that Scientologists are to consider themselves at war with the good people they make their “enemies,” and are to employ battle tactics in all dealings with these good people.
We believe that the good people who are the Scientologists’ targets for hate, beastification, war and obliteration have an absolute right to know the information contained in this document, and that such knowledge cannot be denied them by Scientology’s application of commercial copyright law.
We believe that the safety and security of the general public necessitate this document’s exposure and broad dissemination.
We believe that anyone considering becoming involved with the Scientology cult as a customer, employee or agent has a right to know that he or she is becoming involved with a hate group at war with good people, and should think very seriously about the consequences of any involvement.
We believe that all Scientologists have a right to know that they are being whipped into a frenzy of hatred by their cult’s leaders, that whether they have known it or not they are at war with good people, and that their labor supports, and their fees buy, the beastification and obliteration of those good people.
Finally, we believe that this document must be made universally available so that government and law enforcement officials can no longer pretend that they do not know what evil Scientology intends toward the citizens that government and law enforcement are sworn to protect, and so these officials will be denied the defense of ignorance when this criminal cult executes its final obliteration solution. ↩
Transcript: Conference with The Guardian (Broad Social Policy Re: “Getting in Ethics” )
Excerpted from Conference with The Guardian, LRH Aide, LRH Communicator, Legal WW, Guardian Communicator and the Head of Intelligence Branch 5, Office of LRH (July 18, 1966)
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.