References | Bibliography | Inventory | App. A, B, C, D
The source of these findings are the policies described in the appendices. The basic system analysis in the previous section was used as a basic structural guide.
Before this study was undertaken, the researcher anticipated that Hubbard's communications techniques would be simple at the top and get more complex as the media are approached. The hypothesis was that communications technology can be used to protect as well as to propagate information. The researcher proposed that most of Hubbard's communication technology will have been developed by the late 1960s and will have stabilized over the last couple of decades.
Complexity of communications techniques in Hubbard's policies appear to be not as much a factor as do compartmentation of techniques and data. To start with, the Hubbard system of relating to the outside world differs from the techniques of the groups with which it deals. For instance, Socrates, according to Hubbard, had a theory that involved an assertion called a "thesis," which when reacted upon by an opposite, an "antithesis," formed a new idea. This, wrote Hubbard, may have been fine for logic and debate, but in the field of learning his policies it would have a disastrous effect, which he stated as follows:
Where the person has acquired a false thesis (or datum), the true datum you are trying to teach him becomes an antithesis. The true datum comes smack up against the false datum he is hanging on to, as it is counter to it. In other words, these two things collide, and neither one will then make sense to him. At this point he can try to make sense out of the collision and form what is called a synthesis, or his wits simply don't function. (Synthesis: a unified whole in which opposites, thesis and antithesis, are reconciled.) (from inventory item 177)
The end result of the above, according to Hubbard, was a person who either was trying to use a "false, unworkable synthesis he has formed," or a person who could no longer think.
As the preceding indicates, the basis upon which Hubbard worked appears to be that the truth already existed, and that he knew what it was. This also appears to be the basis upon which his press and public relations policies were written. The only reason, according to Hubbard, that others did not recognize Hubbard's theories as truth was that they were under the influence of "false" data. "False" data, according to Hubbard, was the product of a destructive enemy that Hubbard often found in government, media, medicine and various other groups important in social control. Ostensibly as part of an effort to alleviate others of their false data, Hubbard, by his policies, created a powerful media and public relations system. The Hubbard media and public relations system combines two different dimensions. The first of these is a two-tiered functionality; the second is a cross of public relations and intelligence.
In Hubbard's two-tiered system, the upper level was external to the lower level and it controlled certain aspects of the lower level. The lower tier operated as the point of contact for the general public, and it carried out business completely independently, for the most part, of the upper tier. Exceptions included media and public relations.
In regard to media and public relations, the function of the upper tier was that of a ministry of propaganda and security. In modern language, it would operate as an information warfare system. The purpose of the upper tier was to establish the control necessary for building an empire. The outdated method of gaining control was by physical force. Two opposing sides would line up and open fire according to certain rules. Since the invention of nuclear warfare, though, force was no longer such a viable option because use of total force would mean total destruction. Besides, Hubbard added, people take pity on those on whom force is exercised. Public sympathy has a tendency to counter-balance the use of force by an aggressor.
Therefore Hubbard developed a private method of control that is based on admiration. He operated on the principle that people will follow what they admire. One way to find out what people admire is to conduct surveys. Whatever positive aspects the survey results yield, those would be what the covert warfare system was to openly promote. If people admired survival, truth, freedom, religion or rights, the staff of the lower tier were recruited to don the appropriate uniforms and ideals. The staff of the lower tier could genuinely believe in what their organization represented, though they would also have an idea of the existence and functionality of the upper tier. The redefinition of words also comes into play in conditioning staff of the lower tier and in gaining external allies.
One problem with this system is that war itself, especially war of a covert nature, is an aspect of life that is not generally admired. Perhaps that is because survival, truth, freedom, religion and rights suffer in war. Nevertheless, according to Hubbard, war must be waged in order to gain the control necessary to build an empire. People reject war, but they accept survival, truth, freedom, religion and rights. Therefore, the sum of the mixture may not end up being admiration, but it is still viable as long as it results in, at the minimum, compliance. Acceptance was desirable but not mandatory.
The rules of war, according to Hubbard, were as follows. First came the preparation. A contact point had to be set up that conforms with local standards of acceptance. The people who staffed the contact point had to appear presentable and had to practice manners. The staff would sell goods and/or services that represent survival, truth, freedom, religion or rights. Facts which could be presented as evidence that the goods or services represented what they were portrayed to represent had to be on hand. Hubbard did not insist that evidence be either valid or relevant, but it had to be factual and it had to be presented, the more, the better.
Advertisements would be sent out. People would make inquiries and were sold goods and/or services. Recruitment was carried out, and financial and personnel proceeds went to finance the covert war at the upper level, and to finance the popular operations at the local level.
At some point, however, the point would come up that the goods and/or services were also being used for deceitful or bellicose ends rather than solely for truth, religion, etc.. The content of this sort of message is considered by the Hubbard system, under the "suppressive person" doctrine described below, to be "enemy data." The enemy in this system is not someone to be avoided, but someone to be exploited. In order to do this, the targets for the war were acquired in a modern way.
The first step was to measure the enemy data. This was done by accumulating statistics. Different types of enemy actions received a different number of points. The enemy data that were most destructive to the Hubbard system were assigned a higher number of points. People who dealt in enemy data most frequently also received a higher number of points. Those people who accumulated the highest cumulative points over a period of time would become targets for information collection. Information was collected from both public and private sources.
It was important to find out what the target's resources are, as those were included as part of the objective. It was also important to find out information that could possibly neutralize the targets. If the targets did not willingly concede, then the neutralizing information could be conscientiously used, a little at a time, in an attempt to put the target into a more amenable frame of mind.
There are various types of information that can used to neutralize a target. Different types were set up in an armory of policies by Hubbard. These are accessible primarily only to people who perform related tasks. Generally speaking, this armory contains information that is opposite to the ideals in whose name the war is being waged.
Hubbard also strongly advocated obtaining help in conducting warfare. For instance, the government could be used as an extension of the organization's private investigations department to get the enemy arrested, and the media could be used to spread the information to discredit the enemy. Naturally, the media were also used to do the advertising that started out the public aspect of the operation. In the theory of control by admiration, the word of an alleged criminal is not admired as much as that of a professional with a clean record.
The Hubbard system also predefined methods of counterattack. These methods are designed to discredit those people who pose a threat to the organization. One of the most important countermeasures in this regard is the "suppressive person" doctrine. This doctrine is probably intended primarily for the lower-tiered, client side of the house. In the defense of the client's positive ideals, the "suppressive person" represents a real person who can be blamed for failure, such as for the failure of Hubbard's system. In addition, the "suppressive person" doctrine probably fulfills another function, that of hindering discovery of the upper tier.
Generally speaking, there are two requirements needed for a person to discover that a lower level Hubbard organization was serving, in part, as an indoctrination center for a the upper tier that was waging the war. The first requirement is that the person be able to generalize circumstantial evidence that has been gathered; the second is that the person be able pass on negative information in the face of conditioning to the contrary. These two requirements are also the two most prominent characteristics that Hubbard listed for his pre-fabricated enemy in his "suppressive person" doctrine. In other words, anyone who consistently generalized or repeated negative information could be labeled as a "suppressive person." If people on the lower tier accepted the "suppressive person" doctrine, they would have to reject their own ideals before they could communicate negative information to outsiders or draw conclusions from what little they may have seen of the upper tier.
Another important method of counterattack is a doctrine of pre-judgment, which is a part of the Hubbard justice system. In a modern justice system, generally speaking, a crime first needs to be discovered. Then evidence is collected and suspects are questioned. If the professional investigators believe they have enough evidence, a charge is placed against an individual and that individual may be put on trial. If the individual is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then it can be said the person committed a crime. In contrast, the Hubbard system first discovers a criminal. By virtue of being a critic, Hubbard stated, it will likely be found that the person has crimes. That means if a person questions Hubbard's system in such a way as to accumulate target points, evidence of criminal activity, substantiated or not, is collected on that person. In the process of asking questions, the person's friends and business associates are given the news of unsubstantiated crimes. By this method, almost anyone who is not prepared for this backlash can be deterred.
This type of warfare does not seem to be particularly effective in the short term. Its strongest point is in the initial advertising campaign, when unwary people may accept what they are seeing based on the images that have been prepared for them. The images will be effective to the extent that they represent a figure or idea that already has strong public acceptance, such as a concern for public health or for literacy. The intelligence arm of the system comes into play as damage control, after suspicion has been expressed for the method used for advertising or for the agency which backs up the operation. The intelligence operations are managed by people who have been instilled with the idea that they are saving the planet from a dark force, and who are willing to sacrifice ("dead agent") the enemy for a purer cause.
If normal social repercussions are suppressed, and if this system is used over a period of decades, its gains can accumulate, especially if used in government and other bureaucratic areas. For instance, it appears that Hubbard had the basic parts of this system already worked out in 1955, when he wrote "The Dissemination Manual," but he did not use policy to consolidate the system into his organizations until the 1960's. By the 1970's the system was evidently integrated into his organizations and appears to have been fully operational. However, the system gains can be minimized if the method by which they have been attained are discovered or recognized.
The main problem with discovery is that someone first needs to be familiar with both tiers of the system and both arms of the cross (public relations and intelligence). A major indicator of a Hubbard system, for instance, may be that there is no public self-criticism, but of course many organizations share that trait. Another difficulty with discovering the system is that the lower tier client may operate in any field. Usually the client, not the controlling organization, is the one that deals with the public and carries the socially acceptable banner. Therefore the first step in discovery might be to find out the source of the controlling philosophy used by the client organization.
There are also various difficulties connected with recognition. There are at least three serious problems associated with recognition of an organization that uses Hubbard's press and public relations policy. One is a refusal to discuss policy. Another is the confusing outward presentation of ethical and unethical journalistic behavior. Finally, although Hubbard occasionally bowed to other authors in certain technical aspects, such as Les Dane on sales, Freud on psychology, and Karl von Clausewitz on war or Sun Tzu on spying, there is still Hubbard's unique cross of public relations and intelligence. This cross resulted in an easily recognizable system discrepancy: flow of meaningful information to or from people who have diverse opinions was essentially blocked.
In order to block information from open-minded people, whom Hubbard designated as a source of trouble, debate of any sort on his organization's home ground was discouraged. Next, those who did not wish to accept prepared answers were defined as "attackers." Finally their intentions were prejudged to be "destructive." Consequently, those who were serious about engaging Hubbard practitioners in conversation for the purpose of resolving a problem could end up paying for it with their jobs, or at least that was the signal Hubbard sent. Actions of this sort are undertaken by people who believe that they are defending the truth, or something closer to truth than anyone else has. In order to block the flow of spontaneous information from his own organizations to open-minded investigators, Hubbard characterized non-believers to his staff as having too low of an emotional level to accept or possibly even to understand truth.