One opened, more to go... Operation Clambake & Joseph Cisar present:

Appendix B

Home | Glossary | Introduction | Methodology | Findings
References | Bibliography | Inventory | App. A, B, C, D

Organization Executive Course (OEC), Volume 7, Executive Division

98. OEC Vol 7, item 50
HCO Policy Letter
January 21, 1966
Communicators (Exec Sec)

This letter defined a communications position, called "Exec Sec Communicator," in the "International Division or in an org having 250 staff members or more." The purpose of the Exec Sec Communicator was to help the organization's "Executive Secretary." The person who filled this position was important enough so that the organizations being visited would have to pay for travel and expenses. The reasoning behind this, as well as a tip on the use of currency exchange laws, is as follows:

This is a special web version which is slightly edited so that

Travel and living expenses of an ES Communicator WW are paid by the org to be visited or the travel only apportioned to several orgs if on the same continent, as such visits would result in greater income for the org visited which would not be recompensed by administrative 10%s. Further, currency exchange laws make this an easier procedure.

Interfering with an Exec Sec Communicator was declared by Hubbard to be a "crime." If the Exec Sec Communicators subverted an Executive Secretary, it was to be a "High Crime." And finally, Hubbard declared the continuous passing on "bad news" to the Exec[utive] Sec[retary] to be a "Suppressive Act," or treason.

LRH:ml.rd Copyright (c)
1966 by L. Ron Hubbard

99. OEC Vol 7, item 136
HCO Policy Letter
October 24, 1962
Emergency Headquarters

In this letter, Hubbard let his readers know they were to contact Capetown, South Africa if the regular headquarters did not answer in the event of atomic war. This shows the extent to which Hubbard planned in advance for his policies to be carried out.

Copyright 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard

100. OEC Vol 7, item 213

"NOT HCO Policy Letter
Familiarization and the Exec

"Intelligence gain" in this letter was defined as an ability gained by trying to "confront or experience the problems of life." "Familiarity" was supposed to be the method whereby intelligence could express itself.

[Excerpted from HCOB 28 February 1959, Analysis of Cases]

101. OEC Vol 7, item 218
HCO Policy Letter
April 10, 1963
What an Executive Wants on his Lines

In this letter, Hubbard stressed that executives in his organizations wanted information, but not information of a negative nature, such as "comments or refutals."

Example: "Sell the bricks" as an order, is replied to by "Bricks are hard to sell" or "We should have sold them yesterday". This is a disease peculiar to only a few staff members.

Copyright (c) 1959, 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard

102. OEC Vol 7, item 222
HCO Bulletin
October 16, 1959
Routing of Communication to LRH and HCO WW

In this letter, Hubbard referred to the deletion of information meant for him as "censorship," which he stated was "forbidden." In lieu of censoring communication to him, people were to add their own comments.

Copyright (c) 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard

103. OEC Vol 7, item 240
HCO Policy Letter
March 3, 1966
Attacks on Scientology, Sex and Organizations


In this letter, Hubbard stated that organizations have not been "attacked for loose sexual relations. They are just too decayed to do a good job of defense or follow policy." He wrote that in 16 years only 4 organizations had failed or almost failed, and "each one was sex crazy." As specific examples he named "LA 1950, Melbourne early 60s, Johannesburg 60s, [and] Washington 62." The problem of being labeled sexually promiscuous, he wrote, "easily attaches to persons and is not always true." For that reason he advised that offenders be quickly removed.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1966
by L. Ron Hubbard

104. OEC Vol 7, item 257
HCO Bulletin
August 19, 1967
The Supreme Test

In this letter, Hubbard taught that civilization died out because of an inability of people to "make things go right." The "supreme test" of a being, he wrote, "is his ability to make things go right."

Hubbard explained that by "right" he meant accomplishing a "valid" purpose. This was one that was "not destructive to the majority." This, he wrote, was the action of a sane person. He concluded by writing

Fortunately there are a few around who DO make things go right in spite of everything and anyone.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard

105. OEC Vol 7, item 259
HCO Policy Letter
October 16, 1967
Admin Know-How # 16

This is a letter in which Hubbard attributes negative actions to "suppressive persons" (SPs). Applying his theory in reverse, he then emphasized that SPs have to be detected or else failure will occur. He wrote

So as an administrator you can detect SPs. You better had. YOUR OWN STATS WILL BE DOWN TO THE DEGREE YOU FAIL TO DETECT THEM.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard

106. OEC Vol 7, item 260
HCO Policy Letter
October 19, 1967
Urgent and Important
#2 in Exec Sec Hats Folder HCO Exec Sec Duties Org Exec Sec Duties

In this letter Hubbard wrote down the duties of "Executive Secretaries." These included:

(A) Personally and individually INVESTIGATE any Affluence or Danger or lower Conditions in their sections of the org.
(B) Both together personally investigate any Affluence or Danger or lower Condition of any divisional statistic. (Including the way legal or accounts may be handling pressures on the org or attacks.)
(C) Taking actions on any outnesses [discrepancies] found in A or B above.
(D) Enforcing the promotional actions of their divisions (as per Pol Ltr, "Promotional Actions of an Org", of 20 Nov 1965).

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard

107. OEC Vol 7, item 265
HCO Policy Letter
October 4, 1968
Ethics Presence

In this letter, Hubbard describes an inexplicable "ethics presence" by which he means that which gets compliance. He wrote that "power and force" were used in delivering orders, but what got the order accomplished was "ethics presence." Being right, he wrote, was not the deciding factor because that included acknowledgment of opposition. As he put it,

Rightness does not get compliance because there are always counter intentions in the way. If you go on the assumption that one and all want things to go right you are going to make a dog's breakfast out of it.

The components of "ethics presence," he wrote, included "symbology," force, purpose and endurance. As an example of the endurance component, he wrote

One of the reasons the press now print what we say is that we have endured the biggest shellackings anybody could muster up. We've gained Ethics presence publicly by it. Endurance asserts the truth of unkillability. We're still here [...]. This drives the SP [enemy] wild.

Other components of "ethics presence," Hubbard wrote, were the appearance of infinite resources, infinite reach, and mystery, which included the "ability to appear and disappear." Ethics presence, he wrote, could be undone by being wrong too much of the time. He concluded by stating

Wrath is effective but used in moderation and only in moments of urgency.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1968
by L. Ron Hubbard

108. OEC Vol 7, item 273
HCO Policy Letter
May 8, 1970
Distraction and Noise

In this letter, Hubbard expounded on "distraction and noise." He was referring to "static" of the sort that disrupts communication. Static on your own lines was disruptive, and people who had less static were more organized. He stressed various points along the way, such as

Whatever you do you have to get correct factual observation that is actual data, not propaganda or opinion.



Not having factual data, he wrote, could be the result of an enemy's efforts. An executive could allegedly detect the proximity of an enemy by telltale signs in one's own staff, which included a "defensive answer," "slow compliance" or a failure to report compliance.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard

109. OEC Vol 7, item 326
HCO Policy Letter
August 15, 1960
Dep[artmen]t of Gov[ernmen]t Affairs

Hubbard started off by writing that "assisting governments to maintain stability" was taking up too much of his valuable time. Therefore he was forming a "Department of Government Affairs," which was to replace the "Special Zone Department." The purpose of this was to contain, "in a military sense," the "incursion" by government into his clients' organizations. The people in the new department would not be giving the client any orders, but would merely ask the client for assistance in "the relay of communications." Concerning the department personnel, he wrote

Under this department comes the corporation's solicitors, attorneys, chartered accountants and any attorney or accountant hired directly by the corporation for outside legal or tax or filing purposes.

The new department's duties would also include lawsuits, legal work, investigations using detectives and "assistance to governments." The department attorneys were not to give "ominous advices" to the client, as Hubbard thought that would have a discouraging effect. He expounded further

The object of the Department is to broaden the impact of Scientology upon governments and other organizations and is to conduct itself so as to make the name and repute of Scientology better and more forceful. Therefore defensive tactics are frowned upon in the department.

In frowning upon defensive tactics, he continued,

In the face of danger from Gov[ernmen]ts or courts there are only two errors one can make: (a) do nothing and (b) defend. The right things to do with any threat are to (1) Find out if we want to play the offered game or not, (2) If not, to derail the offered game with a feint or attack upon the most vulnerable point which can be disclosed in the enemy ranks, (3) Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail,

In regard to making enough of a threat "to cause the enemy to quail," Hubbard wrote

If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.

The phrase "manufacture enough threat" in the above sentence clashes with other admonitions by Hubbard to deal only in truth. The following also countermands Hubbard's description of his own actions as defense.

Don't ever defend. Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best.

Hubbard stated that this new department would create "a screen behind which organizations can work" by throwing "heavy communication" against the enemy's weak points. In this regard he advocated attacks "personally by threats or suits," attacks on the politics front using legislature to strip the enemy of power and legal rights and attacks to make the enemy "look ridiculous." In making someone look ridiculous, he wrote, "Always investigate loudly never quietly." The mental image one was supposed to induce in the enemy was "that they've run into a barrage of arrows or electronic cannon and that continued attack by them will cause their own disintegration. As all this is being done on a thought or idea level [... they will receive the] total impression that they are surrounded by their own dead and the battery may fire again at any minute." As long as the department did not make the mistake of slander or libel in writing, Hubbard wrote, the enemy would not have any defense. He wrote this plan of action was based "on what just happened and what we did in Australia where we are winning strongly."

"The goal of the Department," wrote Hubbard, was "to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology." This was to be accomplished

by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt [misdeed] in bringing good order.

One reason for the new department was that

Increasing amounts of order must be maintained by us at a governmental level against the possibility of finding our areas without governments.

Another was that

We are about to finance and erect various media of communications, such as radio stations, on the various continents and this will require enormous amounts of liaison and action in such a department.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard

110. OEC Vol 7, item 330
HCO Policy Letter
March 13, 1961
Department of Official Affairs

Hubbard listed the purpose of the "Department of Official Affairs" as:

The bettering of the public representation, legal position and government acceptance of Scientology.

The Department of Official Affairs was to enforce "organization policy with regard to press." Included in its functions were "Worsening the public belief and attitude toward societies and persons having purposes counter to Scientology goals," putting pressure on governments to enact "pro-Scientology legislation" and "discourage" legislation by groups that opposed Scientology. To aid in this, the department was to maintain "newspaper and other files" on both Scientology and anti-Scientology persons. Hubbard referred the position held by the head of the department as a "post" in the following clarification:

Examining the purpose and action of this post, it should become apparent at once that we have here in actuality the equivalent of a Ministry of Propaganda and Security, using crude old-time political terms.

This department was to obtain by means not specified the "absence of unfavourable press." Hubbard expressed a hope that someday his client would receive "favourable press." It was also to obtain "heavy influence" on the "public and official mind." In conjunction with that, influence by enemies was to be made to fail. This would include the attainment of a "pro-Scientology" government and of an absence of rumor and opposition.

Hubbard noted in particular that the "target" of this department was not groups, but individual people, especially those that possessed influence. Applying this to the press, he wrote

The action of making better press consists of making friends with a publisher who commands reporters and does not really consist of handling reporters.

Applying the individuation principle to enemies:

The action of bringing about the failure of a hostile group is accomplished by finding and releasing the truth about the leader of that group.

Hubbard wrote it could even be used to produce a pro-Scientology government:

The action of bringing about a pro-Scientology government consists of making a friend of the most highly placed government person one can reach, even placing Scientologists in domestic and clerical posts close to him and seeing to it that Scientology resolves his troubles and case.

In order to enlist the aid of the client's customers, Hubbard recommended making attacks seem like a "game":

Use Scientology to resolve individual problems. Never abandon an attack until you have found and contacted the key person. Then apply Scientology. Get volunteer Scientologists interested in this game and helping.

Hubbard wrote that the head of the department should be an "orderly, pleasant gentleman or a personable charming lady who has a flair for order and intelligence about formulating and guiding ideas to individual minds." He concluded by emphasizing the importance of the position:

It could be that the fate of nations hangs on the actions, brilliance and skill of the Director of Official Affairs in handling individuals to gain help for Scientology.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard

111. OEC Vol 7, item 333
HCO Policy Letter
February 15, 1966
Attacks on Scientology

Hubbard issued a policy as follows:

So never advertise an attack. Just advocate more strongly "Total Freedom!" and show how Scientology can attain it for the individual.

The intent of advocating "total freedom" in the above appears to be diversion from an attack. The title implies the attacks being referred to are those being made upon Scientology.

L. Ron Hubbard
copyright 1966
by L. Ron Hubbard

112. OEC Vol 7, item 334
HCO Policy Letter
February 18, 1966
Attacks on Scientology (Continued)

In this continuation of his discourse on "attacks," Hubbard opened by taking the "image of freedom" to be held up by his customer a step further. He wrote that it was the image itself that caused attacks from "all those who oppress freedom." He then explained that since attacks were taking up too much time, he would streamline the process in handling them.

Mistakes of the past, he wrote, included: hiring outside professionals, writing government representatives, advertising the attack, and being "carefully legal." These actions, Hubbard wrote, were to be avoided.

Past actions that were partially effective, he wrote included letters to Congress from the organizations themselves, as opposed to individuals, distributing leaflets and law suits. These actions, Hubbard wrote, were to be used to obstruct the enemy. He wrote of this second group of actions

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.

In "taking enemy territory," though, more effective action had to be taken. Effective past actions included: "investigating noisily the attackers," "not being guilty of anything" and "being religious in nature and corporate status." These were the actions in which Hubbard recommended investing the majority of an organization's money.

Hubbard next devoted a section to "investigation," but wrote of the other effective actions:

The other items in the third group are self explanatory and if any of these are missing then we will be less successful.

He introduces the section on investigation by writing

It is a curious phenomenon that the action of investigation alone is head and shoulders above all other actions.

Hubbard wrote that the mere process of investigating attackers often caused them to turn inward and have doubt.

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 favour 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.

This process was best visualized, Hubbard wrote, by imagining a policeman who was interrogating a witnesses, then reversing the situation and having the witness interrogate the policeman:

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.

Hubbard characterized the enemy as follows:

These people who attack have secrets. And hidden crimes. They are afraid.

The attacks from the enemy was proof, according to Hubbard, of one's own validity, otherwise "they wouldn't attack so hard at such cost." Hubbard made an analogy with a housewife in illustrating the ineffectiveness of the enemy:

An attacker is like a housewife who tells City Hall how terribly her neighbours 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.

Hubbard summarized his concept by stating the "short formula" was to look, investigate and defend.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1966
by L. Ron Hubbard

113. OEC Vol 7, item 335
HCO Policy Letter
March 1, 1966
The Guardian

This is the policy that established the post of "The Guardian." This department was to act as a cavalry unit that quickly rode into to repair a broken line, whereas the line itself was the infantry, such as that mentioned above, which defended against attacks.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1966
by L. Ron Hubbard

114. OEC Vol 7, item 339
HCO Policy Letter
September 1, 1969

According to Hubbard, no country or corporation was ever able to solve the problem of spying and "intelligence actions," although these, he alleged, were "very prevalent" activities. Because his policies were "found in the wrong hands," he reasoned, his client's organizations obviously had internal spies. He stated that his client was also surely subject to external surveillance. He wrote that activities conducted by spies within the client's organizations included: theft of documents, administrative disorganization, false reports or false advices, and perversion or corruption of the Scientology system. The motivation in most cases, he wrote, was money. As a solution, he created this policy that was to reward those who turned in enemy agents who operated within the organization. This was a unique solution that, he wrote, perhaps had never before been used.

Hubbard stated that a reward of $250 or its equivalent would be paid to any staff member who was asked to attempt "industrial espionage." The staff member was to "promptly seem to agree, should accept any money offered (which he may keep) and should quickly and quietly report the matter to the nearest Guardian's Office so that the instigators can be traced and arrested."

Another reward of $100 [...] will be paid any staff member or person in the field who should hear of or be subjected to any provocative anti-organisation activity in the field and who then forwards the criminal background and connections of the provocative person in such form that it may be given to the police by the Guardian's Office.

In the event that an attempt was made to blackmail a staff member into committing this sort of "provocative anti-organizational activity," the same procedure should be followed and the staff member would be excused for the "crime being used in the blackmail attempt."

In closing this section, Hubbard wrote

Truth cannot live in an atmosphere of deceit.

In closing this letter, Hubbard stressed that integrity was important for staff members.

If we keep our integrity high and give staffs good and valuable government, we will have maximum Counter-Intelligence effectiveness with minimum effort since our staffs would themselves militantly defendong their executives and the org.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1969
by L. Ron Hubbard

115. OEC Vol 7, item 343
HCO Policy Letter
May 14, 1960
Clippings Book

This letter gives instructions on how to maintain a press clippings book. Articles about L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology were supposed to be neatly clipped and mounted on numbered pages, using hole reinforcements if needed. The first book was to be labeled "CLIPPINGS Book No. 1." When that book was filled, the second book was to be started, etc.

Issued by: Peter Hemery
HCO Secretary WW
L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard

116. OEC Vol 7, item 345
HCO Policy Letter
August 14, 1963
Scientology Five Press Policies

In this letter, Hubbard warned his readers that he did not care if they talked to the press, but they should keep certain things in mind, such as

Almost all our bad publicity and attacks are authored by two men, one named Keaton, the AMA [American Medical Association] press man, and one named Field, their head of "investigation". These men flood bad tales about Scientology into press, magazines, radio, TV. Their sole interest is a medical psychiatric monopoly for the AMA. They blind the public to the fact that the crimes of psychiatry are medical crimes, not crimes of mental healing. [...] The sole reasons for attack are money and monopoly.

Hubbard wrote that as a result of "not attacking medicine and other areas of psychiatry," his client's organization had received "continual bad press."

Hubbard described what to expect from reporters and how they should be dealt with as follows:

The reporter who comes to you, all smiles and withholds [hidden crimes], "wanting a story", has an AMA instigated release in his pocket. He is there to trick you into supporting his pre-conceived story. The story he will write has already been outlined by a sub-editor from old clippings and AMA releases.
He probably knows as well as you do that you are decent and effective. He has no power whatever to alter the pre-conceived story he has been ordered to write. If he were [...] totally convinced of the great value of Scientology he would still write the same critical story. If he didn't he would probably get sacked. So the time you spend trying to convince him of your decency and effectiveness is wasted time. He wants a story. The only ways to handle him are to eject him or to give him a story that he thinks is a story. There are no half-way measures.

The bare minimum Hubbard expected a person to do was "to refuse to be led into utterances that can be misconstrued." Word-of-mouth, Hubbard wrote, had more influence than the press, therefore he preferred not to deal with the press as it allegedly hindered "our word-of-mouth amongst the people." Hubbard wrote that the reporter should be pitied because he was "sick and cynical" and would "sell out the human race if his editor told him to."

In a section entitled "Story Rules," Hubbard wrote what he called a more accurate outline of what reporters wanted than they themselves had. In order to be printed,

a story must contain one or more of these things:
1. HARM (Blood, violence, damage, death, scandal)
2. SEX
5. The story must be written to INVALIDATE something.
6. The story must contain a CONTROVERSY.
7. A story must contain TWO OPPOSING FORCES. Dialectic Materialism is the basic philosophy used by the society at this time. This philosophy is crudely stated in the following statement: "It takes two opposing forces to produce an idea."

He wrote that Scientologists recognized the falsehood of creating an idea from two opposing forces, but that editors recognized this concept as truth. He gave as an example,

If you inherited a billion happily from an uncle who loved you, and were all set to help the millions with it, the news story would be "Foul Play Hinted in Uncle's Death. Rights of Heir Challenged. Sex Life Probed."

As a result of newspapers allegedly operating in the above fashion, Hubbard wrote, the customer would have to anticipate what the newspaper wanted.

The best story you can hope for from modern press would have to have all the above elements. This sounds deadly for us. But it really isn't. All we have to know is their formula, release our own stories using it and be sure it isn't us to which they assign the blood, sex, money and names. Let it be somebody else's blood, sex, money and names.

To familiarize the reader with doing the above, Hubbard suggested drills. This included evaluating a newspaper with regard to the above seven "requirements." He stated

You will find you can determine where a story would be placed in a newspaper by the number of requirements and the magnitude of one or more of the requirements. And you will be able to predict how long any story will last by seeing how many requirements it fulfills and to what degree. And you'll be a news analyst.

The reader was to find as many of the above seven "requirements" in each story as possible. "It's an amusing game," Hubbard wrote, "You won't find many missing in any one story and you'll find that those that go front page for days have all of the requirements." The reason it was too difficult to get good press was that it did not follow the above "modern formula."

Hubbard wrote that the "special programmes" section was best at creating press favorable to his customer. The example he gave was of a teenage girl

who has been beaten and raped by teenage boys at High School and withholding it since.

He advised that the Scientology system should be used to reveal what the teenage girl knew, then

get parents to okay investigation, call in press. Release story of vice and crime at local High School with the org doing the investigation. On subsequent days: Criticize laxity of police. Criticize principal. Finally find more teenage sex cases. Just day by day deal off a new action to the press. String the story out. Take an action, hold a press conference.

Teachers and students of the school were to be attended to using the Scientology system. Following that,

Get parents to sue. Finally advise school hire a permanent mental consultant and give daily mental exercises to "teenage mobsters". Then wrap it all up and skip it. You've made something evil become something good attained - Scientology in Schools.

He suggested that a calendar of events be made in an instance of the above type and that the action be evenly distributed so that there was one action a day and for each action there was to be a news story. For practice, he suggested that his reader

Do a story design and calendar for "Scientology Ministers demand FDA prove sterility pills aren't sex stimulants".

In order to gain favor with reporters and obtain "good press," Hubbard advised

get some element that fits all seven of the above requirements, plan an exact series of actions, do them in exact sequence and release a press story for each action. The press will love you.

Hubbard also noted that the above was the "exact action" being undertaken by his customer's enemy, the AMA. The difference, he declared, was that "theirs is toward a sordid goal." He apologized for seeming to be taking advantage of the situation and stated that his only concern was to successfully handle press. In closing, he wrote that if this policy were followed, his client "could be front page 100 days out of every year."

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard

117. OEC Vol 7, item 346
HCO Policy Letter
October 11, 1965
Press Relations

In this letter, Hubbard stated that there would be only one person in each organization to handle any communication from the press. The person who would be appointed to the job would fill it not even on a part-time basis, only whenever anybody in the organization were to be approached by a member of the press. Nobody except this Press Relations Officer was have any kind of communications with the press. Hubbard warned that the Press Relations Officer should not be "tempted into giving any other information about Scientology." The rule-of-thumb he gave was "The press will not print anything good - only bad. So give them nothing that can be misunderstood."

In closing Hubbard wrote that this letter did not alter the "truth contained in HCO Pol[icy] L[e]t[te]r of 14 August AD13, Scientology Five-Press Policies."

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1965
by L. Ron Hubbard

At the bottom is a note as follows:

[Note: The original 25 May 1964 issue of this policy differed in that it was issued by Peter Hemery, Org Sup WW, and authorized by L. Ron Hubbard, and the last paragraph in brackets above appeared after the signature.]

118. OEC Vol 7, item 348
HCO Policy Letter
October 28, 1968
Press Releases

In this letter Hubbard stated that each

press release should be on one subject only and this one subject is used in variations time and again. When the press are tired of that subject, then another one is used and that one is ridden until it likewise is worn out.

In addition, he wrote that press releases should give "the public the idea that we endure."

"For many years now we have stated "
"We have stood up to such attacks many times and are still surviving and expanding."

He advised that Monday was a good day of the week to make press releases, and closed by writing

ALWAYS ATTACK in a Press Release. Never Defend or Deny.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1968 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard

119. OEC Vol 7, item 349
HCO Policy Letter
January 31, 1969

This letter started out with a brief history of what a broadsheet is. Newspaper reporters used broadsheets for background information. The idea, therefore, was to produce broadsheets that could be mistakenly identified as newspaper.

Provided the Broadsheet is got up to look like a newspaper, i.e. the right size and the right kind of print and the right kind of paper, we have found that it is cut and filed by other newspapers. For instance, the recent editorial "What is all the fuss about" which was written in our UK Broadsheet, was picked up and re-printed verbatim by an evening newspaper.

When the newspapers clipped the broadsheets and put them into their files, the next person would not be able to tell if it was a broadsheet clipping or a press clipping. The advantage of this was that it might be mistaken as having the reliability of a press article. From experience, the best layout for a broadsheet was

Page 1 Attack opponents, expose and hammer.
Page 2 Longer articles, features, exposures, etc.
Page 3 Illustrate, cartoon, photos, etc.
Page 4 LRH Page - Articles, extracts from books and Ron's writing - not anyone else's - stick to source. Also ad for a book by LRH [L. Ron Hubbard].

An allusion to "Freedom" was made in conjunction to the above as follows:

Do this, and "Freedom" will really succeed.

Written by: Peter Ginever
Public Relations Planning
Sheila Gaiman
Public Relations Actions
David Gaiman
Public Relations Chief, WorldWide
Approved by Jane Kember
Guardian WW
Approved for
issue by Mary Sue Hubbard, CS-G
for L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1969
by L. Ron Hubbard

120. OEC Vol 7, item 350
HCO Policy Letter
February 3, 1969
Public Image

In this letter Hubbard specified what public image his client was to have:


With regards to mental healing per the above image, he wrote

It is a dirty inhuman rotten field, full of graft, misappropriation, phoney authoritarianism and betrayal. Because it is like this we get a back flash from it. We are the only ones in it who have clean hands and effective technology. So we have no choice but to NOISILY clean it up. That builds that much of the image.

Hubbard stated the next problem to be confronted in producing the proper public image as follows:

We have clean hands. We are effective. We dedicatedly do our jobs well. We must keep on doing this. But we have to find more PUBLIC ways to SAY so.

In maintaining this image, Hubbard wrote, the public image policy was not to be announced to the public. It was to be used as "a guide to keep pounding variations of the same message." In discussing procedure, he wrote

Make all issues hot, exciting, brutal or sensational. Go strictly circus in the type of message. You can and must ally with real humanitarian and civil rights groups (getting press coverage for every such contact). You can and must approach governors, parliamentary committees, big names, big activities and get press coverage for every contact. Scn [Scientology] speakers must address groups and say the story which is to appear, not just talk about Scn.

A program of the above variety was to be planned out and put into operation. Hubbard wrote that each program would probably last "last few months." He said this was practically standard for public relations, which he wrote did not consist of a statement, but of "an event, a meeting, the formation of something, an attack, a campaign."

You can and must seize the attention of the press in your area, not to defend Scn [Scientology], but to hammer home the above Public Image by forwarding crusades and campaigns that carry the message. Then providing events of your own manufacture.

He wrote it was a mistake to merely introduce a bill into the legislature. The introduction should receive ample coverage, such as

You have to have other groups start talking, public meetings, a deputation to the governor. Build up Scn celebrities that can speak and meet the public in your area.

Hubbard warned his readers, in campaigning for the cause, to be careful not to take too much attention away from the client. That would result in losing that which was trying to be saved. Hubbard concluded by contrasting public relations officers on both sides:

PRO is an energetic, imaginative fiery-eyed function. It has to be hot - hot on getting compliance, scheduling and events. PRO should know all about Targets, Dev T. ["Developed Traffic", busy work] and this Pol Ltr. Scn has been the object of enemy PRO campaigns of a professional level for years. Study if you like the stunts he pulled. How did he do it? Just by using names, connections and press. So reverse the action. Do it far better. Our end product is a sane planet. His was a dead one.

Finally, he wrote that the survival of the planet depending on building the above public image.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1969
by L. Ron Hubbard

121. OEC Vol 7, item 351
HCO Policy Letter
February 5, 1969
PRO Actions

Hubbard stressed the purpose and function of a public relations officer.

[emphasis in the original]

The public relations officer was to use all methods at his disposal but, stressed Hubbard, he had to keep one thing in mind:


No matter whether an event was considered good or bad, it could be used to carry a message, according to Hubbard. The public relations officer could not have doubt about what his message was, and he had "to use his imagination to provide" the method by which the message was gotten across to the public. This meant,

A PRO doesn't let an event go by without getting it reported on and getting his message into it. A PRO uses the same message over and over for months, even years. He gives it infinite variety, provides infinite events. Just to get his message repeated.

Two examples were given of how to do this. Hubbard wrote that the public relations officer would make comparisons between his own organization and that which was considered to be "wonderful" by standard, local ethnic values. By the same token, the public relations officer would compare the "enemy" to whatever was "bad" or "awful" according to local ethnic surveys.

A PRO watches the enemy trend and counterplays skillfully to turn it to his own advantage. A PRO must study and use the HCOBs [Hubbard Communication Office Bulletins] on the Anti-Social Personality for various reasons.

"Anti-Social Personality" is one of the names Hubbard used for "enemy." Learning the actions of a PRO was necessary, Hubbard wrote, to "reverse public opinion." He wrote that these actions included carrying out an attack, but that care had to be given that the attack targeted "some real or imagined abuse or violation of public mores." He gave by way of example:

Three weeks of news stories are designed. A pathetic girl abused by psychiatrist comes to C[hurch] of S[cientology] for help to get guidance to right the wrong. That's a story with photos. C of S Committee visited sanitarium. Is refused entrance. That's a story. C of S Committee seeks and can't obtain death records of the sanitarium. That's a story. C of S Committee visits big name in government to force death list to be given out. That's a story. C of S Committee meets with a law society committee to recommend legislation. That's a story. Girl treated by a medical doctor paid for by C of S and Scn processing helps girl. That's another consecutive story. Citizens' Committee urges police action to close sanitarium. That's another story. Girl restored to family by C of S Committee. That's a story. You see what an event is? And what a story is? A PRO gets ideas like this and carries them out and gives them out so they'll get published.

In closing Hubbard wrote a disclaimer in a possible attempt to make his recommendations seem more palatable:

This HCO Pol[icy] L[e]t[te]r is a rapid coverage of modern PRO work. It is not what we have been doing. It is what PROs do over the world when they are on the job.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1969
by L. Ron Hubbard

122. OEC Vol 7, item 352
HCO Policy Letter
May 20, 1970
Guardian Public Relationships

In this letter, Mary Sue Hubbard made it clear that the Guardian Office existed as a separate entity from the client, and that the client was to turn over all significant matters concerning the press to the Guardian Office. She wrote that the Guardian office "handles certain publics," which included: press, government, opposition and special projects. The functions of the "Public Divisions" of the client's organization were explained as follows:

Although the Public Divisions may place news releases, appear on radio or television or write stories for magazines, all such is done in co-ordination with and approved by the Public Relations Bureau of the Guardian's Office. Any reporter calling the organization is routed to the Guardian Public Relations Bureau.

Mary Sue Hubbard also made the client aware that there would be certain unspecified operations, of which the client would have no knowledge, that would be handled by a superior category of public relations office.

There are specialized groups which are either established by the Guardian's Office or with which the Guardian's Office is co-acting toward mutual goals. These fall under the purview of the Public Relations Bureau.

Mary Sue Hubbard Controller for
L. Ron Hubbard Founder
Copyright 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard

123. OEC Vol 7, item 356
HCO Policy Letter
October 29, 1962

In this letter, Hubbard provided motivation for being viewed as a "religion" by his client's enemies, in this case the Food and Drug Administration. With regard to this new concept of being regarded as a religion, he wrote:

This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors.

It would be in the "interest to all organizations that all Scientology incorporations" be viewed as "religious in nature." That included not only the corporations that had the word "church" in their name, but every corporation associated with the Scientology system. The Scientology methods were to be explained in religious terms as follows, in part:

"All religions seek truth. "Freedom of the spirit is only to be found on the road to Truth. "Sin is composed, according to Scientology, of Lies and hidden actions and is therefore Untruth.

Hubbard wrote that one of these "untruths" was held by the FDA in that "They thought that outside the U.S. Scientology was not religious, which is false." Hubbard wrote of that position,

The impression must be strongly corrected in the FDA at once.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard

124. OEC Vol 7, item 358
HCO Policy Letter
November 23, 1967
Public Attacks Legal Point

Hubbard illustrated a possible legal defense regarding organizational documentation as follows:

On the other hand, the BOOKS and PAPERS of Scientology are a record of research and are writings. They represent a very broad survey of the whole field of human knowledge and the mind and contain ANYTHING THAT WAS FOUND.
The effort is to make these private papers and books seem to be the practice and so make the practice look bizarre which it is not.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard

125. OEC Vol 7, item 390
HCO Policy Letter
February 22, 1965
Executive Director Comm[unication] Lines

This is a comprehensive policy concerning organizational communications. One of the guidelines included omitting any information ("entheta") distributed by an enemy. Hubbard advised,

Respond casually to entheta, or non-committally.

Another stated that press clippings should be filed without further acknowledgment. With regard to magazines, Hubbard wrote that an organizational executive should

[c]all typographical errors to attention and warn that they can make a reader stop reading or even leave Scientology if a newcomer.

In this letter Hubbard also discourages verbal communication, and recommended that all conferences be recorded.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1965

126. OEC Vol 7, item 393
HCO Policy Letter
January 4, 1966
LRH Relationships to Org[anization]s

In this letter Hubbard lists five images of himself that were to be "woven into the pattern" of the organizations. He explained these as identities in ways that included how money would flow to each. The identity labels all contained "LRH," which stands for L. Ron Hubbard.

LRH, the "individual" was the identity that received book royalties and that leased "copyrights and trademarks and technology" to "Scientology organizations."

LRH, the "trustee" was the identity that held "properties and money for Scientology" in trust. Hubbard illustrated a problem that arose from maintaining multiple identities as follows:

This leaves me as a Trustee of all assets outside the US until they can be transferred. But even after transfer I will still be a trustee for Scientology corporations. All money sent to LRH an individual is received by LRH a trustee or a corporation and is seldom paid to LRH an individual but turned over to companies without being given to LRH, an individual. This is a vital point, often missed even by accountants who then get us involved. If the money were 1. received by LRH, an individual and then 2. turned over to LRH a trustee and/or 3. received and used by a company, it would hang LRH an individual for huge tax sums for money he has never really received or used and indeed won't ever get.

LRH, the "board member" was "entitled only to out-of-pocket expenses."

LRH, the "Executive Director" was a "paid post in any corporation or association."

Finally, there was LRH, the "staff member," for which money was not mentioned but who performed actions such as doing research, writing magazines, took pictures, listened to problems and did "a lot of other things."

The above identities were important to understand, wrote Hubbard, as it was only "when these relationships are misunderstood do we get in trouble." He wrote that "growth" depended on "keeping corporate structure straight. And understanding these separate identities or titles and functions and using them."

Hubbard also indicated none of the above identities actually referred to him when he wrote

We won't vanish if I as a person vanish. And these identities never were me anyway so they can survive. It is a part of basic org structure.

With regard to the legality of maintaining multiple identities, he wrote

Somebody some day will say "this is illegal". By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1966
by L. Ron Hubbard

127. OEC Vol 7, item 404
HCO Policy Letter
August 5, 1959
Stable Data for Communicators

This letter is a compilation of quotes from L. Ron Hubbard's book "How to Live Though an Executive" reportedly chosen by "Millie Galusha" and "particularly applicable" to those dealing in communication.

The first texts cited are:

"A communications line can be cut or interrupted or invalidated in five ways:
The first way is simply to cut the line, to prevent any information from travelling on the line, to pass no dispatches.
The second way is to pervert the line, to alter the communications which are going on the line.
The third way is to select all constructive messages out of the line and leave all destructive messages on the line.
This is cutting the line by censorship.
The fourth way is to introduce destructive material into the line, to load the line with entheta [destructive material].
The fifth way is to glut the line, to permit any and all material to go over it, with no selectivity. Those who are on the receiving end will get so much material to deal with that they will become careless and irresponsible in their handling of the material.

The methods of glutting a line, according to the Hubbard texts cited, were: failing to evaluate priorities, using excessive verbiage, and alternately sending too little information then sending too much. The purpose of relating this information, Hubbard was cited as writing, was to keep one's own communications from being disturbed in any of the above methods.

The nature of communication was also said to change, depending on where in the organization's hierarchy it took place:

"A principle which the communicator must know is that communications get briefer and better evaluated as they go up toward the top of the command line. They must, or they will not be read when they arrive. Conversely, communications need, usually, to be more detailed as they go down the command line. Instructions have to be full of data in inverse ratio to the receiver's height on the command line.

A direct relationship between communication and morale was cited as follows:

"Good communication is good morale. Bad communication is bad morale.

Peter Hemery HCO Communicator WW
Copyright 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard

128. OEC Vol 7, item 448
HCO Policy Letter
August 12, 1964
Policy on Technical Information

This letter, cited in full, forbids the distribution of "random technology" as follows

No technical information or reports may be printed or released except from Saint Hill or approved first by Saint Hill.
Reason: Failures of the Wichita and Elizabeth centres are traced to this action of random technology.

L. Ron Hubbard
Copyright 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard

129. OEC Vol 7, item 450
HCO Policy Letter
March 4, 1965

This policy letter stated that the "HCO Secretary" would control the issue of communications to staff, franchises, (internal) magazines, brochures, advertisements and public lectures. Advice concerning public opinion in this regard included the following:

It is a pure survival fact that failure to protect the names and repute of Scientology leading personalities and LRH collapses an org. The only proof is that those orgs that haven't aren't here any more and those orgs that strenuously have are thriving. In closing, Hubbard wrote:

The answer to this policy is to have a good subjective and objective reality on Scientology. Then you couldn't keep yourself from following it

L. Ron Hubbard Copyright 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard

Brought to you by:
Operation Clambake