|ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
Copyright c 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED L. RON HUBBARD
|"HOMO NOVIS, 1. Homo man, novis, new. (BCR, p. 12) 2. a theta-animated mest body possessed of new and desirable attributes; a mest clear, a good, sane rational mest being about a skyscraper higher than Homo sapiens. (HOM, p. 40) 3. the Second Stage Release is definitely Homo novis. The person ceases to respond like Homo sapiens and has fantastic capability to learn and act. (HCOB 28 Jun 65)"
-- L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary
[Re: "Homo Scientologicus"] : "Man had to cease to be Homo Sapiens and had to become Homo Scientologicus in order to accomplish any action that was anywhere near efficient in South Africa."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, PAB 119 1 September 1957 The Big Auditing Problem
 Any non-Scientologist is a "wog," someone who "isn't even trying."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary
ref for above cites:http://www.suppressiveperson.org/
|HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1969
REISSUED 24 SEPTEMBER 1987
(Reissued with updated distribution.)
(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
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
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,
Seeing it as a battle, one can apply battle tactics to
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.
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
HCO PL 16.2.69 II
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
L. RON HUBBARD
Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
|“Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal.’ By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not.”
- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, “LRH Relationship to Orgs"
|he reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale [glossary], neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts.
The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes.
The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered.
It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
|From HCOPL 27 Sept 1966: "In the fields of government, police activities and mental health, to name a few, we see that it is important to be able to detect and isolate this personality type so as to protect society and individuals from the destructive consequences upon letting such have free rein to injure others. As they only comprise 20% of the population and as only 2.5% of this 20% are truly dangerous, we see that with a very small amount of effort we could considerably better the state of society.|