OSA Investigations "Enemy" Point System Document

Veda

Sponsor
Most sensible people would not see First Policy as a joke. It is just good sense. It is assumed this policy was written from strength.

All things considered, i.e. destructive actions of the GO, SO, ethics policies, LRH's own contradictory orders and advices... This is much violation of First Policy that came from the same man who wrote it.

If his writings do anything to expose the man, LRH must have been a mixed bag of good sense and idiocy. It now appears to me that First Policy was written from good sense and cowardess. Once the coward-side gained strength it let loose its case, First Policy fell by the wayside.

In good sense, I can't reconcile the message of "What Is Greatness" with the image a couple of middle-aged men pushing a peanut around the deck of the Apollo while their shipmates and family watched and LRH bellowed, "Faster! Faster!"

Thank you Veda and Terril for this moment of enlightenment.

The so called "First Policy" appeared, not in 1950, but in HCOPL of 2 September 1970.

The overt/covert model for Scientology dates back to 1938, when Hubbard wrote of his (hidden) "real goal." There's nothing contradictory about Hubbard having Charles Reisdorf push a peanut around the deck of the Royal Scotsman with his nose (later Apollo), and his writing 'What is Greatness?'

It's a pattern, a paradigm, a template, a design. One carefully constructed, brick by brick, over many years. 'Battle Tactics' of February 1969 does not conflict with 'First Policy' of September 1970. 'Fair Game' (1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, etc.) and "What is Greatness?' (1966) are not contradictory; they are complementary, One is covert, The other is overt (publicized.)
 
Amen to that, Ted!

Most sensible people would not see First Policy as a joke. It is just good sense. It is assumed this policy was written from strength.

All things considered, i.e. destructive actions of the GO, SO, ethics policies, LRH's own contradictory orders and advices... This is much violation of First Policy that came from the same man who wrote it.

If his writings do anything to expose the man, LRH must have been a mixed bag of good sense and idiocy. It now appears to me that First Policy was written from good sense and cowardess. Once the coward-side gained strength it let loose its case, First Policy fell by the wayside.

In good sense, I can't reconcile the message of "What Is Greatness" with the image a couple of middle-aged men pushing a peanut around the deck of the Apollo while their shipmates and family watched and LRH bellowed, "Faster! Faster!"
Thank you Veda and Terril for this moment of enlightenment.

Amen to that, brother....amen. :yes:
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
I should have been more careful in editing. The men were not just pushing a peanut, they were pushing it with their noses! That makes a huge difference to anyone not familiar with the story.
 
Last edited:

thefiredragon

Patron Meritorious
Its clear these stats came before the main impact of the net. However
extrapolating from the above, I'been posting at a conservative estimate 3
invitations per week to do tech outside COS for roughly 10 years, lets call
them internet media attacks.

Thats roughly 1500 points.

However they are in the category of "international" which isn't
acknowledged as a category, but its got to be 5 per pop.

Thats roughly 7500 points.

That don't count other posts I made which are more numerous. Got to be at least as many.

Then two years worth of monthly protests? Got to be worth a few points.

And I am list owner of two FZ forums. Have an FZ website.

Maybe an extra few credits for stat pushing on all this? :)

WoW!
You sure have lots of points!
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
They don't mix; they complement each other.

For example, Intel frames someone for a crime he/she didn't commit, and then PR - separately - promotes that the person is "under investigation," etc.

And in so doing, OSA takes somebody who might have had a passing annoyance with Scn, and transforms him into a sworn, lifelong enemy. Major footbullet.

This sort of stuff only works short-term, and only to the extent that the OSA action is such that the target is intimidated into eternal silence, AND the target has no friends who get pissed off at the OSA attack. If the targets ever lose their fear of OSA, then you have the current phenomenon.

OSA creates enemies wholesale while "handling" people retail.
 

Veda

Sponsor
And in so doing, OSA takes somebody who might have had a passing annoyance with Scn, and transforms him into a sworn, lifelong enemy. Major footbullet.

This sort of stuff only works short-term, and only to the extent that the OSA action is such that the target is intimidated into eternal silence, AND the target has no friends who get pissed off at the OSA attack. If the targets ever lose their fear of OSA, then you have the current phenomenon.

OSA creates enemies wholesale while "handling" people retail.

A "pure" covert operation would begin and be completed without any visible connection to Scientology. That means the person would know that stuff was happening, but wouldn't know its source.

Once it became a matter of public record, then Scientology - as an apparent bystander - would comment, in its "PR."

That's the way it's supposed to "work."

Mainly, people hear about the times it didn't "work."

"Tech is out in Orgs" right now, so this tech - to some extent - is "out" too.

In this thread, however, I wasn't debating the degree of success of this particular part of Scientology tech, only attempting to describe the relationship of Scientology PR tech to Scientology Intel tech. :)
 
Thank you!

Thanks, Veda, for doing so! It helps me to see things clearer and understand the current situation more. :)
I hope it will be informative for others, as well.
 
Good Point Enthetan!

And in so doing, OSA takes somebody who might have had a passing annoyance with Scn, and transforms him into a sworn, lifelong enemy. Major footbullet.

This sort of stuff only works short-term, and only to the extent that the OSA action is such that the target is intimidated into eternal silence, AND the target has no friends who get pissed off at the OSA attack. If the targets ever lose their fear of OSA, then you have the current phenomenon.

OSA creates enemies wholesale while "handling" people retail.

Good point Enthetan- does anybody who really knows about them have any respect left for the people who are planning and carrying out OSA operations, whether from the "justice" or "legal" (there's an oxymoron!), Intelligence gathering or Public Relations aspects of OSA?

No-one I know, even in the general public, once they understand the truth of what the entity we know as OSA is and does, here in America and abroad, feels anything about them other than they, including everyone they hire or conscript as "volunteers", should be fully investigated, prosecuted and imprisoned for multiple criminal activities, likely under the RICO act.

No blatent criminal activity of that depth and magnitude can prosper for long.
 

FinallyFree

Gold Meritorious Patron
WAIT! I am an attacker because I post my opinion, thoughts and experiences?

So basically ANYONE who does not agree 100% with scientology is an attacker? My, that will be a very long list indeed.

OSA would be prudent to simply list all those in good standing and then shoot at everyone else.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
WAIT! I am an attacker because I post my opinion, thoughts and experiences?

So basically ANYONE who does not agree 100% with scientology is an attacker? My, that will be a very long list indeed.

OSA would be prudent to simply list all those in good standing and then shoot at everyone else.

That would be 'out-PR'

Zinj
 

Shredder

Patron with Honors
No (LRH) Policy regarding the Internet

Ah, so all things are possible.

Thank God for free speech and human rights.


I guess that LRH in all his wisdomology and arrogance

never suspected that one person or that an individual

could have such freedom of speech

and have alignment with the many other individuals

reaching all the way from from one side of the world

to the other to help each other.


Ahhh thank god we are in the age of the Inter(national)net.
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
WAIT! I am an attacker because I post my opinion, thoughts and experiences?

So basically ANYONE who does not agree 100% with scientology is an attacker? My, that will be a very long list indeed.

OSA would be prudent to simply list all those in good standing and then shoot at everyone else.

Yes, that is exactly right. You ARE an attacker, to them, exactly BECAUSE you post YOUR heartfelt opinion, thoughts and experiences that aren't 100% glowingly supportive of or in agreement with all things LRH, Scientology, David Miscavige and International Scientology Management!

That is exactly how it functions. Remember, Scientology is the ONLY group on the planet with a "disagreement remedy", which are a set of auditing processes designed to find, address and handle ANY and ALL disagreements with ANYTHING about Scientology. Though, I suppose in very oppressive political regimes (not uncommon on planet Earth), the most efficient "disagreement remedy" is a bullet to the brain.

A key basic slant or bias in Scientology is that everything about it is 100% valid, totally "right", "beyond error", and THUS BEYOND QUESTIONING. Sincere questioning, no matter how valid, is viewed and interpreted by them AS criticism and attack. If you see something as an outpoint, mention it, and bring it to their attention, then YOU become the subject of the investigation! Simple basic Scientology behavior as directed by Hubby Dub the Tubby Flub.

The moment you attempt to shine any light onto Scientology in any way, in a questioning manner, no matter how sincere or honest or legitimate, then YOU find yourself quickly under THEIR shining light of questioning and inspection. That is the way it has always been, due to EXACT LRH policy direction in the area.

Many ex-members started his or her "road out", by noticing and bringing some obvious outpoint to the attention of some staff member, HCO or RTC. Often the concerned ex-member was trying to "help" in some way, to "correct" what they saw as a deficiency. But as always, as per EXACT LRH instruction in the matter, ANY and ALL questioning is seen as "bad", and as being a sign of "disaffection". Disaffection from what? Disaffection from the 100% unquestioning attitude and total acceptance of whatever Hubbard and INT management say "is the truth".

The concept of "disaffection" is a BIG DEAL in Scientology. It means not being aligned 100% with the current rah-rah-rah viewpoint being pushed down the Scientology command channels. Of course, these days, there are just SO MANY disaffected people, that it is utterly impossible for them (the C of S) to EVER have any hope of "cleaning up the (muddied) field".

"You are either with us or you are against us". THAT is a key attitude inherent in the severe absolutist vision of Scientology. It is an insane attitude, as it leaves no slightest wiggle room for any personal deviation of viewpoint from the tight little box of enforced Scientology beliefs, attitudes and agreements. To understand the key basic Scientology beliefs, see:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15476

Within the context of "you are either with us or you are against us", of course, ANY questioning in any form, takes on the color of an "enemy" to these imbeciles. Thus, questioning, and ALL expressions of free speech, are impossible with the framework of Hubbard's Scientology network. :grouch:

It will probably always be that way until the last OSA staff member walks out of the finally dissolved and collapsed Church of Scientology.
 
Last edited:

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, that is exactly right. You ARE an attacker, to them, exactly BECAUSE you post YOUR opinion, thoughts and experiences that aren't 100% glowingly supportive of or in agreement with all things LRH, Scientology, David Miscavige and International Scientology Management!

That is exactly how it functions. Remember, Scientology is the ONLY group on the planet with a "disagreement remedy", which are a set of auditing processes designed to find, address and handle ANY and ALL disagreements with ANYTHING about Scientology. Though, I suppose in very oppressive political regimes (not uncommon on planet Earth), the most efficient "disagreement remedy" is a bullet to the brain.

A key basic slant or bias in Scientology is that everything about it is 100% valid, totally "right", "beyond error", and THUS BEYOND QUESTIONING. Sincere questioning, no matter how valid, is viewed and interpreted by them AS criticism and attack. If you see something as an outpoint, mention it, and bring it to their attention, then YOU become the subject of the investigation! Simple basic Scientology behavior as directed by Hubby Dub the Tubby Flub.

The moment you attempt to shine any light onto Scientology in any way, in a questioning manner, no matter how sincere or honest or legitimate, then YOU find yourself quickly under THEIR shining light of questioning and inspection. That is the way it has always been, due to EXACT LRH policy direction in the area.

Many ex-members started his or her "road out", by noticing and bringing some obvious outpoint to the attention of some staff member, HCO or RTC. Often the concerned ex-member was trying to "help" in some way, to "correct" what they saw as a deficiency. But as always, as per EXACT LRH instruction in the matter, ANY and ALL questioning is seen as "bad", and as being a sign of "disaffection".

The concept of "disaffection" is a BIG DEAL in Scientology. It means not being aligned 100% with the current rah-rah-rah viewpoint being pushed down the Scientology command channels. Of course, these days, there are just SO MANY disaffected people, that it is utterly impossible for them to "clean up the field".

"You are either with us or you are against us". THAT is a key attitude inherent in the severe absolutist vision of Scientology. It is an insane attitude, as it leaves no slightest wiggle room for any personal deviation of viewpoint from the tight little box of enforced Scientology beliefs, attitudes and agreements. To understand the key basic Scientology beliefs, see:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15476

Within the context of "you are either with us or you are against us", of course, ANY questioning in any form, takes on the color of an "enemy" to these imbeciles. Thus, questioning, and ALL expressions of free speech, are impossible with the framework of Hubbard's Scientology network. :grouch:

It will probably always be that way until the last OSA staff member walks out of the finally dissolved and collapsed Church of Scientology.


It is important -- my perspective of course -- to appreciate the traits of the narcissistic personality. Scientology, Hubbard's alter-ego, is a reflection of his narcissism.

You might as well have used the text on this web site by Joanna Ashmun as an outline for your writing above.

Here's a bit from that web site. Red highlights are my addition:

Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) -- or else they are worthless. There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like "I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn't hurt you and you are lying about it now..." -- sorry, folks, I get lost after that. Anyhow, narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they're paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw. Be wary of wandering into this dragon's cave -- narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then -- well, it's kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: "There. Now I feel better. Where were we?" They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, "You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)" Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice. The other "punishment" narcissists mete out is banishing you from their glorious presence -- this can turn into a farce, since by this point you are probably praying to be rescued, "Dear God! How do I get out of this?" The narcissist expects that you will be devastated by the withdrawal of her/his divine attention, so that after a while -- a few weeks or months (i.e., the next time the narcissist needs to use you for something) -- the narcissist will expect you to have learned your lesson and be eager to return to the fold. If you have learned your lesson, you won't answer that call. They can't see that they have a problem; it's always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change. Therapies work at all only when the individual wants to change and, though narcissists hate their real selves, they don't want to change -- they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won't brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they'll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don't know the difference between fear and love. Narcissists just get worse and worse as they grow older; their parents and other authority figures that they've feared die off, and there's less and less outside influence to keep them in check.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Great point Ted, about Hubbard's narcissistic personality. :thumbsup:

This explanation and view aligns well with easily observable patterns of behavior with him and the Church of Scientology. How can any person fail to see this? :duh:
 
Great Points!

Thanks, Gadfly and Ted, for those excellent posts. :clap:

Lurkers, LOOK, don't think! :) Read everything you can get your hands on about Corporate Scientology, and then make up your own minds if it is a group you should be a part of and support, with your money, time and talents! :thumbsup:
 

Veda

Sponsor
A discussion of the overt (visible)/covert(hidden) nature of Scientology:

TL;DR

However, it goes to show what an introverted, wack-job of self-important, micromanagement this organization really is.

Assuming it's stated purposes are honest and factual, there is but one valid stat for the organization: Number of individuals and companies in the org's field that are flourishing and prospering according to their own goals, purposes, and ideal scenes.

All stats relative to the scientology organization should revolve around the above. Anything else is superfluous or outright bullshit.

With each passing year, the scientology field gets dirtier and dirtier. As the flow of new people into orgs grinds to a halt, the dirty field stat should level off. That's one way to control it.

Also the stats reward attacking the environment. As opposed to first policy of maintaing friendly relations.

Don't worry. There are stats for "maintaining friendly relations" too.

(In fact, when Hubbard was writing letters to the FBI, in the 1950s, claiming that people were communists or communist sympathizers, he was very friendly with some of those same people.)

"Find out who your friends are, develop them. Find out who your enemies are, destroy them."

"PR is overt. Intelligence is covert."

Hubbard developed his PR tech as cover (to which he attached the so called "first policy of maintaining friendly relations"), after he developed Scientology covert Intelligence (Fair Game) tech.

PR tech is wrapped around Intelligence tech, per his instructions.

That's a clue, old chap.

You contradict yourself re his policy on that.

You say:- "PR is overt. Intelligence is covert."

This is from PR series 7 :-

Next two lines:-

"PR is at its best when it begins and ends overtly.

Intelligence is best when it begins and ends covertly."


" It can be a serious error to cross intelligence and PR

They are two different fields. They have two distinctly
different technologies."

As ex OSA or GO or whatever I bow to your superior knowledge.
But perhaps you may wish to check for any misunderstandings?

First policy dates from march 1950. Way before GO/OSA and PR series.

He of course took this from the vast data base of wisdom that exists.
He was no dummy!

Perhaps best expressed by the Sage of bethlehem:-

"Love thy neighbour as thyself"

" Turn the other cheek"

The parable of the good Samaritan.

This Sage probably gave better lecture than LRH.

They don't mix; they complement each other.

For example, Intel frames someone for a crime he/she didn't commit, and then PR - separately - promotes that the person is "under investigation," etc.

Another example, Intel concocts a plan to send Scientologists out to buy a particular Hubbard Fiction book (in batches retail) in a specific location during a specific week, making it (fraudulently) a "Bestseller," than - separately - PR promotes it as having been a Bestseller.

Intel "creates facts" by forgery, fraud, or "setting up" a person, and then that created fact (a lie), becomes a "fact." Once a "fact," it becomes a "truth" and can be used in PR.

'First policy' is a joke, and always was.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=31490&postcount=3
 

Veda

Sponsor
Part 2:

Your above comments violate :-

" Never use lies in PR" PR series 2.

This and other matters have become celebrated footbullets.

First policy a joke? Go tell Jesus!

Enjoying your re -writes of green on white. :)

Now, you're mixing PR with Intel.

Once Intel (covertly) "creates a fact," in the various ways described above - and in the link I provided you - it IS a fact. For example, it was a fact that Paulette Cooper was indicted by a Grand Jury for making bomb threats - that indictment by a Grand Jury WAS a FACT, and was "TRUE."

And the people - in PR, in Scientology - who were told that she had been indicted, believed it was true. They had NO awareness that Paulette Cooper had been covertly framed by Scientology covert Intel "dirty tricks."

Another example (which apparently didn't register the first time): Fraudulent means was - discreetly, behind the scenes - used to create "Best Seller" status for Hubbard's 1970s Science Fiction books. The average PR person (or the average Scientologist) telling people that these were "bestsellers" really DOES believe it. It's right there on the 'New York Times' list of bestsellers. It's a FACT. It's "true." and - even per 'PR Series 2' - it is a FACT.

But, of course, it's a lie.

"Reality is basically agreement."

"A datum is an invention which has become agreed upon and so solidified... To get to this state it has to be thoroughly agreed upon. When it is thoroughly agreed upon it becomes, then, a truth."

What do you think Hubbard meant when he used the terms "nicey nicey PR" and "PR of PR"?

This is Scentology, remember? "Reality is basically agreement."

Have you read 'PR Series 18'? (Three sentences of which are contained in this link, but please read the entire issue. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=219727&postcount=54) and have you - carefully - read all of the PR Series issues? Have you read the confidential PR Series issues? and other related confidential issues?

If you have - which I doubt - you haven't understood them, or the subject of "PR" in Scientology, or - frankly - Scientology itself.

And you sure as heck don't understand Hubbard if you're comparing him to Jesus.

I accept that you really don't grok Scientology, even though you promote it with great enthusiasm and oozing "ARC."

And this is a problem with many Scientologists. Scientology deeply influences them, yet they - in important areas - don't understand it.

Worse, it appears to have been meant to be that way, per its devious and manipulative founder's design.

And I'm very sorry that this is the case. It certainly is a mess.

Or, as it has been called, a trap.

And to present to others a supposed system of enlightenment and have it be a trap is, to say the least, seriously rude.

You've got yourself one seriously rude guru there.

And good luck with that.

Most sensible people would not see First Policy as a joke. It is just good sense. It is assumed this policy was written from strength.

All things considered, i.e. destructive actions of the GO, SO, ethics policies, LRH's own contradictory orders and advices... This is much violation of First Policy that came from the same man who wrote it.

If his writings do anything to expose the man, LRH must have been a mixed bag of good sense and idiocy. It now appears to me that First Policy was written from good sense and cowardess. Once the coward-side gained strength it let loose its case, First Policy fell by the wayside.

In good sense, I can't reconcile the message of "What Is Greatness" with the image a couple of middle-aged men pushing a peanut around the deck of the Apollo while their shipmates and family watched and LRH bellowed, "Faster! Faster!"

Thank you Veda and Terril for this moment of enlightenment.

The so called "First Policy" appeared, not in 1950, but in HCOPL of 2 September 1970.

The overt/covert model for Scientology dates back to 1938, when Hubbard wrote of his (hidden) "real goal." There's nothing contradictory about Hubbard having Charles Reisdorf push a peanut around the deck of the Royal Scotsman with his nose (later Apollo), and his writing 'What is Greatness?'

It's a pattern, a paradigm, a template, a design. One carefully constructed, brick by brick, over many years. 'Battle Tactics' of February 1969 does not conflict with 'First Policy' of September 1970. 'Fair Game' (1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, etc.) and "What is Greatness?' (1966) are not contradictory; they are complementary, One is covert, The other is overt (publicized.)
 

Veda

Sponsor
Part 3:

And in so doing, OSA takes somebody who might have had a passing annoyance with Scn, and transforms him into a sworn, lifelong enemy. Major footbullet.

This sort of stuff only works short-term, and only to the extent that the OSA action is such that the target is intimidated into eternal silence, AND the target has no friends who get pissed off at the OSA attack. If the targets ever lose their fear of OSA, then you have the current phenomenon.

OSA creates enemies wholesale while "handling" people retail.

A "pure" covert operation would begin and be completed without any visible connection to Scientology. That means the person would know that stuff was happening, but wouldn't know its source.

Once it became a matter of public record, then Scientology - as an apparent bystander - would comment, in its "PR."

That's the way it's supposed to "work."

Mainly, people hear about the times it didn't "work."

"Tech is out in Orgs" right now, so this tech - to some extent - is "out" too.

In this thread, however, I wasn't debating the degree of success of this particular part of Scientology tech, only attempting to describe the relationship of Scientology PR tech to Scientology Intel tech. :)

Thanks, Veda, for doing so! It helps me to see things clearer and understand the current situation more. :)
I hope it will be informative for others, as well.
 
Top