Excerpted from Conference with The Guardian, LRH Aide, LRH Communicator, Legal WW, Guardian Communicator and the Head of Intelligence Branch 5, Office of LRH (July 18, 1966)
Something I’ve just discovered. That in view of the fact that they have criminal backgrounds or in view of the fact that investigation will reveal this, our investigation should therefore go forward on the discovery of crime.
In a case of entheta1 or enturbulation, that we should go forward on this matter to the discovery of a crime as a first action. That we should act on this crime, not use it as blackmail or make some illegal use of it, but just as a public body and reform organization act on this crime, and then when it is acted upon — then we sue. This is about as malicious and vicious perhaps as one could get but then you are suing a discredited source and this would become hallmarked after a while.
They’d say, “The Scientologists must have done that because first he was jailed and then he was sued.”
And so that you could lead to an expectancy that if somebody was very ambitious in spreading malicious gossip and rumour against Scientology or its principles, that they would be investigated with an effort to discover a criminal act; that the organization would then act to have them incarcerated and at that time, when they are discredited in this line, they would then be sued for libel and slander.
Now I have had to step up the bargaining of Ethics on the public front — that is to say the duress that we apply because we obviously aren’t applying quite enough pressure to cause the people’s banks to behave while we get on with our job.
Now with Ethics lines you see, you’ve got to apply just enough restraint — you don’t ever apply too much restraint — and you don’t apply too little: you’ve got to apply enough restraint.
Well obviously we have Ethics and we are putting it in a public front — we aren’t putting it in with enough velocity. Now, if we expect to get technology in in the world we must then, first, get in Ethics.Now Ethics springs up as enturbulence against Scientology — when Ethics comes up with enturbulence against Scientology it makes it impossible for us to get on with the job.
Now this is regardless of any operation which comes up, OT Base or any operation of this kind. It’s obvious to me, after my study of four months, that we will have to get in Ethics on a broad social level before we can ever get in technology because these people are just too crazy and it’s like trying to help a wounded buffalo out of a wallow and that is not the same activity.
We say to this fellow, “You’ve got a lot of worries,” and “You have a lot of family trouble,” and that sort of thing.
“Well, we can make you more clever and if you were a bit more clever you could handle your problems.”
And we say this and instantly we get gored. So it’s a case in point.
So this, I’m officially telling you that this is the new policy; it’s on a broad social basis. We concentrate on getting in Ethics and then we follow that up with tech. And that is the policy. And then where possible — where we have discovered a great deal of entheta coming back at us, then we intend to get this handled by investigating it back to a criminal act by the person.
A criminal act is disassociated from the entheta of course but that’s what they are trying to defend or something and we get that and then we put on the pressure publicly to have that person prosecuted for that particular act and then when they have been prosecuted — or are being prosecuted — or are just beautifully discredited at that particular moment, then we serve them with a summons [?] law and order, assault and battery or whatever they did is not of interest to us except to discredit them and then we serve that with a suit for libel or slander.