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 form of ideas.

By carefully watching press to see who is called upon by the press for counter-opinions, one can work one’s way easily toward the centre [sic] of any hostile network.

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 press is fed anti materials. Although reporters do not disclose their sources, their stories often do.

The enemy uses “groups” and meetings of groups like one would use squads.

To get a hostile opinion, the reporter looks in the files to see who is sending in hostile data and calls the person for comment. This is a training pattern developed from current „teachings“ that all stories must have conflicts, a press style set some time ago by „Paris Match“. They think this is the basis of reader interest. It isn’t, but they think it is.

If we and they are considered as two hostile and opposing nations at war, then a huge array of tactics and strategy become visible.

Thus by studying clippings you can find who has given them hostile data earlier or to whom they are referred for hostile data.

One parallels in the field of thought what is used and done is in the field of battle in other ages.

By taking these hostile names one can then do a run-down on the person or his connections or both.

You don't have to know too much about the tactics and strategy of warfare to apply this but it helps.

As there are actually very few of these names they thereby (cross filing) lead one to common denominators and one can locate attack sources.

The end product of war, according to Klansewitz the authority on it, is (condensed) “to bring about a more amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy”.

It is wise to challenge such adverse commentators as routine procedures. A call by a local „housewives committee“, etc. as to why they are hostile to human rights or in favor of psychiatric butchery and getting them in the press with it and with no mention of us is good PRO.

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 a basis of total attrition of the enemy. So never get reasonable about him. Just go all the way in and obliterate him.

Intelligence data when gained, can be fed back to PRO for more spectacular confrontations.

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.

Intelligence uses the names for investigation, run back, cross filing.

A good general expands the maximum of enemy troops and the minimum of his own. He makes the war costly to the enemy, not to himself.

PRO uses the hostile commentator to guide his own counter attacks.

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, governments, etc.

The effect at the least is to shut the hostile people up.

Seeing it as a battle one can apply battle tactics to thought actions.

This activity (investigate, press counter-attack such speakers) must not be neglected.

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.

We happen to be fortunate, if you call it that, that persons hostile to Scientology usually have criminal backgrounds even when in public life. One doesn’t always find these even when they exist but one at least finds connections which are useful.

Good intelligence pin points who when where what.

It is very sound strategy never to fight a battle on your own territory or subject or even on the territory of an ally. Always fight battles in enemy territory.

Good PRO plans an action and operations fights the battle.

Therefore do exposes of such people in the area of their subjects or interests, not bringing us or any real ally into it.

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.

For instance, all these years, the enemies of Scientology had no real dead bodies lying all over the place. But we defended on our own ground.

You can win a battle even without legal and by PRO alone. You intend to win it without legal wherever possible.

We have begun to fight on his terrain. Let’s keep it that way.

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. That's you.

Use „counter opinion“ names as investigation subjects, find their terrain, find the crimes on it and attack on that terrain and the enemy, not ourselves, will be in trouble.

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 like wars.

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 lose it.