Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

Discussion in 'Education, Research and Inside Reports' started by lermanet_com, Mar 3, 2008.

  1. lermanet_com Member

    Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    Every thing in Scientology is choreographed... a SHOW, an apparency,
    designed to leave the uniformed public confused and to provide an
    apparency of agreement that there is 'public' belief that a certain desired
    fallacy that benefits the coffers of $cientology is true

    Teen Screen is legislation to interview school kids to prevent
    SUICIDES...that is opposed by the scam of scientology, because it is
    based upon psychology and psychiatry...

    I never had any doubt that all the letters to editors and the anti-
    psych spam was coordinated, but you'll LOVE THIS:

    "LEAF" = Letters to the Editor Attack Force

    It was / is an actual group set up to do this...

    Run by Doyle Mills, CW scientologist and OSA volunteer. He also works
    at Digital Light Wave

    Note that in some of the letters he says: "report compliance by
    So his "LEAF" operatives are commanded to report completion of
    back to him!

    Note the "LEAF Buffalo Letters" one.

    From: "Mr Doyle Mills" <>
    To: "Mr Doyle Mills" <>
    Subject: LEAF - TeenScreen Letter
    Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:25:38 -0500
    Message-ID: <>
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Offi
    ce Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
    Thread-Index: AcbsE2RsSxYtpg2mTXOxYZlar4H3Yg==
    x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198

    Need a quick TeenScreen comment. ... /2006100...

    Click on the above link and read the short article
    which mentions TeenScreen.

    Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and write
    your comments.

    You can write what you want. If you need hatting go to

    I do have a request though. If your last name ends in
    A-B, J-M or T-Z, include the TeenScreen petition link
    in your letter. Here's the link

    And if your last name ends in C, H or S, I'd like you
    to also write an email to the reporter. Tell him to
    dig a little deeper next time, to find out the full
    truth about TeenScreen or something like that.

    And report compliance by email.

    Thank you,


    I don't usually forward these things. But since I
    haven't given any LEAF assignments in the last few
    days I thought some of you might be antsy to get in
    some production.

    If you have the time and fit the qualifications, help
    out. If not, no sweat, I'll get out a real LEAF
    assignment in a day or two.



    From: Tulia Connan []
    Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:57 AM
    To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
    Importance: High

    Dear All,
    We are launching the biggest mass mailing campaign and
    a major part of it will occurr at our website. We
    have a big project, that if we get at least 10 people
    doing it, it will only take you about a day or two.

    We are looking for volunteers that know some HTML.
    This is urgent, and it can be done from anywhere!.

    Please call us or email us if you can help or know
    someone who could.

    This needs to be a donation offcourse, commendations
    will be given!

    Please contact our Webmaster at




    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection


    And one of them is mine!

    I encourage you to read these two letters. I think
    they definitely impinge. They are much longer than
    newspapers normally like to publish, which is good.
    The editor must have thought it important enough to
    give us more space. We actually got more words than
    the one we were responding to. ... inion1.txt ... inion2.txt

    Doyle Mills' letter:
    There are "facts" and then there is the truth

    Your recently published a letter from two social
    workers - Ms. Gutman and Ms. Jarvis - on the subject
    of TeenScreen. Curiously, it was entitled the "facts"
    about the TeenScreen program.

    I think the social workers should crack open a
    dictionary and look up what a "fact" is. Obviously
    with no investigation of their own, they accept and
    spew the "facts" given to them by TeenScreen. One of
    the definitions for facts is "something said to be
    true or supposed to have happened," as in this
    example: "The facts given by the witness are highly
    questionable." Yet the public doesn't want or need
    that kind of "facts" to be presented as truth. They
    need real facts, as in this definition: "something
    that actually exists; reality; truth."

    Ms. Gutman's and Ms. Jarvis' letter is full of
    assertions, none of which can be proven by evidence.
    TeenScreen spawned a lawsuit in Indiana because a teen
    was screened and labeled with a mental disorder
    without her parents' knowledge.

    TeenScreen refuses to release the identity of their
    mysterious donors. Many members of TeenScreen's
    executive board have connections to drug companies.
    TeenScreen's biggest supporter and co-conspirator is
    NAMI, which receives millions from drug companies, a
    verifiable fact because NAMI is a non-profit
    organization required to reveal its contributors.

    TeenScreen is intimately involved in treatment, as
    evidenced by the fact that TeenScreen always partners
    with a local mental health provider so that identified
    youth can be directed into treatment. That information
    can be found on TeenScreen's own website.

    Suicide IS a horrible tragedy. No one is denying that.
    Yet, suicide is very, very, very rare. If you want to
    see how rare, click on You'll see
    that the suicide rate for youth in Iowa as reported by
    the CDC is 2.62 per 100,000. That's a very small
    number. Screening identifies 30% or higher youth as
    needing further evaluation. Screening is obviously
    good for finding new customers for the mental health
    system but it's complete folly to pretend that its
    purpose is finding those at risk and preventing

    Add to that the FACT that the FDA requires a black box
    warning on antidepressants, the same ones that will be
    given to some of these kids entering the mental health
    system via TeenScreen. This warning states that the
    drugs can CAUSE suicidal tendencies and violence in
    young people. Ms. Gutman and Ms. Jarvis neglected to
    mention that fact.

    Everything I have stated here is verifiable, backed up
    by evidence. Though this may be an editorial, I am not
    stating an opinion. I am stating documented, provable

    Doyle Mills

    Clearwater, FL

    Elizabeth Cameron's letter:
    Statistics don't indicate a significant danger

    I am writing in response to the letter "Here are the
    facts about the TeenScreen Program." This letter makes
    it sound like suicide is a pervasive threat for Iowa of such grave dimensions that it
    requires wholesale screening through the schools to
    catch the many desperate children whose difficulties
    would otherwise go unnoticed. Statistics from the
    Centers for Disease Control, however, would indicate
    otherwise: In 2004, 19 Iowa children between the ages
    of 0 - 18 committed suicide out of a total of 724,
    095. That is a percentage of .00262%, or 2.62 per
    100,000 people. That is hardly an epidemic.

    For the rare child who really is in trouble, though,
    it seems reasonable to ask whether TeenScreen and the
    recommendations that follow it will actually do him
    any good. First of all, is it not unlikely that his
    unhappiness will have been noticed already by somebody
    - parents, teachers, minister, coaches, or friends?
    Are we so unobservant that only an official suicide
    questionnaire will uncover a child on the edge? I
    doubt it.

    Secondly, even if this were likely, does it really
    justify asking leading, suggestive questions to
    thousands upon thousands of other children, subjecting
    them to the possibility of misdiagnosing, mislabeling,
    and potentially damaging treatments? I don't think so.

    And last, supposing that we screen everybody and
    really do catch a child who appears to be in trouble -
    then what? In the wake of this assessment - whatever
    else is recommended - the follow-up is very likely to
    include a referral, a diagnosis, and a prescription.
    Once in the hands of a psychiatric professional,
    diagnosis will be made on the basis of the Diagnostic
    and Statistical Manual, which has been thoroughly
    discredited. Then, prescription, and no help there.
    Black box warnings have been added to various
    psychiatric drugs on the basis that they can actually
    increase the likelihood of suicide.

    So what do we do? We get this TeenScreen program out
    of the schools, and help children without hurting
    them. Caring parents and teachers and ministers and
    friends can do far more to bring children up to an
    enthusiasm for life than all the assessments and
    diagnoses and prescriptions in Christendom.

    Elizabeth Neal Cameron

    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection


    The Manitowoc (Wisconsin) Herald-Times published 5
    letters today against TeenScreen! Woohoo!

    You know, if you got all your friends to write
    letters, we could have the truth being printed in
    thousands of newspapers. Have your friends contact me
    if they need a little info on how to write good
    letters to the editor.

    Although it's sad that 50 children in the state commit
    suicide a year, that is a small number since there are
    millions of kids in the state. This doesn't warrant
    screening millions of children, and many of the kids
    that have committed suicide were already under
    psychiatric care. The normal treatment for kids with
    mental problems is to put them on highly addictive,
    mind-altering psychiatric drugs which have side
    effects of possible heart problems, brain damage,
    possible thoughts of suicide and possible violent
    behavior (read the black box warning). There are
    already over 4 million children in our country on
    these drugs and I'm sure by now you have read the
    articles on the over-drugging of children in America.
    Teen Screen asks children about 12 questions. There
    are no physical tests are done. The child could have
    allergies, hormone imbalances, bad diet, no exercise
    or some other physical problem going on, which is
    never looked for. Many kids have been mis-diagnosed.
    This leaves the child being mis-labeled for the rest
    of his life. Teen Screen is promoted as the answer but
    it just doesn't work and is actually causing more harm
    than help. -- Carol Jenkins of Largo, Fla.

    Parents need to be very aware that their parental
    rights are being challenged by the psychiatric
    industry through the Teen Screen program. Even some
    psychiatrists admit openly that psychiatry does not
    cure, it only controls. Their so-called science is
    really a pseudo-science. It has no basis in fact, it
    has no scientific tests that stand up to critical
    review. MDs base their work on true science. Such is
    not the case with psychiatry. Parents and the general
    citizenry need to find out the truth about the real
    motives of the psychiatric and the pharmaceutical
    industry. Their goal is to have more than 8 million
    children on drugs within a few years. Through Teen
    Screen, they are tempting your children with pizzas
    and other coupons to take part in the program. Parents
    do not even know what is going on. Parents would be
    amazed if they knew what sort of questions their
    children are being asked in the program. Teen Screen
    favors a "Passive Consent" form that requires no
    parental approval. For more, I refer your readers to Addiionally, only recently did the FDA
    mandate that the black box "Warning: Side effects
    include possible suicide" be placed on psyche drugs. --
    Henry W. Schroeder of Madison

    There are no studies that show "screening" reduces
    suicide. There are studies i.e. U.S. Preventive
    Services Task Force report of May of 2004 states: A.
    There is no evidence that screening for suicide risk
    reduces suicide attempts or mortality. B. No studies
    were found that directly address the harms of
    screening and treatment for suicide risk. So why
    screen? The only logical answer is to enrich
    psychiatrists and big pharma. Will other businesses be
    allowed to screen kids? Since no scientific proof is
    required perhaps "astrologists" would like a crack at
    the kids. No, they can't afford the bribes. Who will
    step up and demand proof before allowing kids to
    become money-making experiments for the unscrupulous?
    -- Tony Miller of Fresno, Calif.

    I have been astounded and amazed at fact that some
    parents and educators just take, just "swallow," the
    advertisements and statements that have come across
    the media about psychiatric drugs. Often you read or
    hear: "These are safe; these will help." And yet, the
    FDA and many other agencies all over the world have
    put out warnings that these drugs can cause suicides
    and violence. I am a grandmother of two children and
    four grandchildren, and I have spent a good portion of
    the last 20 to 25 years doing tutoring, helping
    students and have observed thousands of students. I
    have used educational methods that have proven to be
    successful in handling the students: not focusing,
    feeling exasperated, squirming around, not doing
    homework, aggressiveness, super activity, being
    defiant to teachers, day dreaming and many other
    behaviors. Never did I have to use drugs, psychiatric
    help of any kind, and the students really understood
    what they were studying. If they were ill, they went
    to get an exam from a medical doctor. So, from having
    this real experience I know that children do not have
    to take dangerous drugs; I have seen that there is a
    real help that works, and does not kill. -- Mary
    Collins of Concord, N.H.

    After seeing various incarnations of this exact story
    in more than 25 different newspapers across the
    country over the last year, it amazes me that the
    pharmaceutical companies can blatantly troll for
    future customers in our schools (using their front
    group "TeenScreen") and there isn't more of an outcry
    from the parents. Garrett Smith is the latest teen
    tragedy who was placed on "meds" to combat depression
    only to commit suicide shortly thereafter. And the
    list grows.
    TeenScreen would be a joke if the situation weren't so
    serious. If TeenScreen has its way, by its own
    estimates 37 percent of all teens will be put on
    anti-depressants. Given the horrible side effects of
    anti-depressants which include suicide and murder
    (Helloooo? Is anyone paying attention?), that will
    turn our entire school system into a modern day Mei
    Lei (as with Columbine). I don't know a single parent
    who wants that. -- Phil Gilbert of Hollywood, Calif.


    We dont have to make up anything about scientolgy, the truth is
    stranger than any rubbish that could be invented..

    "The incredulity of our data, is our best defense"

    "There is nothing as wild in the books of Man as will probably happen
    here on Earth. And it will happen and be allowed to happen simply
    because all this is so incredible that nobody will even think of
    stopping it until it is far, far too late." LRH
    LERMANET.COM Exposing the CON of Scientology since 1996
    Arnie Lerma
    703-241-1498 Exposing the CON
    for our friends and family
    to get them out of scientology
    before they end up here:
  2. lermanet_com Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    Re Scientology is a Theatrical, scientologists are Humans wearing psychic Hubbard Masks
    Perhaps that is why the Theatrics of wearing a Guy Fawlkes mask is so amazingly successful..
    I think Ill wear one too..
  3. lermanet_com Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    why are we getting this stuff?
  4. lermanet_com Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    we have known it for years but never had the evidence...

    my own reaction to learning this was odd.. it kind of proves Goebbels[/url:1qapoa2w] was right... repeat a lie long enough eventually it becomes (perceived as) truth
    or at least, when what was alleged to be a lie is proven to be a lie, with evidence
    even I stand around and go, wow.. we were right all along. Ever so slightly noticing that I was ever so slightly caused to doubt myself - WHICH IS the purpose of repeating lying allegations... it works... to some slight degree..

    It is what we don't know that concerns me, if this is how they respond to a newspaper article or web blog, imagine...
    how they are currently manipulating the efforts in our money-rules, and once time, long ago, 'democratic' political process?

    No wonder Germany is rightfully convinced they are the threat to Democracy.
  5. anonangl Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    To me this means we have to do our best to make sure to post our opinions and real facts so people can be educated about this menace.
  6. lermanet_com Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    This info needs to be known by every journalist
    and every editor who has been or is being peppered with
    these choreographed replies, along my telephone 703-241-1498
    for any journalists who might wish additional information,
    this isn't ALL the traffic I have...

    The problem is this is also playing whack a mole with scientology's lies,
    The thing about lies is there are an infinite number of lies
    but only one truth

    So seeking to overwhelm opponents of inconvenient truths by appeal-to-emotion-style LIES...
    it helps to believe thefallacy[/url:1tyn8mn3] that Reality is agreement.. which means you believe counting heads is evidence (1)
    which makes it easier to easy to fall for such deceits.


    (1) Counting heads is not evidence -
    California Institute of Technology[/url:1tyn8mn3] review of Dianetics
  7. JohnDough Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor


    It is a not too infrequent part of the job of a PRO {Public Relations Officer} to encounter hostile contacts. To handle such, one has to be fast and effective at dead agenting.
    Every successful PRO knows how to dead agent and wins.
    As the tech on dead agenting and handling hostile contacts is scattered in various P/Ls and write-ups, it is issued collectively now as policy for use. Learn these techniques well. Use them with success!
    Passages taken directly from L. Ron Hubbard's writings or from transcripts of his verbal briefings are in italics [indented] {but not in this webbed version. Jeta}. Other passages are from D/G PRO WW write-ups reproduced by courtesy of the Guardian's Office.
    These materials relate directly to
    · PR Series 23 The Press Book
    · PR Series 22 Press Conferences, Preparation for
    It is my specific intention that by the use of professional PR tactics any opposition be not only dulled but permanently eradicated. This takes data and planning before positive action can occur. (LRH) {L. Ron Hubbard, guru and founder of the criminal Scientology and Dianetics psycho-business}
    Never let entheta pass unhandled. Prevention is better than cure. Handle fast, handle with live communication, handle with documentation, use PR technology including tone scale evaluation. Liaise with your senior and the other divisions/bureaux. Maintain ethics presence and see the matter through to a completion including the discrediting of the attacker.
    Experience has shown that defence is only effective when one sorties or attacks.
    The errors we have made have been:
    1. Defending only.
    2. Defending on Scientology ground.
    3. Being reasonable and assigning mild motives to the enemy.
    4. Failing to attack early and hard.
    5. Undervaluing the broad social value of Scientology.
    6. Individuating from other similar organizations.
    7. Not learning enemy tactics and using and bettering them.
    8. Failing to heavily contest for public opinion and public media.
    9. Failing to identify the enemy early and hit him hard. (LRH)
    The technique of proving utterances false is called "DEAD AGENTING".
    It's in the first book of Chinese espionage. When the enemy agent gives false data, those who believed him but now find it false kill him - or at least cease to believe him.
    So the PR slang for it is "Dead Agenting."
    This consists of disproving utterly the false statement with documents or demonstration or display.
    One has to have a kit (a collection of documents) or the ability to demonstrate or something to display.
    STATEMENT: "I've been told you are in trouble with Income Tax people."
    REBUTTAL: "Here's a document of fully paid taxes and a letter of commendation from the tax authorities." Displays same.
    Result? Whoever told him that is now dead with him as an accurate informer.
    The best way to dead agent is when the person makes some disprovable statement, find WHO to fix his mind on it and then produce the rebuttal.
    STATEMENT: "I hear you aren't married to the man you're living with."
    REBUTTAL: "WHO told you that?"
    STATER: "I forget."
    REBUTTER: "Well, you remember and I'll show you some proof."
    STATER: "Well, it was a man..."
    STATER: "Joe Schmo."
    REBUTTER: "Okay. Here's my marriage certificate. Who's the Joe Schmo nut anyway?"
    Now it's Joe Schmo who's the mystery. How come he lies? What's in it for him?
    When one hasn't got the document but can get it one can say "You tell me the name of whoever said that and next time I see you I'll show you something very interesting about it."
    And be sure to get the document and see him again.
    Dead agenting has a billion variations. "It won't fly." Fly it. "Place is empty." Show him it's full.
    The subject matter of Dead Agenting is PROOF in whatever form.
    You only challenge statements you can prove are false and in any conversation let the rest slide.
    In defending against hostile PR, once more it is in the R that counts. Sun Tzu in his book about warfare gives several types of agent. One of these is the "dead agent" because he tells lies to the enemy and when they find out they will kill him.
    Hostile (or counter-PR) is usually the usual fabric of lies.
    If one finds out the lies being told and documents just one as being false, he has made counter-PR recoil. His hearer will never believe him again. He's 'dead'.
    In the war between psychiatric hostile PR and the truth of Scientology, the "dead agent" caper has a field day. Psychiatric PR has been lying for 20 years. Documented, the fact of these lies are lies is killing off psychiatry.
    You understand, it's not one PR's word against another's. It's one PR's documents against the other PR's lies! That is correct defensive PR. (LRH)
    The quality of the documentation is a major factor. The PRO should have the right to chit and demand better quality documentation if it's not up to standard. One should be very inventive and very creative in the presentation of his pack. As the false reports on us are generally repeated over and over and over again in different ways one can have in stock, so to speak, false report correction packs and booklets. One of these could be the Background and Ceremonies of the Church, a WW publication. There are various bona fide publications for different countries. There is Scientology 20th Century Religion, there is the publication Viewpoint from the US and we now have Omar Garrison's Hidden Story of Scientology. Then there are things like the quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica Year Book, etc.
    This is correct procedure:
    1. Spot who is attacking us.
    2. Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.
    3. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
    4. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
    Also press releases should always contain some factor of endurance. This gives the public the idea that we endure. Examples:
    · "For many years now we have stated..."
    · "We have stood up to such attacks many times and are still surviving and expanding."
    · "Since 1950 we have..."
    · "Eighteen years ago..."
    ALWAYS ATTACK in a press release. Never Defend or Deny. (LRH)
    Reporters are a kiss of death unless one really is an expert PR man himself. Reporters have to be handled and well. If truly friendly, they have to be wooed. If not they have to be handled.
    The routine is:
    1. Whisper of a bad story
    2. Get a lawyer
    3. Threaten suit
    4. Totally discredit using the technique of the Dead Agent caper which MUST be understood in full.
    It consists of photostats of good stories and authentic documents that state the truth and thus wreck any lies and the liar. "Dead agent" means when they find out the guy lied (proven by documents) he's dead. The kit of the PRO MUST contain a full set of such documents, adequate to cancel out any lies told.
    And it must be fast. It must come to an immediate confrontation. (LRH)
    The actual handling is very swift. You can make the offending person the butt of your wit, handle seriously, take him over the hills and far away conversationally, but it has to be swift and smooth with one person in control.
    As soon as you get some entheta about us, you immediately jump on the person and ask who else has he been saying that to, getting all the names. Ask for the person's credentials, where he comes from, who sent him - give him a hard time of it. (LRH)
    We endeavor to hit from as many directions as possible. For example, a reporter was conducting a one-man crusade against Scientology in his newspaper. PR handled by having formal complaints made on the conduct of the reporter to his newspaper, the Press Council and the police with full documentation as to the lies he told and actions which he had taken, including threats and attempted blackmail by him. A full submission was presented giving six or seven pounds weight of PR data from the Church of Scientology on itself, its social reforms, its view on psychiatry, etc.
    This data was indexed and bound so that it looked something of value. The pack was left with a high official and other officials were informed that full submissions had been left there and if they needed information he would be able to supply it. The Press Council ended up investigating the reporter and the stomach has gone out of his crusade.
    False reports are corrected by true facts. You do whatever you have to do to get the true facts communicated and published. Documentation is the biggest aid in doing this. Communicating corrections obtained from other media helps build ethics presence and makes for a careful press and media.
    When an entheta story with false reports has been published it must be handled fast by telephone call, by personal visit, and always by letter confirming. The PR needs documentation which refutes and he needs it available to show or to give to the media. It is an obliteration tactic.
    For example, a newspaper publishes its third entheta article. Legal plays a hard line and PR plays the part of the peacemaker until a retraction and legal settlement is made. Documentation is then sent to all press, the Press Council and journalists and individual reporters. The documentation has a plea for reform and clean up of ethical standards. The result: the reporter in question will no longer be on staff.
    Every correction you obtain comes as something you can use. It is "beans"; there is an exchange now because you can use that in your prevention.
    A common error in the actual tech of false report correction is contained in repeating the original entheta in our published correction of it. By that we give the enemy two cracks. This is very easily avoided by simply doing an item fact correction sheet and making it clear that it is not for publication, accompanying it with the thing which is for publication or promising the thing for publication to follow.
    Time is always of the essence. The longer an entheta piece is permitted to persist the more difficult the correction becomes, the more damage is done by it and the more likely it is to be quoted by another.
    Research and experience has shown that there are various factors which contribute to successfully obtaining equal space in the media. The major factors are:
    1. Speed of handling.
    2. Duplication of the nature of the media or person(s) one isapproaching.
    3. Personal, live communication.
    4. Full documentation and correction of facts in previous article.
    5. Correct tone level evaluation and handling of media terminals.
    6. Previous theta articles on Scientology.
    7. Intention.
    Yes, one says, but how about the violent opposition? How about that fellow?
    Well, he's a problem. But he is an opinion leader.
    One has to decide how much of an opinion leader he is.
    If you don't handle a would-be opinion leader who is anti but who is NOT an opinion leader, people get cross.
    The decision here stems from
    a. Is he talking about actual abuses? or
    b. Is he just lying?
    In either case one has certain courses of action. If the abuses are actual, work to remedy them. If he is just lying, lay out the truth.
    If he really isn't an opinion leader, ignore him.
    But one can only interfere with him or remove him if many, many are getting cross because you don't. But that's a risky business.
    As a rule, only that dissident person should be removed who is speaking in your name and on your lines and using your power to do you down. And then he can only be removed off your lines as you are under no obligation to finance or empower your own opposition. That's suicide.
    He is not an opinion leader but a traitor for he owes his power to you.
    Usually anti-opinion leaders are made by neglect.
    PR-wise one has to catch them early and handle. (LRH)
    One propagandizes the enemy population or one's own or neutrals.
    In popular interpretation it is a parade of lies or half-truths or exaggerations.
    PR and advertising technology and mass news media are employed as well as word-of-mouth and posters.
    The trouble with it is that it can often be disproven, discrediting the utterers of it.
    It may serve the moment but after a war it leaves a very bad taste.
    If one is engaging on a campaign of this nature, its success depends on sticking to the truth and being able to document it.
    The entire black propaganda campaign conducted for 21 years against Scientology began to fold up in its 18th year because never at any time did its instigators (a) have any factual adverse data or (b) tell the truth.
    The Scientology movement continued if only by heroic means and much sacrifice.
    But at last nobody of any note believed the propaganda.
    The attackers pulled in on themselves a counterattack based on penetrating horrible documented truth.
    It required intelligence-like tactics to discover who it was exactly.
    The "dead agent caper" was used to disprove the lies. This consisted of counter-documenting any area where the lies were circulated. The lie "they were ___" is countered by a document showing "they were not". This causes the source of the lie and any other statements from that source to be discarded. (LRH)
    The technique is:
    · A hidden source injects lies and derogatory data into public view.
    · Since it is a hidden source, it requires an intelligence approach to successfully end it.
    In the meanwhile the "dead agent caper" is the best tool to counter it. (LRH)
    A good policy when faced with a Black Propaganda campaign is to defend as best you can (dead agent and legal restraints) while you find out (intelligence) WHO is doing it. Then, confrontation can occur. Finding and suing false whos can make things much more involved. (LRH)
    When one is not fighting a battle against Black Propaganda, public relations is easy.
    One hires a reporter who gets to work thinking up ideas and turning out releases. That's why reporters are often thought of as Public Relations people which they are not.
    In the face of a Black Propaganda Campaign, such releases are twisted, refused and that is the end of it.
    There is far more to the art than this.
    These are some of the rules that apply:
    1. Fill the vacuum of omitted data with factual data.
    2. Prove all false utterances heard are lies.
    3. Discredit every rumor encountered.
    4. Handle the interest level with any utterance.
    5. Carefully study out the scene until the exact source is located.
    6. Use the knowledge of source to impede or destroy the source of Black Propaganda by non-criminal means.
    7. Continue to fill the vacuum of no data with good data using any channels available.
    Each one of these points could well take a book. But understanding them and using one's initiative one can fill in a lot of the tech himself.
    The variations of each one are endless. (LRH)
    If there will be a long-term threat, you are to immediately evaluate and originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly that they will be ostracized. (LRH)
    In other words, handle the hell out of it. (LRH)
    PR isn't "being nice." It is a dynamic subject. (LRH)
    Alethiea C. Taylor Acting LRH Pers Secfor LRH Pers Commas ordered byL. RON HUBBARD®FOUNDER
  8. Captain-chan Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    Seems like it would be less work and less money to just stop being evil, amirite?
  9. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    From: "Mr Doyle Mills" <>
    To: [redacted]
    Sent: 2005 [full date redacted]

    Thank you!

    Ken and I "thunk" up LEAF in a phone call. I created
    the name and how it works. It's kind of a machine that
    goes like this:
    0. We thunk it up (div7)
    1. Ken asked for volunteers.(div1)
    2. I cull out weird people. (div1)
    3. I keep lists of members. (div2)
    4. I keep records of what we do. (div3)
    5. I send out assignments and the LEAF guys write
    letters. (div4)
    6. I provide a little hatting as needed. (div5)
    7. When letters get published, I send out a "win"
    e-mail to the whole group plus Ken. (div6)
    8. Ken forwards the "win" e-mail to his whole list to
    generate more members. (div6)
    And it circles back around with each new member.

    I wrote one commendation for Ken but I don't know of
    any others being created.

  10. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    From: "Mr Doyle Mills" <>
    To: [redacted]
    Sent: 2005 [full date redacted]
    Subject: Re: question re letters

    My first postulate on this whole project was to get
    letters out in volume to convince editors that "public
    opinion" was against psychiatry. I figured we'd get
    maybe 10% published at best.

    Right now we're running at 5.91%. Not that good and
    I'm trying to debug it.

    I definitely want to keep up the volume.

    I think it increases a person's chances slightly, if
    they are in a state or town, but I don't think it's a
    big factor. About 10 days ago we had 3 letters
    published in a Florida newspaper. One of the writers
    was from Texas, one from California and one from
    Connecticut. Although like 4 letters hit that paper
    from Florida, they chose to publish 3 out-of-state
    letters. Go figure.

    There are three things you could do, I think, if you
    really want to get more published.

    1. On each assignment, take a look at the letters
    they've published recently. Pay attention to length,
    tone level, and whether they tend to support or oppose
    what they are responding to.

    2. Make letters shorter. It's not a universal truth,
    but a lot of papers tend to prefer smaller letters.
    You'll find out better if you do step one.

    3. Write more letters. I know you're already doing all
    my assignments but you're certainly hatted enough to
    choose your own targets and just write some letters. I
    would like to know about them and I'll keep a record
    of what you send me but I would consider it separate
    from the LEAF project. Maybe I should send you various
    links and articles that I come across that I'm not
    going to make a LEAF assignment on. What would you
    think of that? They wouldn't be assignments, just
    articles, and you could write or not.

    But the main thing, from my viewpoint, is just keep
    outflowing. If we can tinker with it and get more
    published, that's good, but not the main thing. The
    main thing is outflow.

  11. Anonymous Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

    From: "Mr Doyle Mills" <>
    To: [list of email addresses, redacted]
    Sent: 2005 [full date redacted]
    Subject: Important - First Assignment

    You have all volunteered for a special project. Thank

    Your first assignment is to read this e-mail and do
    the one practical exercise that you will find near the
    bottom. Once you've done those two things, please let
    me know. Your deadline is midnight, Eastern Time,
    Friday February 4th.

    I'm Doyle. Pleased to make you e-quaintence, if that's
    a word. I'm in charge of this little group, that we
    are calling the "Letter to the Editor ATTACK Force"
    (LEAF). Hope you like the name.

    The purpose is to outflow lots of letters to the
    editor that provide the true data to counteract lies
    published in newspapers, magazines and websites.

    Hopefully many of these letters will get published. If
    we get out enough volume with reasonably good quality,
    then many of us will get to see our name in print.
    However, even the ones that do not get printed DO
    create an effect. In nearly all papers, an editor
    reads every single letter that comes in. So, we won't
    worry about whether they get published, we're just
    going to outflow. Ok?

    Next item, and this is important. I'm going to send
    out writing assignments a couple of times a week. Each
    will have a deadline, usually 48 hours from the time I
    send the e-mail. I would love it if everybody sends a
    letter in that time frame. However, I know you all
    have lives - I do too. If you don't meet the deadline,
    it's fine. Just end cycle on it and wait for the next
    assignment. My greatest fear is that some of you will
    miss a few deadlines, start to think you have overts
    on me, get blowy and withholdy and, well, you know how
    it can go from there. So I'm setting this straight
    right now. It is not an overt to miss a deadline.

    I'm in charge of this but I'm not your boss. Truly I'm
    here to serve you. I will select the targets. Most of
    the time our letters will be addressing some news or
    editorial item that appeared in that newspaper,
    magazine or website. I will provide that article for
    you. I will supply each of you with a diffent angle
    from which to write. For example, on a story about
    children on psych drugs, the following are some
    potential angles:
    1. No long-term research
    2. Dangerous side effects
    3. Handling only symptoms, not getting to the root
    4. No science in the diagnoses
    5. No science in the DSM IV
    6. Psychiatry's overall failure
    7. Increasing crime and illiteracy
    8. Psych drugs in cases of violence and suicide
    Sometimes I will provide a little hatting, like
    assigning you to read something from CCHR's website to
    learn what you should write about.

    Letters to the editor should be really short. Once we
    get this grooved in, I think you should be able to do
    each letter in 10 minutes, including reading the

    Each person who gets an article published will get a
    very nice commendation from me. I will probably also
    spring for some other nice prizes or at least I'll buy
    you a coffee.

    And now, the assignment. Get ahold of a newspaper or
    magazine. Find the letters to the editor. Read three
    of them. That's it.

    Ok, over to you.
  12. Scatman Member

    Re: Scientology's LEAF Project Letters to the Editor

  13. Triumph Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins