Today I have assembled everything I could find regarding these two courses and put it all here in one place for ease of reference. This post and the direct listings are also being added to our Reading Library in the Just Dox – Scientology section – sub-section Scientology Attack Policies/Actions.

Note: If you would like to see a nice list (with images) of some of Scientology’s Fair Game and Black Operation policies – please also see book Scientology Roots: Chapter 11 Scientology Thought Policethe References section.

Starting with the Guardian Office course sources first –

Gerry Armstrong and Caroline Letkeman put together a simplified version of Scientology’s Guardian Office training course for their Intelligence personnel. Their website where these materials were previously hosted is now down as of April 21, 2017, the last google cached version was dated late March, so it went down sometime after then.

You can view this internet archive page to see their original listing of the parts of this course that were previously available.

– – –

The Internet Archive

The Wayback Machine

– a section of that attempts to preserve websites.


The actual PDFs created by Gerry and Caroline were not available through the “Wayback Machine” of

In honor of this remarkable resource deserving of archival preservation, Mike McClaughry has now uploaded to the Internet Archive all of the PDFS including the checksheet (and a few later found missing issues included by Gerry and Caroline) for preservation of this immense undertaking by Gerry and Caroline.

They perfectly arranged and named the PDFs to correspond exactly to the sections of the checksheet.

To give you an example of just how well done that is, I quoted this issue 2 December 1969 Intelligence Actions Covert Intelligence in my still in draft status article called: CIA FBI NSA Personnel Active in Scientology

That issue was listed in section 4, part b of the course checksheet and in the corresponding PDF named Section4-PartB the issue was exactly next in order from the issue listed just before it on the checksheet.

– – –


This course checksheet and its materials were seized by the FBI during their raid of the Church of Scientology in July of 1977. It is an important resource for anyone investigating the background of these two organizations.

You can find not very well arranged scans and marked as evidence documents here as well as another version here which has some plaintext versions of key issues in the course. There is also an “overview” of the Guardian Office available here.

Please note –

Neither of the above resources can compare to the incredibly comprehensive and easy to use version that Gerry and Caroline put together. It is just that truly magnificent.

– – –

Many of the materials within this course, were rolled right on over into the reincarnation of the now defunct Guardian Office, the Office of Special Affairs.

Mark Rathbun 2014 videoed deposition part 1 – excerpt from transcript follows –


Rathbun: Not really. I became the top person concerning legal, and litigation, and intelligence, and PR for all of Scientology as of approximately January of 1982.

Deixler: I see. Tell me what your responsibilities were in connection with the legal litigation duties that you had as the head of legal — of legal affairs.

Rathbun: Well, it was the — primarily it was to get L. Ron Hubbard the all clear, and it was to dispense with — see to the end of two outstanding Grand Juries that were looking in to his connection to criminal activity in — one in Tampa and one in New York — and to get rid of about three dozen lawsuits that either named him or were part of this group of suits that did name him. That was duty No. 1. That was always the top, top priority. Duty No. 2 was to create this new organization to try to shed the legacy of the guardian’s office, which had been the previous legal department, whose leaders had gone to jail, including Ron Hubbard’s wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, for acts they had committed in harassing opponents. That was the second priority. And then three was to ferret out people who were in Scientology that had been guard — guardian’s office members who might, by the fact of remaining on staff within OSA and going with that transition, might create liability; either legal liability or PR liability in the future. Scientology was ferreting out and Miscavige called it disbanding the guardian’s office. And those were the three major objectives of that job.


Mark Rathbun in a 2013 article

I helped create this monster


That new organization, that monster, was the Office of Special Affairs, and Mark specifically oversaw the creation of the “new” intelligence course and checksheet.

Gerry and Caroline also archived some excellent examples showing the crossover, or rolling right on over into the new Office of Special Affairs, of a number of the key operating policies of the previous Guardian Office.

If you look at this page you will see a discussion of an issue concerning Black Propaganda which then links to the Guardian Order version and also the recreated version found in the Office of Special Affairs intelligence course checksheet.

If you look at the Guardian Office checksheet and the Office of Special Affairs checksheet you will see the same issue noted to be studied and applied by the intelligence-officer-in-training.

Another example can be found in Gerry and Caroline’s listing of key documents forming the backbone of Scientology’s Suppressive Person doctrine – an issue that was crossed over into the new Office of Special Affairs course called BATTLE TACTICS. Note that it is reissued 1987.

The original 1969 version as found in the Guardian Office course can be viewed in my post about one of the books (Clausewitz) required to be studied on a similar, but different Office of Special Affairs checksheet. This was a course that Heber Jentszch was required to study before he became the President of the Church of Scientology. (full details and documentation of that are all in my post).

Another example is GO 637 (Section 1, Part B, No. 39 of the GO checksheet) titled: Observations of the Great Health Monopoly dated 10 February 1973 was reissued as OSA NW Order 13 listed on the OSA checksheet at Section M, No. 6.

That’s just a few examples that can be found in comparing the two intelligence training courses – there are a lot more.

As to where to find the Office of Special Affairs intelligence course and checksheet, you can find the checksheet here and another one here. You can find Frank Oliver’s submission of the course materials themselves (issues etc.) here at wikileaks.and another direct PDF link to the materials here.

Then there’s the checksheet and course that Heber Jentzsch did as part of becomig President of the Church of Scientology. You can find the main page about it here.

Gerry and Caroline also put together a fairly comprehensive listing of Fair Game doctrines that researchers may also find useful.

In addition, on April 30 of 2017 Scott Gordon posted this PDF of an apparent redo of all the OSA issues begun by Mike Rinder (but not completed) before he supposedly left the auspices of the Church of Scientology.

It is probably important to note that approximately two weeks after Scott did this, Mike Rinder, Tony Ortega, and some nasty characters at a discussion board tried to basically “fair game” Scott Gordon for doing this, until I proved that the pack of issues did contain the exact same content (but changed numbering) in my post Ending The Debates – CIA DIRECTORS LOG September through December 1951 published on May 16, 2017.

Recently I caught Mike Rinder himself having previously used this very pack for a post at his blog. In fact, he was using a very specific issue title that is ONLY found in Scott Gordon’s leaked pack.

You might want to take a look at my documentation of this in my post called: Mike Rinder Lies About His Sources For L. Ron Hubbard Playbook Post – Gets Caught Fair-Gaming Scott Gordon published on May 18, 2017.

At the very least this shows Mike Rinder to be a complete hypocrite for attacking Scott Gordon.

The bigger question is, since Mike Rinder obviously had the pack himself for years now, why didn’t HE leak it?





Mark Rathbun refers to this as the bible of David Miscavige. This issue is not in any available course or checksheet listed above. Per Mark’s blog post of October 10, 2013 titled: Organized Crime and Standing One’s Ground, he quotes some of it and says that it states the following:

  1. These persons can always lose their jobs.  These jobs, permitting them power to destroy, are valuable to them.  This is A POINT OF VULNERABILITY.
  2. If the person’s job is also not valuable to him or if he cannot be made to cost his job, something can be found which he is seeking to protect and it can be threatened.


  4. Where A and C fail, use B.


        (a) Wherever an attack is in progress (and even when being held off by counter-propaganda from PR or actions from Legal) at once swiftly draw up a precise program using Intelligence principles and cross filing to isolate the attacker.

        (b) Identify the instigator.

        (c) When identified or even suspected as the instigator, draw up a project which includes at least three channels to cost him his job.

        (d) Draw up a second project at once to survey and discover what the person really is defending and threaten it effectively.

        (e) Execute the projects rapidly.

        (f) On achieving success inform PR so that PR can call off the PR counterattack and capitalize on any information gained if it does not expose Intelligence.

        (g) Inform legal so Legal can replan and utilize the information also gained to mop up.

        NOTE: Intelligence in these regards is not feeding PR and Legal as the only fruit of its endeavors.  It is OPERATING INDEPENDENTLY of these two functions with ITS OWN PRODUCT: I.E.  A DISMISSED ATTACKER or its secondary product: a totally restrained and muzzled attacker.

Mike Rinder, in his blog post titled: Mike Rinder Texas Declaration also quotes from this same issue in his deposition given on December 3, 2013 as part of the Monique Rathbun v. Scientology case. But not nearly as extensively as Mark’s post. Rinder’s declaration is in this PDF.

And here is a more stylized version that Mike McClaughry included in his Scientology Roots book.

28 March 1972 Counter Attack Tactics – Confidential





D. Where A and C fail, use B.


(a) Wherever an attack is in progress (and even when being held off by counter-propaganda from PR or actions from Legal) at once swiftly draw up a precise program using Intelligence principles and cross filing to isolate the attacker.

(b) Identify the instigator.

(c) When identified or even suspected as the instigator, draw up a project which includes at least three channels to cost him his job.

(d) Draw up a second project at once to survey and discover what the person really is defending and threaten it effectively.

(e) Execute the projects rapidly.

(f) On achieving success inform PR so that PR can call off the PR counterattack and capitalize on any information gained if it does not expose Intelligence.

(g) Inform Legal so Legal can replan and utilize the information also gained to mop up.

NOTE: Intelligence in these regards is not feeding PR and Legal as the only fruit of its endeavors. It is OPERATING INDEPENDENTLY of these two functions with ITS OWN PRODUCT: I.E. A DISMISSED ATTACKER or its secondary product: a totally restrained and muzzled attacker.


On November 5, 2016. Mike Rinder did a post called: Dealing with Critics of Scientology The L. Ron Hubbard Playbook. There are a host of problems with this posting of his, but look at the internet archive version of Mike Rinder’s post from  (here’s a PDF of it in case it goes missing).

Look at the beginning of it, before the “Evolved Principles” part. Notice that he adds something to his previously posted versions of Counter Attack Tactics, particularly the “ideal scene” section. Notice the addition of the title “bright idea” to the previsouly post by Mark Rathbun portion.

IDEAL SCENE: (For Information Bureau) Attackers against Scientology located and removed from their positions of power so that Scientology can get on with it.  And any threat of attack restrained, leaving Scientology a clear field.


These persons can always lose their jobs.  These jobs, permitting them power to destroy, are valuable to them.  This is A POINT OF VULNERABILITY.

If the persons job is also not valuable to him or if he cannot be made to cost his job, something can be found which he is seeking to protect and it can be threatened.


At least now we have a bit more of it, although this whole “Counter Attack Tactics” issue doesn’t seem to exist anywhere but from the creative minds of Mike Rinder and Mark Rathbun done after the Guardian Office take-down…the reason that it is important is because THEY DO USE IT.

So, now here’s a really interesting thing I just discovered.

In a blog post titled: ENEMIES OF SCIENTOLOGY DEPOPULARIZED TO THE POINT OF TOTAL OBLITERATION dated March 1, 2014 by Mark Rathbun, he includes a PDf that he says the following about:

All of these statistics are carefully designed to add up to the ‘valuable final products’ of the Investigations Bureau, one of which is: ENEMIES OF SCIENTOLOGY DEPOPULARIZED TO THE POINT OF TOTAL OBLITERATION.

Note well that one of  the first Hubbard references that these statistics are based upon per the publication itself is ADVICE 27 Mar 1972 COUNTER ATTACKS TACTICS.  We have explored the implications of that publication before, e.g. ‘Standing one’s ground’,  and no doubt will do so again in the future.  It explicitly states that when you cannot shut up a whistleblower by costing him or her their job you then effectively attack that which he or she most values (in most cases, that means spouses, children and other family members of the target).  If there was any doubt that it is currently enforced, you see it here prominently highlighted in modern OSA context.


First of all, notice that Rathbun refers to it as an ADVICE. That, all by itself, brings it into question. The whole “advice” line (from L. Ron Hubbard supposedly) didn’t start until after the FBI Raid of 1977, so the fact that this is called an ADVICE makes its date of being from 1972 highly questionable. This “advice” could have (and probably was) something written in 1972 by some Guardian’s Office intelligence person, like Mo Budlong or Dick Weigand, or even Terry Milner or Jimmy Mulligan.

However, my husband Mike McClaughry took the Guardian’s Office intelligence training in 1973 and was in the Guardian’s Office through 1981. He NEVER saw an issue that looked anything like this text that Rinder and Rathbun keep quoting. He said that they kept their “pack” of issues around and if there were any new issues etc. that they needed to now, they would be sent them and add them to their pack.

No such issue, with the text as Mark and Mike present it, ever crossed Mike’s path during the eight years he was in the Guardian’s Office.

That begs the question, was this a fabrication from after the Guardian’s Office time? A situation where someone stuck a date on something incorrectly? Or was it something Miscavige or Rathbun threw in there after 1981?

Whatever the case, there’s something very wrong with the provenance of the date of this issue and whom it is from. Someone is lying.

The PDF Mark attached to his post is a PILOT OSA issue called:


Notice point 3:


Notice this part –

See how it says ADVICE?

Interesting. It’s not a mistake either, because the Counter Attacks “advice” is listed that way twice in the same issue.

A couple of other things to note are first, the definition of “handled” –

when the attacker is handled (dismissed or totally restrained and muzzled)

And also notice how there are a number of former Guardian’s office issues (recognizable by their titles) that have been renamed OSA NW Orders. Some of which I have discussed, but there are a couple others in this PDF by Mark that haven’t been noticed previously.

– – –

There are some Guardian’s Office issues that are quite similar to this Counter Attacks Tactics reference. For example, in this PDF. There is also this PDF which includes some additional items (and clearer copies) than the first one linked to.

These are some very important issues that I am going to bring out some of the text separately here for you, and they align with the above text Mark Rathbun says that OSA still operates from.

I think Counter Attacks Tactics (whatever it is and whoever actually wrote it and when) issue is some sort of amalgamation. One thing that gives it away is this part:

(c) When identified or even suspected as the instigator, draw up a project which includes at least three channels to cost him his job.

That “three channels” thing is directly from some Guardian’s Office documents, all undated and unsigned, that were part of the documents seized by the FBI in 1977.

So, now have a look at what I have typed out for you here, and see what you think. Especially note point 1 under “Ops Planning”.

From the first PDF now –

Page 1 shows that this is a hat writeup which means it is NOT repeat NOT an L. Run Hubbard issue. It means someone did a writeup.

Confidential – Info Br I dir hat – – do not remove.

Hat writeup — covering functions held by Info

Info Br I dir…p. 1
Coll Off duties….p.2
Overt Research I/C…p. 3
Suitable guise i/c…p. 5


Pages 3, 4

Data Needed by Ops on Each Located Who

1. Standard ODC with time track and a brief, summarized, well-rounded picture of terminal (Following #2,3,4, 5 & 6 are the key areas data is needed.)

2. Criminal background of terminal.

3. Financial involvements (inflow & outflow)

4. Legal involvements (summary of actions)

5. Terminal’s main interests, personal habits, fears, vices and any other items of interest.

6.  Friends and enemies on the terminal’s 1st Dynamic
     Friends and enemies on the terminal’s 2nd Dynamic
     Groups that the terminal belongs to and any groups or terminals who are enemies of that group.

7. What the terminal considers valuable & is protecting.

8. Simple org board the terminal is on, clearly noting his position and his seniors and noteworthy juniors.

9. What persons have the power to fire terminal from the position he holds.

10. Any rules or regulations that if broken would cause the terminal to lose his job/position.

11. Any regulations concerning licenses that the terminal holds that would cause him to lose his license if violated (ie. law, medical, contractor, etc.)

12. Scandals, conflicts, disputes directly or indirectly connected to terminal.

13. Documents that show criminality of terminal (ie. cheats on income tax, discrediting data in personal letters, use of drugs, etc.)



Ops planning goes over all the data on the WHO that Ops research has compiled and with all the data available on the WHO, plans out channels of attack on the WHO that will effectively remove/restrain the WHO from his position of power. Ops planning on a WHO is done using the data series, target series, all Scientology tech applicable, and intelligence tech. The following points should be followed in planning an operation:

1. Initially plan out at least 3 channels of attack with the data you have at hand. Do not wait forever to get all data collected, but also do not run Ops that would be dangerous without essential data. Basically a brighter idea is needed with less data available.

3 channels being done instead of less is because there is a higher percentage of getting results and also this will tend to confuse and spin the WHO as there are 3 attacks.instead of just one.

2. Continue to plan. Ops utilizing feedback from completed Ops so the WHO has persistent attack on him and continual pressure.Do this consistent attack until the WHO is obliterated.

3. Stay away from harassment actions that are only for the sake of doing channels or revenge. ie: Sending pizzas from every Pizza delivery restraunt. These basically have been unsuccessful as they do not achieve any real effective result, except for letting the WHO know that he is under attack. There may be times when 50 pizzas every day being sent to a WHO would be effective, but this would be in such a case where the WHO was restimulated heavily by seeing pizzas, smelling pepperoni or seeing pizza delivery boys, etc.

4. Always include a way of getting feedback in an operation, so you know what type of result you are getting and for further planning of channels in those areas that give good results.

5. Ensure proper security is planned in an operation, ie: use of an untraceable typewriter, paper without fingerprints, proper covers by FSM’s, etc. (See security write-up and security section data in hat materials of Ops OS hat checksheet)

6. Use the target series exactly to programme out an operation on a WHO. Ensure the major target is based on a real, current situation and is an achievable purpose.

7. Find out what the exact resources are for the area tho Op will be implemented in and what the.capabilities are of your terminals implementing the op.

8. Keep the targets in an operation simple, yet complete.

9. Analyse properly the actual situation with the WHO and what the best line of attack should be done by the GO as a whole. It may be necessary to suggest that PR or Legal do some specific action as a finishing off of the WHO. Never wait for another bureau to handle a WHO, as Ops is responsible and has the capabilities to handle WHo’s totally without the other Bureaus in the GO. Liasion though is very important with the various GO bureaust specifically the Legal Branch 2(attack area of Legal) and PR Branch l (attack area of PR).

10. A believable source must be provided in an operation, thereby…[issue cuts off]


Although this version cuts off, I found the rest of this issue at Arnie Lerma’s website, so we’ll continue from there.

starting from the word “thereby”, the issue continues:

“filling the vacuum,” so that Scientology isn’t dubbed in as source
      of the attack.  A1 Ops are planned in such a way that they in no way
      could be traced back to the Church.

11.  Channels should be various and ever changing types of channel of
      attack, rather than sticking to one type of Op, such as an anonymous
      flyer that 3-P’s a WHO.

12.  Mentally follow-thru your plan and ensure all factors concerning
      security and workability are taken into account.  It is a good idea
      to also take the enemy’s viewpoint when working out your strategy in
      the operation.


Continuing with first PDF again now –

page 6


Aside from normal action of briefing person on security also do the following:

1. Have all folders pulled on person and stored in safe location or in GO including personne folders, ethics folders, pc folders. Have person removed from any mailing lists. Notify US to have this done in other areas, including ASHO, AO, etc.

2. If needed do up a dummy ethics order and have a copy printed for you and person backdated declaring them, etc.

3. Do not use office phones for comm as they may be tapped.

4. Brief them so they fully understand what is needed and wanted.

5. Give them over to a competent CO. [Case Officer]


page 11 –

Operations Officer – some points of interest that I have excerpted:


(3) Providing a believable source of an operation, thereby filling the vacuum, so that Scn. isn’t dubbed in as the source.

(4) When planning an Op, mentally following it all the way through looking for areas which need to be taken into account, and taking the enemy’s viewpoint of the Op for the same purpose.

(7) When hitting a group or individual hitting their finance and comm lines.

(14) Finding real buttons.

(15) Keeping up persistent pressure until the product is achieved.

(16) establishing some type of feedback line so that exact effects are known.

page 12 –


(2) Dubbing in buttons

(4) A one shot approach, rather than persistent pressure and several channels to a product.

(5) Harassment actions)

(6) Not planning or providing for a believable source of the Op so that a vacuum is left allowing the recipients to dub in Scn amongst others.

(7)….not taking the enemy’s viewpoint, leaving criticial holes in the plan which will later backfire on you, make you scramble on an emergency basis to handle of make the Op less effective.

(9) An Op or major target based n revenge or out-of-PT situation.

(13) No feedback line; results of Ops not really known or dubbed in.

– – –

Ok. Now from the second PDF – EVIDENCE FROM AUTHORIZED FBI SEARCH; Document #8592

Drills that the intelligence trainees were supposed to do, EXCERPTED:

USING BUTTONS.HATE/LOVE In each of the following write out 3 ways that you could connect up the target person as anti-love or pro-hate of his/her bosses (or person with power to influence his/her job) buttons.

VALUABLE/PROTECT: in each of the following write out 3 different ways that you could threaten or attack what each target person considers valuable or is protecting.

Third Party a group to another group ensuring that you got as your product an observed conflict between the two.

Planning operations: Take each of the following situations and data and plan a three channel operation for each one,
using lull target series tech, with the purpose of removing or fully restraining the enemy concerned. The viewpoint on
each of these is to get something going fast en each enemy and not to get involved in lengthy researching or data
collecting. Past research targets may he added if necessary.

Following are drills to practice locating buttons for use in Ops. These are by no means all the ways to find buttons.


Spreading rumors. Flunk for anyone spotting you as a source of falsity or troublemaking, etc.

Third partying. Flunk for being challenged aa source of third party or conflict.

Creating effects. Do nothing illegal or anything which lone without thought could reflect poorly back on the Church or yourself – ie, press, police record, etc. naming the Church or yourself. Flunk for disbelief of your guise or effect not fully created.


Select a guise and do something to get another to go into sympathy with you and help you.

Select a guise and do something to get. another to intentionally avoid you or get angry with you.

Get into the guise of a salesman/lady and go into a store under the guise that you wort there, until you get someone (customer) to ask you a question and you handle them as applicable.

Get into the guise of a nurse or doctor in a hospital or medical facility to the point where you give an order or direction to someone inside the facility (public or staff person) and they comply fully believing your identity.

Get into the guise of being a wealthy individual in a Cadillac, Mercedes, Jaguar or Rolls Hoyce dealership and get a salesman to give you his services for over a half hour and test drives of at least 3 different autos. (If you don’t drive, may substitute an exclusive chain of jewelry stores, ie, Tiffanys, to try on 10 different diamond rings over 1/2 hr period of time.)

Mock up a guise and get at least 3 different people to believe it and handle you for at least 5 minutes all at the same time.

Mock up a guise and get at least 20 people all at the same time to stop what they’re doing and pay attention to you for at least 3 minutes.

Creating (incidents which reflect on others. Flunk lor being spotted as creator. Take care here to use real targets or elements of society which are downstat, criminal or suppressive.

page 15

USGO Msnaire «
4 November 76

Re: Security Measurcs Taken w/FSMs

2. Ensure that the FSM has a believable background and that they know it.

page 19 –


Responsibility extends to the following areas:


page 20 –

Operations Definitions

BUTTON SURVEY: A comprehensive examination, inspection, researching or investigation of persons which have control or influence over an attacker’s position ot power to discover what they hate and love. Also the sane activity in relation to the attacker to discover what he considers valuable or what he is protecting. The results of surveys are what Operations plans and channels are based on.

(dictionary) The medium or route “by which information trade, influence, etc. are transmitted. Any means of passing course through which something moves or passes.
(Ops) The way in vhich Operations buttons and data are utilized to bring about en enemy restraint or removal. There are usually 3 channels to an Operations project or plan.

REMOVED: past tense of remove.
Remove (dictionary): To take away. To do away with; eliminate. To dismiss from office.
(Ops) An attacker of Scn or Scns dismissed from the position of power from, which he attacks as a result of Operation’s actions.

Any Influence that holds back from action, checks, represses; that limits or restricts, inhibits; that restricts freedom of action by either moral or physical force, frequently for one’s own good.
(Ops) An enemy restricted on a gradient scale, from momentarily to permanently attacking Scn or Scns as a result of Operations actions. For statistical purpose restraints are classified as either “serious” or “mild”.

Their statistics – and the current Office of Special Affairs still operates on this same basic idea:



Item Pts.:
*1. A located enemy WHO or potential WHO removed from the position of.power from which he is attacking or could attack. (250)
*2. A located enemy WHO or potential WHO seriously restrained from attacking and whose position of power is seriously damaged. (175)
*3. A located enemy WHO or potential WHO whose position of power has been impaired and/or his ability to attack is reduced and impeded.(75)
4. A predicted attack prevented or depowered. (50)

7. A predicted attack not prevented or depowered. (-50]
8. Any part of an operation blown where the enemy has evidence that it was of C of S origin. (-250)

– – –

Here’s something else to look at, from Exhibit 9977 FBI Raid.

Notice point V.

An enemy unable or unwilling to attack further. This is an individual who has been attacking and now is unwilling or has been removed from the position which he was attacking by reason of B1 activities. This includes traitors and squirrels.

– – –

This is from a writeup by David Girard –

How Scientology applies its adversarial strategy

During my 10 years experience inside Scientology, one of their top intelligence operatives summarized the essence of their intelligence strategy for the Church of Scientology’s total “Art of War,” unconditional victory over any adversary.

1. Destroy any and every type of personal or financial resource the adversary could use to support their attack efforts.

2. Completely isolate the target. Isolate, destroy or “dead agent” any and every ally or alliance of the adversary, which could be of any type of support personal, familial, financial, professional, etc.

3. Destroy the adversary’s reputation with black PR or dis-information and

4. destroy their emotional and psychological sanity and ability to continue by constant hammering.

5. Then keep doing 1-4. not just until the attack is stopped, but ideally until you have insured the adversary will never have any future capacity or inclination to mount any future attack.

– – –

Another special issue is about hiring intelligence officers. It’s a Guardian’s Office issue, and can be found here.

Virginia McClaughry


Join the conversation! 1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


All that Spy Stuff, Historical Research


, , , , , ,