OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS
17 October 1988
OSA Network Order No. 611
(Originally written by LRH on 21 July 1973.)
HCO PL 25 Apr. 68 INTELLIGENCE ACTIONS
According to a comment just received, intelligence filing may not be in accordance to earlier written instructions covering intelligence filing (Ref: HCO PL 25 Apr. 1968, INTELLIGENCE ACTIONS). Groups, in this comment, are noted as the attack sources.
The original instructions applied to individuals.
It is not factual that there is no one attack centrale if one interprets this centrale as “individual.”
Let us look at an outpoint. A German press bird had a report from German police Interpol. Now how would a press bird or even German police have that if some employed PRO was not pushing it around to press birds? They (press birds) have no access to or awareness of such as not even some police can get them. And another: You had France, Spain, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland and Morocco all hitting in the same time period; the chances of this being coincidence are hundreds to one. And another: All attacks were similar. And another: (you didn’t see this one because you shattered each one with remarkable unlooked for—by them—defense) The attacks were neatly planned to coincide with several arranged catastrophes which backfired on them— had one of these actually occurred the rest would have swept up like a hurricane, cross-enforcing one another. That doesn’t happen by coincidence. Their terminals were alerted and acted without realizing the attack had bogged elsewhere; in Dec. ‘72 this was hair-triggered to go off in the areas mentioned plus South Africa and Australia and possibly also US And another: Swiss franc source in Switzerland is not a member of any of these named groups nor interested in them or their concerns and had to be prodded from an exterior source to take the action; and they caved quickly because their connections would have been bared—the omitted source of that attack is a very big outpoint.
I wish to point out the accuracy of the 1965 extrapolation I made and how you eventually found not only Mary Appleby but the uncle I had described exactly as having existence in fact (Ref: OSA NW Order 8, WORKING THEORY). I said that uncle existed (Otto) and sure enough, four years or more later you found him. And there was his mental health connection very busy with the poison pen. Now that uncle was an individual. Only Mary Appleby was the group. Get it? Groups do not fire off unless fired up.
Each group mentioned is just a group. A group does not breathe or bleed. An individual does. Intelligence only uses groups to sort out individuals. Intelligence filing does include groups but these are in a sort of side file. Now let us see what we have as a practical action.
US = American Medical Association,
England = National Association of Mental Health, Home Office and
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
France = Probably also police in contact with Home Office, England,
Australia = Psychologists, the US Food and Drug Administration and Australian
Now there is a rule: when a monopoly is seeking to exert itself, it uses governments to do its work for it. Thus in the above we can strike out:
England: strike out Home Office and DHSS.
France: that’s only police. You actually don’t know.
Australia: the US FDA was pushed to act in the US by the AMA; Australian intelligence was just pushed.
This leaves a cross-reference that looks like this:
US = AMA,
England = NAMH,
Australia = AMA and psychologists.
This gets us somewhere. No government bum ever acts on his own initiative: Governments today are simply like prostitutes—they are used. So forget the vision of some government bum at his little dusty desk going into a towering fit and planning it all out. Rather get the idea of some government bum and some press idiot with anxiety to please or money in his jeans, being fed a planned line of attack to remove stumbling blocks to attempted monopoly.
In the US, the AMA is financed by ads bought by drug companies. Who owns the drug companies? What is the cross-reference of the AMA and drug companies in terms of individuals? Looking here I have found the AMA cross-references in most wide and wonderful ways.
Now comes cross-filing. We have the NAMH, the AMA and psychologists. All right, your cross-files should consist of cross-referenced names of individuals. The NAMH references across to the US AMA: we know that. But the names? You found the UK Inquiry was written by a PRO firm. Well, the AMA employs PRO firms by the ton in the US And may in England and Australia as well.
Your intelligence filing should cross-reference names. This results in fat individual files of individuals. Group connections interweave amongst these names. Sitting in that file you should have eight folders that are very fat. These would be the folders of exact PERSONS, not groups.
Not having your files, but working on this over a long time, I know of only one name that can bridge this fantastic breadth of terrain.
You omit that in England ALL your individual attackers were intelligence people. You have an Australian intelligence noted. You know of a Justice Department file full of planted reports that are false, also a Home Office and France and now a Germany file and also now an Australian file all carrying the same sorry tale.
THE name was very thoroughly intelligence connected or he could not have entered all those false things in those files. You say “police” but police never reported those things as in Washington, DC, there was no police, only FDA. In the same way, the Home Office has no police basis for its file. Thus these files have been tampered with. False material has been placed in them. Then this material is fed to police and to press (as you just found out).
Now who operates exactly that way? The AMA does. They have been doing that for all this century to others. They put false reports into police and press, sometimes press first and then police.
Thus the pattern is an AMA pattern for rivals.
But who, the other day, was being cited for collusion to tamper, as a politician, with medical matters? Who, through his former secretary, ran all intelligence in the US and Germany? Who owns the drug companies? Who financed that German institute? The only name that answers all these points today is Rockefeller.
Your cross-filing will probably connect Rockefeller to the NAMH US. It should connect also to the UK NAMH and even UK and Australia intelligence and it may connect to press ownership.
By cross-filing, such names pop up.
Every actual group mentioned is connected by common interests. Thus they will also connect with names.
An intelligence file, made up per the write-up of 1968, will laboriously collect fatter and fatter files around certain individuals: Members of boards, past connections, current clippings.
The biggest outpoint in the whole scene is that Scientology is innocent, constructive, valuable. And attacks have not only existed but continue. Wrong target. If you have not got the files in that optimum state, then one has to apply flair. Is Rockefeller connected to press in Spain or anything else in Spain? You see, you have groups cited as sources. But who, through what intermediaries, stirred up AND FINANCED those groups.
Somebody had to pay a bill. A very big bill it is, too. Getting finance is a primary condition for some intermediary before he will exert himself. A PRO firm says, “Cheers, we’ll murder the bums for you BUT where is the bread?”
Assuming that all these wild attacks occur by spontaneous combustion is an unreasonable assumption—conflicting data. For you have the public behind you. The outpoints are so many over so many years that they had to be promoted into existence. And you have the facts already that AMA had to work very hard in 1954, 1955 to do you out of the Osborn house—they even went door to door, had police and press and local government all combined. But WHO shelled out? You think some medical bums or psychiatry nuts climb out of their pig troughs long enough to act without pay? Conflicting data.
In Keynes you found that the press and psychiatry and government birds were in collusion with the drug companies to put their unwanted citizens in stockades and drug them ALL FOR THE DOUGH. Such people do things for bread, not for principles. True of any criminal. And boy they ARE criminals. Cross-filing in that scene would lead it out of Keynes, probably via the drug companies. And that touches the AMA in one forked trail and who does it touch on the other—the drug companies? Is Keynes drug connected to Rockefeller Drug? Your cross-filing should be able to answer that.
Any remissness in not doing full 1968 intelligence filing by the book should be remedied as it would spit out a lot of answers for which you are now groping. I wish I could work those files. I would find Mr. International Attacks. I will have to find him in any case. But the intelligence files, up-to-date and by the book, would help immensely.
L. RON HUBBARD