CIA

LRH Aides Conference

6 November 1969¹; ²

This is the sixth November, 1969, Flag Org Officers Conference.

Okay, I just wanted to call you together. There are two matters here of interest and the first of those is the local campaign. I want to call to your attention, having heard the article, you told me it was the same as Lisbon. It isn’t the same as Lisbon, it’s a brand new pitch, utterly and brand new, whereby we’re an espionage vessel of some kind or another, and we rush money to the bank with motor cycle escorts. And it’s just kooky, and it is so easily knocked out, there are so many false reports in it. For instance, if you look at it you, it says sixty women on board. The crew list invalidates that, doesn’t it? Or does it?

(Officers: 60 out of 90)

MSH: Oh no, that’s not right. Actually the last time I was counting, we had a greater majority of men aboard the ship.

Ron: Well anyway, that datum is for the birds and then that we were denied Greece is denied by our Greek letter and you can just mop up the Earth with these guys — you see, and it’s the voice of M.I.6 in Morocco.

Now if they wanted to know that that’s the opposition paper — their opposition is of course M.I.6. But anyway, I leave that to you to go ahead and run this thing down.

There’s another caper I could write up about this that I wanted your opinion on — is to have Peter Warren assemble the contractors — and tell the contractors, this guy’s trying to knock out — just call up the boys at M.I.6 in Morocco and tell them to advise their friends not to buy advertising in that paper because it says they don’t exist — invalidates the fact that the ship is being repaired in the port — so it is actually inferring that there are no repairs in the port. And it’s a direct strike at them and their future business. Because if this sort of thing goes on and happens when ships come into Casa Blanca, they very soon will find their business flat on the back, you see.

And they should spread it around that their friends should not advertise [?] similar opinion. That is one of the ways at striking back this way — but you can strike back in several ways and you should strike back, because we intend to secure this territory.

As you see, it is actually — amounts to a military objective of denying us terrain — do you see that? That is a basic military objective, and the — if you have not heard the tape of summary which I made which gives our policy along in that line, I invite you to hear that. I think four copies of that tape — four copies — ought to be sent to Jane, so that she can keep one and send some others out to her A/Gs. ‘Cause that gives her policy — that is a new policy by the way.

What you have been doing before is uncovering their people — this is hard to do — we’ve been uncovering their people — well, it has been successful to that degree — don’t you see?

But it isn’t all that successful whereas we have another one — i9s this idea of we would just invalidate their data to one and all showing them then to have some covert motive. Because they’re feeding false reports into the public and intelligence organizations of the world. Do you see? And that is from the definition of the Art of War, some thousands of years old — of — who’s this guy’s [na]me?

MSH: Sun Tzu.

LRH: Sun Tzu — and this boy has — says there are five types of agents — one of them is the dead agent. He’s the dead agent because he gives false reports to the enemy, and when the enemy finds out they are false, they shoot him. And in that bit of Chinese wisdom, all we’ve got to do is prove conclusively that these boys are booting around false reports and it invalidates all of their sources.

Now you see, that is superior to the action that we were carrying forward of unearthing their agents. You unearth their agents for sure and go on this way as we have been, but — our main action — because we don’t know all of the agents who are operating — so it invalidates any of their intelligence reports and that sort of thing.

Now even though western intelligence services are absolutely rotten at the top — they must be — otherwise their security would not be as bad as it is. To have psychiatrists sit on the advisory panels of the CIA and M.I.6 who meet yearly in conference with Russians, and knowing as any intelligence, competent intelligence officer should know — the Russians never let anybody out of the country unless he’s a KGB or GRU. KGB is their general intelligence. GRU is their military intelligence.

And Penkovsky says that nobody could — Talking about getting into diplomatic relations with the Russians is silly, because their embassies contain nothing but KGB and GRU. There’d be something like five KGB and three GRUs and then a couple of clerks, who of course have been cleared, who handle the protocol and that is a normal Russian agency.

All right, if the enemy can invade an intelligence service to that degree that is not uncovered — then it takes us to uncover that — then there’s some other fact emerges. That right up at the top, along about the level of Under Secretary of Justice or something like this, you have a red hot, do you see? It’s not a slight revelation. But this fact can also be drawn by the public, do you see? So even though they’ve got somebody at the top who’s trying to knock things through covert lines, it obviously elects the fact as an intelligence action, because the guy at the top knocking things through the covert lines and so forth, daren’t forward them overtly. Got it?

So he’s got plenty to hide. Well, if you just keep invalidating his data and showing that his data is false — you invalidate and clean up all of their damned intelligence files.

Now, new data poured in on top of that then demonstrates conclusively that it also is false. Do you follow? So you’ve invalidated a very widespread network which is not available to you by mere exposure. Do you understand?

So your action is just to continuously work at it like mad to develop documentary evidence of the falsity of report. That requires the report. And then you get the documentary evidence that shows it is false, and then you present this to the agencies involved. And not everybody is in on this, don’t you see?

A Western Intelligence service and so forth isn’t solid Russian. It’s only a minority Russian. Otherwise, they’d have the whole country — they would have run the hammer and sickle up a long time ago, don’t you see?

You see, I don’t even know that the — you’ll see CIA’s definition of Communism. And Soviet Russia is that Communism is a political party which uses the Soviet Union as a front group.

Now, we, at the same time this is going along, have got to make friends with the Soviets. Not to forward any of their purposes or anything of the sort, but we already have an “in.” We are already in the process of making friends with them, because our books are being displayed in their book fairs. And I can assure now that being Communist-connected is praiseworthy, rather than otherwise throughout the West. Only Communists have a say so in the press. Rightist is a very bad thing to be.

Now this local story is interesting that it doesn’t mention my name, doesn’t mention Scientology, and so forth, weird. So it’s a new line, it’s a new attack. And certain things have died out, and we don’t even know if it isn’t, isn’t from some other channel of service.

But never let one of these things go by. And use it to invalidate intelligence. Invalidate false intelligence. Use this as a beautiful opportunity to invalidate false intelligence.

Now any new report that comes in in the future will hit this in the files of this country’s security police. They say, “Oh, just another one. Oh, to hell with it.”

So that’s one thing an intelligence officer hates is a false report. They just fowl him up left, right and center. And he himself feeds them to the enemy. His difficulty is trying to identify a false report. So you’re going to have to identify what reports are false to them, don’t you see?

And remember the old Soviet line of three steps forward, two steps backward. In other words, you’ve got to have three successes for every two loses. But you’re in the business of conquering terrain. The right to move freely about in, and do business in countries, that’s what they are trying to deny us. So the objective is plain. Very plain objective here, right?

I also call to your attention this business of power. All they’re trying to do is reduce our power. They must figure that we are potentially terribly powerful. 1958 they decided that we were a threat to psychiatry. A covert operation has as its target: the reduction of the power of an opponent. And it doesn’t necessarily include increasing their home power at all.

So psychiatry’s operation at the present moment is reducing our power. As they do this, they are reducing their own power. The damn fools are muddying up the entire field of mental health, and they’re getting their damned teeth kicked in. Do you follow?

Now, you must be very quick with this present operation, this present action.

Always fire off quickly. Now it behoove[s] you not to look too professional.

Lean very heavily on the advices of the attorneys, but don’t let us get caught as we got caught in Greece. That attorney was inactive. He didn’t strike, do you understand?

And that’s how we lost the chips in Greece. We didn’t [?], do you follow? We didn’t carry this thing through.

But we now have a common denominator we didn’t have before. There’ve been four consecutive countries where this covert operation has sought to deny income and technology to the country involved, by false reports. So therefore the country has a vested interest in it also. Okay.

I didn’t want to go into it to any great length — but there are points in this. I have discussed them with, with Brian and the points which we have to do to undertake this. You’ve got to get these things real clear, real clean cut and follow them through very relentlessly, and make sure they are actioned. Do you follow?

You’ve got a programme that’s been running for some time now which will secure Morocco. It started way back, fortunately. We also started a programme way back in Greece, and it didn’t get there, because of the political instability of the country and the presence of the U.S. fleet and a bunch of other things of this kind. Got it?

Now our steps are very clear cut. We just run into this guy with a truck with lawyers. You also got a caper with Warren and the contractors. You’ve got another caper — you can buy or get that statement from the Panama Consul or any other person he has said this to, and that coupled with a letter which you will undoubtedly get — crossing our fingers — many a slip twixt promise and lip. Plus the Greek action runs this guy over the hill.

But another point which should be made, and this should be made very directly to the lawyer, si the opposition paper here. It is quite obviously motivated by [?] Now, we can run this caper back into Morocco. We can run, ah, pardon me, into Rhodesia. We can run this capter into Australia, we can just run this right on down and we will just keep doing this.

The Select Committee Report of the guy named Salter is a marvelous thing in — because he said that we did what psychiatry does and we provedly do not do.

You’ve got to get a proof that we didn’t do it, such as book number so and so and so and so inveighing against hypnotism, and any statement about brainwashing. You have to know something about brainwashing. Brainwashing is an action where a man is beaten and starved for seventy days, like they do in institutions. We don’t have any institutions to do that in. Do you understand?

It’s a technical action. So he’s found out in the field of technology. And then right along with that is your absolute proof, your documentary action, the World Federation of Mental Health. This guy is a member of it. You take the chapter and verse that shows that he is and then that is in continuous communication with Soviet Russia.

In other words, you hang him as a red agent. And you want to know why a red agent’s word is being taken before the Select Committee of South Australia. Just give you an idea, see.

Now that can be internally rabble roused, and that sort of thing. There’s a lot of ways to play this thing, but the way to play it is the invalidation of data. So it takes documentary action, and you’ve got to figure out what that is, right?

Alright, any questions on that?

Alright, I’m through with it.

End.

Notes