INTELLIGENCE FILING

INTELLIGENCE ACTIONS

Reference:
HCO PL 25 Apr. 68

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 "it".

Let us look at an outpost. A German press bird had a report from German police Interpol. Now how would a press bird ever in German police have that if some employed PRO was not pushing it around to press birds? They get birds; all have no access to France, Spain, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland and Morocco. And another: You had or awareness of such as not even some police can press them all hitting in the same time period with chances of another being coincident—hundreds because you shatter each attack; the remainders unlooked for—you see them one. The attacks shattered. All at once were shakable. And this (for you didn’t are defense) to one. And there were planned to coincide with several arranged catastrophes which backfired on them—had cross-enforcing one another. That doesn’t happen by coincidence. A hurricane, one of these actually occurred the rest would have swept up like their terminals were alerted and acted without realizing the attack had bogged elsewhere; in individual. Only Mary Appleby was the group. Get it? Groups do not fire off unless individual.

Each group mentioned is just a group but these individuals.

Intelligence filing only uses groups. A group does not breathe or bleed. An individual does. Intelligence includes groups to sort out individuals.

Now let us see what we have as a practical action.

Intelligence files include groups but these are in a sort of side file:

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, intelligence.
Australia = Psychologists, the US Food and Drug Administration and Australian governments; its rule for when a monopoly is seeking to exert itself; it uses England to do its work for it. Thus in the above we can strike out:

Now there is a Home Office and DHSS.

England: strike out. Home Office in the above.

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 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 being planned to towering fit and planning it all out. Rather get the idea of some government bum into a line of press idiot with anxiety to please or money in his jeans, being fed a go and some 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 cross-referenced AMA and psychologists. All right, your cross-files should consist of the NAMH, the names of individuals. The NAMH references across to the US was written by a Pro-Firm. Well, the AMA employs PRO – you found the UK Inquiry AMA; we know that. But the names?

Your intelligence filing should cross-reference names amongst these in fat individual files of the individuals. And connections interweave. This results in:

Firms by ton in the US group may in England and Australia as well names being folders in that file you should have eight folders that are very fat. These would be the sitting 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 an Australian intelligence individual attackers of intelligence people. You have that in England. All your noted. You know a Justice Department the full of planted reports that are raise a file Home Office and France and now a Germany file and also now an Australian; also 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. Then thus these files have been tampered with, as you just found out.

False material has been placed in them. File 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 who, through his former collusion to tamper as a politician, with medical matters? Day, was being cited for salary, 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 name mentioned is connected by common interests. Thus they will also connect with group files.

An intelligence file, made up per the write-up of 1968, will laboriously collect current and flatter files around certain individuals: Members of boards, past connections, flatter clippings.

The biggest output in the whole scene is that Scientology is incorrect, constructive, valuable. And attacks have not only existed but continue. Wrong target. Is Rockefeller connected to press in Spain or anything else, then one has to apply flair. If you have not got the files in that optimum state 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 prompted into existence. And you have the facts already that AMA went to work, very hard in 1954, 1955 to do. And you have the Osborn house; they even had door to door, police, press and local or 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 govern birds were in collusion with the drug companies to put their unwanted citizens in stockades and drug them all out of the DOUGH. Such people do things for bread, not for the principles. True for Keynes, probably via the drug companies. And that in that scene would lead it FOR ANY CRIMINAL. And boy ARE they criminals. Cross-filing touches AMA in one forked trail and Rockefeller! Touch on the other—the drug companies? Is Keynes that connected to who does it drug? Your cross-filing should be able to answered that.

As it would not out of full 1968 intelligence filing by the book should be remedied any remissness in not doing 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.