Sunday, 28 February 2010

Martial Law and election fraud

Newsletter originally sent October 2008

After I joined the 9/11 Truth Campaign in December 2006 I was asking what happens when half the US population no longer believes the official story.

Some of us thought the US Administration might panic and launch a false flag attack and abolish elections. I thought the dollar would collapse as confidence fell, but others, who had a better understanding of how economic cycles work, were telling me that there would be an engineered economic collapse.

Alex Jones, who runs a radio chat show in the US, has been warning of Martial Law for a long time. He predicted 9/11. He's produced films on the topic. See his website at

Well, we're there now. The event was the financial melt-down. But it's not just the dollar, it's the world. The US regime is acquiring enormous powers as a result. Something similar is happening in the UK.

As part of the regime's pressure which was being put onto members of the US House of Representatives, some members of the house were told that if the bill for government intervention in the banking system was not passed, then a state of Martial Law would be declared.

One blogger has pointed out that there is no difference between martial law and the threat of martial law.

The author of a new book 'Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries' has claimed in an Internet TV interview that a coup took place in the US on October 1

The book is a sequel to End of America where you can watch the trailer. See also 'My America Project'

Recently she wrote a piece describing how thousands of US troops had been deployed on US streets for 'crowd control'

According to Infowars, their correspondent "has learned from knowledgeable Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sources that the Bush administration is putting the final touches on a plan that would see martial law declared in the United States with various scenarios anticipated as triggers. The triggers include a continuing economic collapse with massive social unrest, bank closures resulting in violence against financial institutions, and another fraudulent presidential election that would result in rioting in major cities and campuses around the country."

On election fraud, a new documentary is going around Picture House cinemas, called 'How Ohio Pulled it Off'.

The way in which plans for Martial Law were developed are reviewed at Global Research.

Martial Law has been going through a series of incremental changes.

It describes how anti-terrorist legislation has been extended to enable the arrest of opponents of the Government. In the UK we saw how anti-terrorist legislation was brought in recently against Iceland, following the collapse of financial institutions there.

Some time ago, we saw how Labour party veteran Walter Wolfgang was grabbed and detained under anti-terrorist legislation when he shouted 'Nonsense' at Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who had claimed that they were bringing democracy to Iraq:

In the US we saw how student Andrew Meyer was grabbed by police and tortured when he asked former US Presidential candidate John Kerry why he had so easily submitted to George Bush when he, John Kerry, had won the election, and then went on to ask whether they were both members of the same secret society:

That was just the tip of the iceberg.

In the UK we have seen creeping legislation affecting basic democratic rights, and this was featured in the film 'Taking Liberties' (

Some lawyers were saying that whoever was to take over from Tony Blair, he would inherit more means of gaining absolute control than Adolf Hitler inherited from Hindenburg.

Now a large-scale covert infiltration called Common Purpose has been reported in all sorts of public institutions across the country, following extensive research by former naval officer Brian Gerrish. A political organisation masquerading as a charity now has 18 000 of its own people in key positions in local government, the National Health Service, the BBC and other institutions, with the aim of taking control. They divert public funds and have people in high places.

Brian gave a lecture on October 7 under the title 'Who's really running Britain?'. which can be found at Changing Times and where you can find audio

I had realised that something like this must exist from my own observations. What Brian Gerrish describes is much deeper than anything I had imagined. I had been investigating membership collapse in a charitable membership association that I had been involved in for many years. That led me on to look for parallel examples, and I found them in the penetration of even 'tiny organisation which pose no threat to national security'.

It later became clear to me that there had to be some bigger network. It is possible that Common Purpose is only the tip of the iceberg. Brian Gerrish, in his talk, urges people to expose what is going on at the grass roots level. That means being alert in any organisations you are a member of, however charming the people concerned may be.

Naomi Wolf's 'Ten Steps to Tyranny' include subversion of citizens associations ( It's now widely believed that this is far more extensive than just the big protest movements. I think it's important for us all to be alert in whatever groups we may be involved with. All too often these things are left to individual whistleblowers, whilst others remain silent, and the majority go along with the official line. To understand how this works, see Solomon Asch's experimental work on Conformance

To break this, we need to understand the importance of speaking out, or at least asking the right questions. As soon as the whistleblower is no longer in a minority of one, things begin to change. So, if you are in a membership organisation, be especially alert if there is a move to

  • criticise an individual on the basis of only vague allegations

  • be evasive on straight-forward questions * answer questions by attacking the character of the questioner

  • obfuscate on the accounts

  • focus in the treasurer's report on details of investments rather than on the essential issues, such as the use of the money and budgets

  • distance the members from the committee on the basis of Charity Status or the Trustees being 'professionals'

  • elitism

  • fob off critics rather than acting on criticisms

  • ignore points made at the AGM in subsequent committee meetings

  • do things which gain credit for the committee rather than to get results

  • target the membership with their publicity or promotion rather than the outside world

  • misapply the Data Protection Act to cut off regional branches

  • criticise a committee member for being critical of the committee

  • criticise a member for being in a minority of one too often in the voting

  • con members into voting for a resolution on the basis that only Trustees of a Charity can really decide

  • use gestures or oratory to persuade rather than facts and arguments

  • implement excessive secrecy or confidentiality

  • make allegations in respect to others of which they themselves may be guilty

  • make serial mess-ups whilst showing no willingness to leave office

  • create furores without any visible sign of attempts to sort the problem out
  • serially to create quarrels with key individuals

  • blame everyone but themselves for things going wrong

  • defend themselves by saying "I've heard that a hundred times before" but not saying what the answer was record questions in the minutes without giving the answers. Beware also of people who use their status, their authority or their credence in order to persuade, rather than the force of argument.

The one about having heard a complaint or question a hundred time before was a repeated reaction both of the President of my association and the former head of MI6, who played a role in making a fallacious case for invading Iraq. Once his authority was disregarded in questions following a lecture at the London School of Economics, he had nothing to fall back on. I was surprised how my own observations seemed to apply right up to Cabinet level. See Clare Short's autobiography ('An Honourable Deception?: New Labour, Iraq, and the Misuse of Power'), in which she states that the UK has not had cabinet government since 1997. If you are in Liberty, ask yourself why only the paid Chief Executive Officer is ever interviewed by the mainstream press. She is a former Home Office barrister. I attended one AGM, and was appalled at a resolution to enable the committee to expel any committee member who said anything to the press that he had not been authorised to say. That seemed to me like an attack on civil liberties. I was the first to speak out, saying that I had met a similar situation in another membership organisation and that such provision can be abused. The motion was thrown out. That's where we are in civil liberties. I agree with Brian Gerrish's approach, that in order to preserve democracy we must work at it at grass roots level and speak out. We must also avoid being angry or provoked. If you are too persistent they will try to push you over the edge. Once you accept that they may be doing this on purpose life gets a whole lot easier. I stuck it out for two years of constant ad hominem attacks in six issues of the journals of my association per year, simply because I had ignored their intimitation. In the end they made a mistake by admitting that a communication of mine bore the implication that they were out to destroy the association, but they denied nothing of what I had written. Instead, they invented clearly faked allegations to knock down ('straw man argument'). Their own former legal adviser stepped in ( and I reported this at the 2008 AGM. The campaign then stopped, and then many people started taking an interest in what I had to say. In short: observe, listen, discuss, don't be fobbed off, don't be provoked. Document everything. We all need to wake up to what is going on, and to call people in official positions to account, whether in national government, in local government, in public bodies, in quangos, and even in small voluntary associations.

Saturday, 27 February 2010


This blog is being developed for the purpose of presenting personal opinions on important topics and developments such as 9/11, the war on terror, civil liberties, the Iraq enquiry, the death of Dr Kelly and other areas that might take our fancy like climate change (or climategate as it is now known) and the corrupt banking system (which seems to be getting everyone angry at the moment).

I know what you might be thinking: "Here we go, another crank writing about conspiracy theories on the internet".

With regards to the mainstream press, some may not choose to believe what they read on the internet, but my view is the opposite: I don't trust too much what I read in the newspapers because it is controlled and I know that what is published can be biased and uninformed. Paying for content on the web will only encourage people to read alternative opinion and news on the internet that is not controlled. In fact, I would recommend a book by Nick Davies called "Flat Earth News".

In fact, there are two of us who will be writing commentary for this blog. I will make my position clear that I am not a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'denier'. These words are being used more often simply as a way of enforcing censorship and stopping individuals from questioning those in authority. I have a scientific background and I only look at evidence to come to my own informed decision about the world I live in.

I would also like to make clear that I hate the word 'sheeple' because that creates an 'us-and-them' mentality. When certain sections of the community want to encourage others to look at alternative opinions the last thing they would want to do is drive them away or create divisiveness.