Monday, 31 December 2012

Mainstream media this is your chance

November / December 2012

  • Deception as a cause of war
  • Gaza: Jews speak out
  • UN recognises Palestine – but what difference will it make?
  • British Jews for Justice petition UK Foreign Secretary
  • Nuke Afghanistan and Pakistan, says Tony Blair's former minister
  • Are micro-nukes being used for state terror?
  • 9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera
  • President of Italy's Supreme Court to refer 9/11 crimes to the International Criminal Court
  • Government think-tanks, and back-door manipulation
  • Press control proposal could backfire to expose 9/11 deception
  • Crisis initiation, and why we need to pay attention
  • They say that truth is the first casualty of war. It's not true. When war breaks out, truth has already died. Deception is the main ingredient in creating wars in the first place.

    So when we are constantly told that the Israeli military are bombarding Gaza because of the rocket attacks that Hamas has been inflicting on Israel, we have to be cautious. Where is the evidence that Hamas fired those rockets? Could they have been fired by overzealous Palestinian militants in spite of Hamas? Or could they have been fired by Mossad itself, in a typical false-flag attack, giving a credible pretext for war? Or could they have been fired by Palestinian activists infiltrated by Mossad agent provocateurs? A quick Internet search on "Mossad 'false flag'" will give a host of alleged or suspected false flag operations by Mossad, so what is going on now in Gaza?

    I found an analysis of fatalities due to rocket attacks said to be coming from Gaza against Israel, by Phan Nguyen, a Palestine Solidarity activist based in New York.This shows inconsistencies in the figures. The author concludes that the figures given by the Israeli Defence Force are consistently higher than those which could be established. There were also inconsistencies in the statistics on the numbers of rocket attacks, given in different graphics by the IDF, and in comparison with those given by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. In his conclusions, he writes: "After a full year of no Israelis being killed by rocket fire from Gaza, Israel had to invade Gaza, prompting the new killing of three Israeli civilians, which provides retroactive justification for the prompting itself".

    What I do know, however, is that any criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is often countered with allegations of antisemitism. Strangely, this also applies to anyone seriously questioning the government's versions of 9/11 and 7/7. But now many Jews are speaking out against the bombing of Gaza by Israel. Miko Peled is an Israeli Army veteran, the son of an Israeli general, as well as ~the author of the book 'The General's Son'. In a videoed lecture on Brasscheck TV he says that the Israeli education system teaches racism, that beaurocracy makes life impossible for Palestinians, and that the Israeli Army is a terrorist organisation. He also talks about the beginning of the bombing of Gaza in 2008, when a hundred tons of bombs were dropped on Gaza starting at 11:25 am, when school children were changing shifts, and many would have been out on the streets at that time. He stated that the Zionist state had to be replaced by a democracy.

    One thing that I learned from this lecture was that all land in Israel belongs to the state. Perhaps this has some relevance to Israel's plans to eradicate the entire Palestinian village of Susiya in the West Bank. The organisation Rabbis for Human Rights, which has about a hundred members, is petitioning against this plan, claiming that the land is privately owned and is registered in the Land Registry, and that the expulsion of Palestinian people from their homes is illegal.

    Another Jewish voice to speak out is that of musician Rich Siegel, who has produced a CD 'The Way to Peace'. A quote of his is displayed in a blog by peace activist Ken O'Keefe, under the heading 'Words from an Honest, Intelligent & Compassionate Jew – Rich Siegel'. Rich Siegel begins: "It is so terribly and dramatically disturbing to have been raised Jewish and Zionist, and to see the death and destruction that my people are bringing to the world". He says that many are afraid to speak out for fear of being called "Anti-Semite". The rest of his paragraph is not so restrained. His own life story confirms my view that many Zionists are and were quite sincere, but that the movement was hijacked – as many social movements are - by sociopathic maniacs. It reminds me also of the story of a young Zionist activist in the nineteenth century by the name of L L Zamenhof, who, when he had figured out the full implications of what he was doing, distanced himself from the movement. Zamenhof tried to create a bridge of understanding through language; Rich Siegel is reaching out to people with music.

    A heart-rendering song by Rich Siegel, called 'Gaza 2012: Help is on the way' is presented on the website of another Jewish activist, the jazz musician Gilad Atzmon, who himself served in the Israeli Defence Force, from which he concluded "I was part of a colonial state, the result of plundering and ethnic cleansing". He supports the Palestinian right of return, and the one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and is author of the book 'The Wandering Who? A study of Jewish identity politics'.

    In his blog of 27 November 2012, he wonders why the British government is now prepared to back a UN proposal for a two-state solution. He suggests that a 'two-state solution' would 'liberate' Israel from the burdens of being an occupier.

    As I write this, the UN finally recognises Palestine as a non-member observer state. This may not be the ideal solution, but it does give the Palestinians a voice in the international arena, and opens the way for them to be able to challenge some of the Israeli elite in the international courts. Will it stop the violence? Probably not, but it does enable a response to violence by diplomatic means rather than by rockets. The Palestinians do have cause to celebrate in the streets. But what are the implications for the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land? And will the Israelis have to rebuild the wall on their own land rather than that of Palestine? What will the Israeli reaction be now? They have already hit back by approving the construction of 3 000 new settler homes on Palestinian land. The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, stated: "This resolution will not advance peace. This resolution will not change the situation on the ground. It will not change the fact that the Palestinian Authority has no control over Gaza, …"(). I think they will divide and conquer.

    A letter to the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, from Jews for Justice for Palestinians, dated 20 November, was signed by 1600 British Jews. It began: "We write to express our astonishment at your statement of 15th November, when you said that Hamas bears principal responsibility for the current crisis", explaining that it is difficult to square that with the statistics from the UN Office for the Protection of Civilians, which show a pattern of mutual attacks during the year to the end of October 12, with 73 Palestinians being killed while no Israelis were killed. "Although Israel had been killing militants continually from early October, which often triggered retaliatory rocket attacks, from 4th November Israel began to kill civilians on land … It would seem that this was a pattern of mutual attacks, not of Hamas initiating the confrontation", the letter continued. However, the letter explains, most important is a revelation on the ceasefire negotiations: "On 12th November the militant factions confirmed their agreement to cease firing providing Israel stopped its military actions against them. The Palestinian in charge of the negotiations was none other than Ahmed Jabari, who had kept the militant factions in check for years and who had negotiated the release of Gilad Shalit with Gershon Baskin. Israel destroyed the nascent ceasefire by assassinating him, and then commenced its concentrated attacks. The Israeli government justified it by referring to his organizing of terrorist attacks 'over five years', thereby neatly ignoring the ceasefire negotiations. The only credible conclusion is that the Israeli government did not want a ceasefire". They are still collecting signatures on their website.

    Jews for Justice for Palistinians have been campaigning with others for the non-renewal of a European Parliament security contract with G4S, on account of its role in inhumane treatment of Palestinian political prisoners. The success of that campaign was announced in April this year. Certainly I would not have been happy in accepting G4S 'protection' had I been in the European Parliament, if only because of the debacle of the London Olympic Games earlier this year. But I would still have opposed it had my only knowledge of G4S been my experience of them at Reading railway station one winter's night a couple of years ago. Having missed my last connecting train I got chatting with what I thought was a fellow passenger, who told me he, too, was waiting for an early-morning train. I told him about a meeting I'd just attended in London on 9/11. There followed a provocative incident and what I now think was a faked dispute between him and a cleaner, the result of which was that I found myself being frog-marched out of the station by two security guards who refused to show me their identity. Outside the station I found others who had been banished. Then the police arrived and refused to take my complaint, but told me to move off the station forecourt. A taxi driver who had seen the whole incident called me over. "It happens every night", he told me. Then the guy I had been talking to in the station reappeared and walked back in. "He's there every night", said the taxi driver, "He's an informer". It later transpired that the security company at Reading station is G4S. They must not be allowed to take over any role in the police service or the judicial service in the UK, and they should not be trusted with any public assignment.

    There must be some British Jews who are asking the question I was asking after my first visit to Germany at the age of 13, when I found that, actually, Germans were normal people, even if they had just over thirteen years previously been led by a maniac. My question was: "Could it happen here?" Common sense told me it couldn't, because we're British, yet logic told me it could. The British support for the insurgents in Syria for doing what the Gazans were being accused of doing by the Israelis is a further example of imperial expansionism. It was that imperial expansionism that roused the imperial rivalry of Kaiser Bill, which led to two world wars. I never voted for Tony Blair or his party, but when he became Prime Minister in 1997 I was favourably impressed, even if I had been puzzled on how he had risen to power so easily after decades of internal party disputes. Then came Iraq. I was finding it difficult to believe that a British government could actually instigate a war on the basis of deception. By 2005 it was becoming very clear, that Tony Blair's New Labour group was a right-wing coterie which had surrepticiously taken over the Labour Party. At the same time I was investigating a small membership association, and finding the same sort of setup. Then in 2006 I came across scientific and technical articles which showed up the mega-lies of the US and the UK governments in relation to 9/11. My faith in the British Establishment was shattered. So I can understand the feelings of Miko Peled and Gilad Atzmon when they underwent something similar – though being in the Israeli military, their feelings may have been even more intense than mine were. There was a strong feeling of betrayal, as I realised that virtually everything I thought I knew about the British Establishment was a false reality set up by the propagandists. So it's not just the Jews; it's us, too. I've had many Jewish friends throughout my life, and long may that continue.

    And what is Tony Blair doing as the Middle East peace envoy for 'The Quartet' (the UN, the US, the EU and Russia)? Not very much as far as I can see from the Quartet's website. He did meet with Israel's president, Shimon Peres, though, and stated: "I very much hope that over the coming days we can achieve cessation on a basis that is sustainable, on a basis that stops the threat of missiles coming from Gaza, targeted at Israeli civilians, and also then relieves the people of Gaza, who have also suffered, of course". As I have reported previously, Tony Blair is also making a lot of money through his contacts in the area.

    Tony Blair's former Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, Lord Gilbert, wasn't doing much to help the cause of peace, either, when on 22 November, in a Lords debate on talking to the Chinese about multilateral nuclear disarmament, he said that he was in favour of the nuclear deterrent. He suggested that the neutron bomb could be used as "an enhanced radiation reduced blast warhead to create cordons sanitaire along various borders where people are causing trouble". He then suggested doing just that on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Lord Gilbert has interests in the oil, gas and mineral industries, and is a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, a privately run programme sponsored by three defence companies, which aims to "improve the quality of debate on military issues". I see that a Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell, was banned from this organisation, after criticising the propriety of defence companies sponsoring it when he saw British companies under-equipped on the front line. Understandably, though it was reported in Asia, little of this neutron bomb idea has been reported in the mainstream media in the UK, except for Russia Today and in a news website The News Tribe, published in Bradford in English and Urdu.

    There was an obvious flaw in the logic of Lord Gilbert's defence of the nuclear deterrent; the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons works only because the devastation caused by a nuclear bomb would be so enormous that no-one would consider actually using it. As soon as you start talking about tactical nuclear weapons that deterrent effect vanishes. So do mini-nukes, or micro-nukes exist, apart from the neutron bomb? Here we are talking about low-yield nuclear weapons, as distinct to suit-case bombs. I had always thought that low-yield nuclear weapons were impossible, if they operated by fission, because of the critical mass required to start a nuclear explosion. However, now I learn of a law passed in Congress in 1994 which prohibited research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Never believe anything before it's been officially denied! Then in 2004 that law was repealed.

    So could a low-yeald nuclear bomb have been used in demolishing the twin towers in 9/11? Professor Steven Jones is a leading expert in nuclear fusion, and he has repudiated the idea, stating that the levels of radioactive fall-out elements is not high enough. He also states in the same letter that the observed concrete pulverisation could have been brought about by chemical explosives. However, I know of no scientific study which would quantify this. The question of where the energy came from to pulverise much of the twin towers has, since 2006, been the source of a bitter dispute in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which was being run by Steven Jones, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer. Jim Fetzer published an open letter, before a split in the team claiming that Steven Jones was attempting to supress discussion on alternatives to his own thermite theory of controlled demolition, which would fully account for Building 7, but only partially account for the twin towers. Judy Wood was focusing attention on the pulverisation of the towers, but putting forward her own theory of 'directed energy', and claiming that no high temperatures were involved. Steven Jones regarded this as nonsense. But what did cause the pulverisation? Jim Fetzer is now turning his attention to mini-nukes, or micro-nukes, as I reported in my last newsletter.

    I came across a very interesting series of videos, under the heading '9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera', produced during 2012 by a multitalented Ace Baker. In a series of eight videos, he presents the essentials of each issue in a very lucid and logical manner, sometimes with musical interludes of his own compositions, in order to illustrate the points. I have yet to view the first two videos, 'Broken News' and 'The Official Story vs. The Truth Movement', but the third video, 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' gives us an interesting account of the issues I have just outlined. The fourth video, 'Phenomena', examines the three theories, and is drawn to the idea of mini-nukes. I have yet to view the fifth, 'Legally Challenged'. The sixth, 'What Planes?' makes a case out that, actually, no planes hit the twin towers, and the seventh, 'The Key', shows how the videos may have been faked. This leaves the overwhelming objection that too many people witnessed the planes. The final video, 'The Psy-Opera' shows how that could be accounted for by psychological techniques of deception. I found this most interesting, and would be interested in receiving any technical critiques.

    Some witnesses said they saw no planes, but just explosions. I think we've been missing something big here. I used to have a temporary job at Gillette's factory in Isleworth, and as I would cycle under the flight path near Heathrow, I would hear aeroplanes screeching above me. I was incredulous that anyone could actually live there under such conditions. Aircraft are now quieter than they were in the 1970s, but even so, would not absolutely everyone in the vicinity be saying that they heard a terrific screeching noise just over their heads, and looked up, to see a massive aircraft plunge into the tower? Another point that makes me reconsider this is the denigration by labeling. Anyone even querying this was being mocked as a 'no-planer'. Perhaps I ought to take out the hyphen in that, too, as I did with 'antisemitism'.

    I now need to watch the 'Legally Challenged' video. However, a recent development is the news that the President of Italy's Supreme Court, Ferdinando Imposimato, is to refer 9/11 crimes to the International Criminal Court. In 2007 the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, told the Sunday Telegraph that he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the Prime Minister and American President George W Bush could one day face charges at The Hague.

    So what do we need to do in our daily lives to stop such things happening? The main thing is to be able to identify the style of those who are not trying to engage with the arguments, but have other techniques of persuasion. There is at the moment a big press story over an idea being put forward for the building of vast areas of farmland in the UK. The case for this was put on Newsnight by a government representative, Nick Boles, and I recognised his style; it was very thinktankish. I said, "I wonder if he's linked to Policy Exchange, or possibly Demos". When I checked him out, I found that he had founded Policy Exchange! Policy Exchange is David Cameron's favourite think tank, and was responsible for falsification of receipts presented to Newsnight when accusing UK mosques of purchasing terrorist literature. David Cameron's later statement that multiculturalism had failed was based on a further report by Policy Exchange, which I analysed, and I concluded that that, too, was a falsification. Now it appears that the recent elections for Police and Crime Commissioners was based on a Policy Exchange idea. The result was the lowest turnout in a nationwide election ever: 15.1%, including 2.8% spoilt papers. "Not good for democracy" wrote the BBC's political correspondent Nick Robinson. My only hope with regards to the new Police and Crime Commissioners is that it will open up a new avenue for pressing for investigations into police corruption. My police authority, the Thames Valley Conservative Police Force, is responsible for the David Kelly affair.

    So an organisation that arguably should have been prosecuted for inciting religious or racial hatred is now advising the government on police policy. It's not just Israel; there is something sick in British society, too.

    In the UK the report of the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking has just been published. What started out as a scandal on illegal activity by some journalists has now escalated into a recommendation for an 'independent' body to be set up to regulate the press. I should have thought that the obvious means of stopping illegal activity would be to apply the current laws rather than to create new ones. The obvious starting point in this case would be to review the defamation laws, which in the UK hugely favour the rich and powerful. Surely the answer must be to enable a bottom-up solution rather than a top-down solution. Just how would the government create an 'independent' regulatory body, when influence is consistently through the back door?

    The press is now biting back very hard. If they win, this attempt at regulation could be a blessing in disguise, because they will be under pressure to demonstrate that an independent press is necessary in defending the people against tyranny. They will be on the lookout for issues which would otherwise not reach the public, because they are just too embarassing to government. Most people in the UK are wondering why on earth we went into Afghanistan in the first place. What better an issue could there be for the press to attack the political establishment with than the cause of that war, and so the basis for its continuation. It was enabled by Tony Blair's deception in the House of Commons, when he stated that he had proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible, and that he would deposit a document in the library containing that proof. The document he deposited essentially repeated what he had said in the Commons. Come on, Press, show your guts. You know that the Afghan War was brought about by deception; if you don't challenge government on that now, you will have failed to demonstrate that you are even worth saving.

    "I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very difficult for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran": thus began a lecture to the think tank Washington Institute for Near East Studies by a Patrick Clawson. Yes, the warmongers are actually talking openly about what they're doing to initiate wars, in the sure knowledge that they won't be widely reported by the compliant mainstream media. Max Igan and Ken O'Keefe in Gaza show us this remarkable video clip, and tell us why we all need to pay attention.

    Truth is not the first casualty of war; peace is the ultimate casualty of deception.

    Recognising storms-in-teacups for what they are

    September / October 2012

  • Big conspiracy cover-ups do happen: UK wakes up!
  • EU Nobel Peace Prize baffling, and against Nobel's will
  • Petition not to accept Nobel Prize – feel free to sign
  • Paedophilia ring in high places rocks BBC, politicians and society
  • How the Establishment 'amnesiated' the public over a century ago
  • Massive criminal police cover-up outrages the Brits
  • How the public is being 'amnesiated' following exposure of police crime
  • Storms in teacups as a form of false-flag operation
  • False 9/11 prophet
  • BBC continues cover-up with '7/7 Conspiracy Road Show'
  • NATO's Gladio may be behind Greece's Kristallnacht and Turkey's Ergenekon
  • How social movements are reduced to tea and crumpets
  • '9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out': new film goes viral
  • Election of UK Police Commissioners: lobby your candidates!

  • The façade of the conspiracy deniers in the UK is breaking down fast, as scandal after scandal consumes the mainstream media. The Establishment is constantly thrown into disarray as it tries to minimise the damage and amnesiate the public. Sooner or later a scandal of tsunami proportions will sweep over the Western world: the uncover-up of 9/11.

    Across Europe there is a growing sense of outrage, as people realise that the current ludicrous situation has been created not by some natural disaster, but by corruption in high places. The most baffling absurdity is, of course, the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. I have set up an online petition for citizens of the EU to dissociate themselves from that prize.

    The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the EU is not only baffling, but it is also difficult to understand in terms of Alfred Nobel’s will. The Nobel prizes should be awarded “to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”. Yet the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated in their justification for awarding the prize: “The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”.

    So what has the EU done in the past year to justify the prize? Nobel’s will states that the peace prize is to be awarded to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. Have they reduced standing armies? Well, no. With the Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force in 2009, they created the EU standing army, which promises to become a mighty military force on the world stage. Just look at the coat of arms of the EU military staff; it contains an anchor and two swords, which is one more sword than that of NATO’s stay-behind paramilitary emblem. Compare also with the emblem of Gladio, the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind paramilitary organisations, which contains an anchor and a dagger. And they get a peace prize?

    So what about peace conferences? Yes, the EU does organise peace conferences. In 2010 the guest speaker was Prem Pal Singh Rawat, who made an impassioned plea to the world’s greatest emerging military power for peace on this earth:

    He had another go last year, too. The fact that he needed to make such an appeal speaks volumes. But did the EU take any notice, to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize? In any case, Nobel’s will states that the prize should go to a person. Is the EU a person? No, it’s half a billion people. Why should I be awarded a half billionth of a Nobel Peace Prize merely by virtue of my nationality? Nobel’s will stated: “It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not”. Obviously, the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 should have been awarded not to the EU, but to Prem Pal Singh Rawat.

    In the UK there is a sense of outrage as more and more revelations come to light over an alleged paedophilic ring in the BBC, at the centre of which was the popular entertainer Jimmy Savile, who died last year. Jimmy Savile had friends in high places in politics, and even in royalty. Reportedly, he advised Israel's President on matters of security in 1975 and received a medal in 1979. So what's going on? It appears he was so influential that he could carry on with this activity despite this being widely known, or at least suspected, in the BBC. This story is so big, and moving so fast, that it is impossible to check out the reports as they fly by. Some of the allegations will undoubtedly be wrong, but this scandal is big enough for the BBC Trust Chairman, Chris Patten, to call it a "cesspit of allegations". He also said, "Not only should the BBC have done more, but everyone should have done more" about claims against Jimmy Savile earlier. That undermines the claim against the 9/11 truth movement that if there had been a conspiracy known by so many people some-one would have spoken out.

    On 22 October the BBC broadcast a special edition of their BBC 1 investigative programme Panorama on 'Jimmy Savile - What the BBC Knew', and in particular on why the BBC decided to drop the original investigation on Jimmy Savile carried out by the BBC 2 programme Newsnight. The bizarre thing was that both Panorama and Newsnight went out at the same time that evening, and the main Newsnight story was the Jimmy Savile affair as well. I was struck by a comment in the programme by presenter Paul Gambaccini, who said, "Because it was off the scale of everybody's belief system, they didn't really come to terms with it". That's exactly how it's been with 9/11.

    I was surprised earlier to hear a statement by former Director General of the BBC Greg Dyke, who himself had been forced to resign when the BBC revealed a little too much of the truth on the claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. He said that he would be surprised if pressure had been placed on Newsnight from above, because that's not how the BBC works; if that were to happen, journalists would do their best to get the story out, and it would be leaked. He repeated this in a discussion with child protection campaigner and presenter Esther Rantzen on Sunday's Andrew Marr show, in which Esther Rantzen replied, "That's what happened".It happened in the case of 9/11, too.

    There are now questions on how far police investigations went. I notice that during the Summer fifty police officers across the UK were arrested in child porn raids (Daily Mail).

    And it's all happened before. There was an even bigger scandal over a hundred years ago, when journalist W T Stead exposed 'child prostitution' in high places. In order to do so, he paid for a child and went to prison for it. The popular idea of the British Empire was that the British were bringing Christian values to the uncivilised world. And now, in the newspapers such shocking revelations were being made about the elite in the centre of the empire which claimed to be spreading those Christian virtues. Subsequently Stead was marginalised, and the public was 'amnesiated' by the Establishment. His memory should be revived, because that is exactly what the Establishment will now try to do with the Jimmy Savile case. It is also what they are trying to do over 9/11. It seems that there is a common element in the psychology of sex abusers and war criminals: the need for power and control.

    Only weeks before the Jimmy Savile affair broke out, the nation had been rocked by a report of widespread criminal activity by South Yorkshire Police. On 12 September an independent panel on the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster published their findings. In that disaster 96 Liverpool football fans had died, and thousands had been injured. Yet the fans were being blamed for the disaster in a monumental cover-up by South Yorkshire Police. The report challenges the inquest's assumption that all 96 victims had an irreversible condition when the first ambulance arrived on the scene, saying that 41 had the potential to survive. It stated that South Yorkshire Police and the emergency services made strenuous attempts to deflect blame for the crush onto victims. In contrast to their professional training, officers were instructed not to record their experiences in pocket notebooks, but to produce statements of 'recollections' rather than 'notes'. Out of 164 statements, 116 were subsequently redacted. Then there was a press campaign of disinformation, blaming the Liverpool fans, the origin of which was a local Sheffield press agency informed by several South Yorkshire Police officers, a South Yorkshire Police Federation spokesperson and a local MP. The documents "also demonstrate how the SYP Police Federation, supported informally by the SYP Chief Constable, sought to develop and publicise a version of events that focused upon several police officers' allegations of drunkenness, ticketlessness and violence among a large number of Liverpool fans. This extended beyond the media to Parliament". These findings gained massive press coverage, but perhaps the most appropriate news item to mention is the one broadcast by the BBC to the people of Liverpool, which appears on their website under the heading 'Hillsborough report damns police and emergency services'.

    Criminal prosecutions are now being considered. This isn't just a case of a few bad apples. Forty years ago, Robert Mark, who had been appointed Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police to clean out the bad apples, defined a good police force as "one that catches more crooks than it employs". Every police officer who had been told not to make an entry in his notebook would have known that there was a criminal conspiracy within the South Yorkshire Police, but no-one spoke out. Yet so far there have been no sackings and only one resignation. The people of Liverpool had been castigated as conspiracy theorists for 23 years, and bad feeling ran so high that The Sun newspaper continues to be boycotted. The independent investigation was eventually set up after thirty thousand Liverpool fans had been chanting "Justice for the ninety-six". There must be more than thirty thousand maligned 'conspiracy theorists' now calling for an independent investigation into 9/11. Can we now make ourselves heard?

    A similar point was made by David Bowman who runs the Berkshire 9/11 Truth website. In a letter in the London Metro on 14 September he stated: "The conspiracy theory label must be stopped [from being] used as a derogatory term to justify censorship, lack of transparency and accountability – not only by the media, but by individuals to hide behind their own fears and insecurities. We should have the courage to wholeheartedly support those who demand truth and accountability for the deaths of loved ones, whatever the consequences".

    A documentary, 'Hillsborough', is now being produced by Mike Nicholson, and the first two parts can be seen, together with additional material, on his website. Further revelations have been made in a video 'Farrell and Pidcock on Corruption in South Yorkshire Police', in which former Principal Intelligence Analyst, whistleblower Tony Farrell, is in conversation with David Peacock, leader of the Islamic Party of Britain.

    Then there was a wave of sympathy for the police, following the brutal murder of two innocent female police officers in Greater Manchester on 18 October. This was an unusual case, in that they had been lured out by an emergency call, and shot when they arrived. Bizarrely, someone then walked into a police station to confess. Then, unusually, after Dale Cregan had been charged, Judge Andrew Gilbart made an order under the Contempt of Court Act, section 4(2), preventing the reporting of any proceedings in the matter until after the conclusion of the trial "or further order". The Guardian's Law Blog states that the reason given by the judge that publication of material or comment could affect the jury "stretches the purpose of section 4(2) order". No comment.

    Then there was a ludicrous storm in a teacup when Cabinet Minister Andrew Mitchell was leaving Downing Street on his push bike. No, not a Rolls Royce, but a push bike. The police blocked his exit by refusing to open the security gate, and telling him he had to walk round to the other side. It appears that he became angry, as he was entitled to do, but exactly what was said remains in dispute. Not surprisingly, if he denies having said the words attributed to him, he is not going to apologise for saying them. There was much talk about what the police officers had written in their notebooks, as if what they had written in their notebooks was definitive proof. Even Gavin Esler on Newsnight (2012-09-21) said that if you have a choice between believing a politician and a police officer you tend to believe the police officer. That, following revelations of widespread deception by one police force, was just not credible. The police and the press do not normally put such emphasis on a policeman's notebook; clearly this was a reaction to the criminal instruction by South Yorkshire Police to police officers not to record the truth in police notebooks at the time of the Hillsborough disaster. I have seen no explanation by the police on why they refused to open the Downing Street gate. Clearly, this bore the hallmarks of a set-up right from the start, but the police continued to escalate the matter, and it was being put out that Andrew Mitchell was a 'posh boy'. He may have been to public school (ie private residential school), and some of his cabinet colleagues may have been sociopaths from Eton and the Oxford Bullingdon Club, but Andrew Mitchell had his cycle clips on and was riding an ordinary push bike on his way from work, when he became angry at police officers who were apparently unnecessarily blocking his way, as any normal worker would have.

    I came to realise when I undertook my Esperanto research that whenever there is a storm in a teacup, there is undoubtedly someone stirring things for their own motive. I was under attack following an explosion of indignation from the treasurer to a question I had put; her only complaint was that she didn't like my tone. I managed to weather that storm at the following meeting, and we agreed on a diplomatic entry in the minutes. But then I discovered that the treasurer had been obscuring the real financial situation in the accounts, and falsifying it in her statements to the committee and to the membership. That's when the real storm-in-a-teacup began. This time it was based on the fact that I hadn't apologised for the incident, which by then had happened six months earlier. Clearly, they couldn't find a single instance of me putting a foot wrong in the meantime. Bearing that experience in mind, I had no difficulty in recognising the Andrew Mitchell case as a set-up. The police were clearly whipping the whole thing up. This has become a stand-off between the Cabinet and the Police Federation. The parliamentary opposition is jumping on the bandwagon, but former left-wing Labour minister Chris Mullin has spoken out in an article in The Times (2012-10-16, p22). "Don't let police bullies oust Andrew Mitchell" runs the headline, with a sub-heading "The federation intimidates all those who attempt reform. I know as I was one of them". He points the finger in particular at the West Midlands Police, which "is the force which fitted up six innocent people for the Birmingham pub bombings". It is also the force, he says, of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, "which was disbanded after many of its members were involved in serious criminality". He describes how the wrath of the federation descended on his head, when they rang each member of the Home Affairs Committee which he was chairing. "The federation is a bully", he writes, "It has a track record of intimidating ministers, journalists and anyone else who gets in its way". That is so similar to my experience when I came under attack in 2006, and it would be a good description of how the Esperanto Parliamentary Group, which I had initiated in 1972, was finally extinguished in 1999.

    The generally presumed motive seems to be that the police are fighting for more resources. But the initial effect was a widespread wave of sympathy and support for the police in the wake of the public sense of outrage following the Hillsborough revelations. The idea that that could have been their primary motive becomes credible when you look at what else they've been doing. And of course many people now suspect that the 7/7 Four were also set up by various police forces.

    To me, recognising such storms in teacups is the key to success in the truth movement. At the international level many truth campaigners can latch on quickly to likely storms in teacups. The downing of a Syrian airliner by Turkey was such a case:

    It was provocative, and there was no published evidence that the airliner had been breaking any law. This is a typical example of how wars begin; they are normally provoked by a party which has something to gain. Turkey is a member of NATO, and NATO countries are providing military assistance to the anti-government forces in Syria, and seem to be looking for an excuse for war:

    I think that most Turks would not think it was in Turkey's interests to create a dispute with Syria, but I doubt whether the Turkish elite is representative of the people in this.

    It's all happened before, many times, most notably in the Boer War, which was provoked by the friends of Cecil Rhodes, in order to give an excuse for the British imperial forces to take over Southern Africa, where Rhodes was the most powerful colonialist. Rhodes had formed a secret society, ostensibly to bring peace and civilisation to the British Empire by use of his enormous wealth. Other founding members in 1891 were a confidant of Queen Victoria, and the super-famous journalist and human rights campaigner W T Stead. When Stead realised what Rhodes was up to, he objected. Stead was thrown out of the secret society, and he then campaigned against the Boer War. I wrote this up in my newsletter for November/December 2011. The public was eventually 'amnesiated' by the Establishment, and now Stead's name is barely known. We need to counter this amnesiation. That's why my slogan is not just 'spread the word' but 'keep talking'; in other words, don't just spread the word, but keep reminding people of simple facts, because otherwise the Establishment will ensure that they forget.

    The truth movement itself has much to learn in recognising storms in teacups. The breaking up of the national 9/11 Coordinating Committee was clearly such a case, yet it wasn't recognised as such. There were cries of 'antisemitism' against Tony Gosling, who does an excellent job in running the 9/11 Truth Forum ( There seemed to be no willingness in some quarters to reach any sort of reconcilliation, but only to whip up the quarreling further. Then there was a further storm in a teacup, over alleged 'holocaust denial'. When they extended that to me, suggesting that that was the source of my problems in the Esperanto movement, even though I had never been involved in the holocaust controversy, and my friend with whom I was working on the Esperanto affair happened to be Jewish, it was pretty obvious what was happening. When we set up '9/11 Keep Talking', it was my full expectation that from time to time we would have to deal with such storms in teacups in the future. Accordingly, we set up a private email group, with no anonymous members. I was fully prepared to deal with any disruptive elements who were attempting to instigate storms in teacups. A short time ago I was incapacitated for a week, and when I came to look at the correspondence, I found just that. It wasn't that I disagreed with what two of them were saying, though indeed I did. Nor was it that they had turned the whole thing into an irrelevant religious rant, which indeed they did. Nor was it that I thought they were infiltrators from the Establishment with a mission to neutralise our activities, though I do have my suspicions on that. It was that they were being disrespectful to others, were being autocratic, were being foul-mouthed, and they were creating an elite which was impervious to criticism whilst they launched personal attacks on others. They were also inciting others to break the law and thus get arrested. I put them under moderation and they left in indignation. These are pretty typical signs – together with trying to change the objectives of the group rather than themselves setting up a new group with different objectives – and it has to be dealt with calmly and surgically.

    Most people's reactions is to want to brush such things under the carpet, but I think that is wrong. I was amazed when I was investigating a storm in a teacup in 1973 to find that something similar had happened in 1955, only seven years before I had entered the Esperanto movement, yet no-one had talked about it. Everyone says that these things should be put behind them and that they should move on. But they don't move on; they just fall into the same traps that they fell into before. Storms in teacups need to be documented and made available, so that we learn from experience. The Establishment will persistently try to amnesiate us; often they will explicitly keep saying: "That's history".

    We also need to remember examples of proven infiltration. The story of Tania Head, who falsely posed as a 9/11 surviver, was shown on Channel 5 in the UK on 16 August. She became the main spokesperson for the survivors of the twin towers, and was only outed when she audaciously persuaded a film director to make a documentary about her. What came across very strongly was the sense of shock and betrayal felt by her former friends. Yet the only possible explanation being suggested for her behaviour was that she had some sort of psychological condition. When we have overwhelming evidence of massive state deception over 9/11, it seems pretty obvious that the state would infiltrate such groups in order to keep any questioning of what actually happened within certain limits. Whether or not Tania Head was a paid agent, that story looks to me like a classic case of infiltration and taking posession of a group, which potentially could present a threat to the Establishment. Anyone who is part of any campaigning group needs to be aware of such things, and they need to see the emotional reactions of betrayed members in a case such as this. Imagine if Tania Head had been exposed not by a film director but by an ordinary member; they could well have shot the messenger. This story is being kept alive by a book and a video, 'The Woman Who Wasn't There'.

    The Establishment is also trying to amnesiate us on incongruities in connection with 7/7, the terrorist attacks in London on 7 July 2005. On 8 October BBC Three put out another of their dishonest programmes twisting the facts and making those who question the politicians' version of events look irrational, with their '7/7 Conspiracy Road Show'. It was presented by a comedian, whose job was to convince four 'conspiracy theorists' that they may be wrong. Many of us had been approached, but turned it down because of previous experience of BBC cover-ups. After the show, one participant, Jon Scobie, was interviewed by Paul Watson, London correspondent of Infowars, and revealed what had gone on behind the scenes. There's a comprehensive write-up by Keelan Balderson, with videos, on the Wide Shut website. Now that the public are beginning to accept that the BBC is capable of a massive cover-up in the case of paedophilia, it should be possible to get the message across that they can cover up war crimes and Gladio-style terror crimes.

    One thing that I have been puzzled about, however, is the question of which train the alleged terrorists took from Luton to Kings Cross, if indeed they did. The televison programme appeared to show that it would have been possible for them to have taken an earlier train than the one originally claimed by the government, which had been cancelled. All sorts of things are possible, but we need evidence. I'm pretty sure that if they had, and everything had been as is now being claimed, that information would have been put out pretty quickly. So whatever the final conclusion is, the train times are significant, even if only to demonstrate government falsification. I still find '7/7 Ripple Effect' the most persuasive attempt at a reconstruction, even if it does present supposition as fact. However, I think that all options need to be considered. When looking at any reconstruction, we should be asking not only whether the reconstruction is true, but also whether it is genuine.

    I think there is a growing realisation of what is going on, both in the truth movement and amongst the public. It is necessarily a slow process, rather like getting an ocean liner moving. When I first tried to handle a canal boat on the Norfolk Broads I quickly realised that giving the boat a huge push made virtually no difference; the way to move it was to gently lean on it and keep gently leaning. We now have that momentum.

    The news in the mainstream media seems to get more and more ludicrous by the day, as Europe moves towards Fascism. Newsnight on 17 October featured the rise of the far right Golden Dawn party in Greece, which is violently targeting non-Greeks. "This was the Greek Kristallnacht", said the director of a play, Corpus Christi, after his theatre had been stormed by Golden Dawn thugs. The Greek Prime Minister recently compared his country to Weimar Germany. The programme reported on collusion within the Greek police force. "And the police stand by", said Newsnight's reporter Paul Mason. This does indeed sound like Kristallnacht, when police were instructed not to interfere with the riots unless the guidelines were violated. And I've just found a blog site called Daily Mail the morning after the Newsnight programme, on pages 30-31, carried a double-page spread headed 'A Fascist party in full cry. Black-shirts smashing migrants' homes. Swastikas on the streets. No, not Germany in the Thirties: Greece 2012'. Who is stirring this lot up behind the scenes? I asked Richard Cottrell, author of 'Gladio: NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe' if he had any idea. He replied: "The local Gladio set-up, which is closely linked to the Golden Dawn goons. The country is being set up for a military coup, breakdown of law and order as the excuse for intervention. Golden Dawn is a CIA/NATO/MI6 'Al Qaida'". In a later email to me he compared Golden Dawn with the story of the Greek terrorist group 'November 17' and three decades of urban guerillas, as described in his book. "We're looking at classic strategy of tension tactics, designed to demonstrate to the world that the sober guardians of Greece (namely the utterly corrupt political classes) are flying the standard of law and order in the face of hoodlums, rioters and 'anarchists'. Just like London, eh?".

    He had just sent me an article on attacks on non-Muslims in Turkey, in which a suspect on trial had told the court that the National Strategies and Operations Department of Turkey (TUSHAD), a clandestine organisation within the Turkish Armed Forces, was behind the attacks, and that it is the armed wing of the illegal Ergenekon organisation. Richard Cottrell commented: "My thesis that Gladio is still up and running is thus confirmed".

    He also told me that the NATO people had stopped the Sterling bookshop in Brussels from retailing his Gladio book in situ, following a very clear and immediate response to promote the book. "Suddenly the emails and the phone calls from myself and the publisher went dead", he told me. He got the same treatment from stores that they approached in the Netherlands, in Italy and in Germany. "We sent people to the store in Brussels and they got the real cold shoulder brush off", he wrote. I had indeed noticed a dearth of real investigative books on the 'War on Terror' in my local bookshops. [Editorial note: I have only bought one book by David Ray Griffin about 9/11 in a Waterstones bookshop and that was about the death of Bin Laden. There is very little appetite for stocking such books in public view even though they can be bought on Amazon.]

    So what are the problems and difficulties of the 9/11 truth movement, and have there been attempts to silence us? That question was put to Professor Jim Fetzer in an interview appearing in Iran Review on 13 September on the Vancouver Hearings, which he organised earlier this year. He replied that the most serious problems have arisen from conflicts internal to the movement coming from various factions which have adopted negative or even hostile attitudes towards others, mentioning some in London and in the US. A more detailed account had appeared the previous day on the Veterans Today website, headed '9/11 Truth will out: Vancouver Hearings II'. He details some of the correspondence with Ian Henshall of 'Reinvestigate 9/11' and concludes that "he is not serious about 9/11 Truth but prefers to run a social club where 9/11 can be discussed over tea and crumpets!". I reached the same conclusion shortly after it had been set up, having recognised the symptoms from the Esperanto movement in the UK. It became clear that this a deliberate policy, which they had turned into a 'philosophy' called 'Rauxmismo'. The president was also the president of the Simplified Spelling Society, and he did exactly the same thing there. It seems it's a common technique for neutralising any movement, and so I've been extending the term 'raumism' to the neutralisation of any movement by that technique. Jim Fetzer commented: "I find it difficult to believe that anyone takes 'Reinvestigate 9/11' seriously". Well, you have to look at Conformity Theory to start to understand that, as I did when the members of the Esperanto association believed that the capital had been decreasing when the figures showed it had been increasing. All the Raumists have to do is to form an authoritative elite, and keep smiling, and then find some excuse to vilify anyone who asks dangerous questions. Virtually everyone rallies round out of tribal loyalty. That's how they maintain a façade of democracy.

    It's not easy to tackle the Raumists; any free discussion will be deflected or sabotaged, and in my case it proved impossible to get any sort of action group of more that a couple of people without eventually finding it was being undermined from within. Any pot of gold is in danger of being blocked. When people start to latch on to what is happening the fake elite can no longer maintain the façade of democracy, and so they resort to blatent censorship. So it's not difficult to see why Iran's Press TV was banned in the EU and replaced by a pro-NATO Iranian station, as Tony Gosling explains on Russia Today ('Anti-Tehran TV launches as Iran state media gets EU boot', 25 October:

    Nor is it difficult to see why Iran should have launched its own satelite.

    However, in the US the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have made a significant breakthrough. In August their new film '9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out' made its broadcast TV premiere on Colorado Public Television (CPT12). Then on 11 September the film became the most watched and most shared video on PBS Online, and held the top spot for over a week. The webpage for the broadcast received more hits than any programme page in its history. The film may be viewed online on their website. PBS reaches nearly 123 million people through television, and more than 21 million people online each month.

    So when will the BBC broadcast such material? Cabinet minister Vince Cable made a point in BBC 1's Question Time on 26 October: "[The BBC] is damaged, but not fatally, but I would say in its defence: 'What other media organisation in the world would put out a programme attacking itself, which is what it did in the Panorama programme …".He makes a good point. The BBC was set up that way. That doesn't mean that there is no abuse of power by the hierarchy. Nor does it mean that there is no undue influence from outside bodies, such as the security services and financial corporations. Jeremy Paxman's sudden abandonment of a tie in Newsnight suggests he is standing up to such a hierarchy, whereas no informed person could doubt that the BBC's Conspiracy Files team presents distortions and lies in order to support the Establishment's version of events. The banning of Press TV undermines any pretence of political neutrality by the Establishment. But the structure of the BBC, even if it is corrupted, gives me some hope of making a breakthrough like that on PBS.

    I wonder what Vince Cable thinks about 9/11 and 7/7. His colleague the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg wrote to Neal Austin: "You will appreciate that the suggestion that the government of the time allowed – or instigated – such a horrendous act of terrorism in such a cynical manner for political expediency is difficult to accept. You clearly believe that the research would lead a rational person to this conclusion – and I am sorry to say that I must disappoint you as I do not arrive at that conclusion myself". Fine, but does he accept the research, and what does he mean by 'government'? This correspondence arose from a campaign launched by Richard Hall on his website 'Rich Planet', asking people to write to their MPs. Whilst I think that is a great initiative, we seem to be in danger of overlooking the forthcoming elections, on 15 November, for Police and Crime Commissioners throughout England and Wales. This gives us a chance to ask the candidates what they will do to reduce crime within the police force.

    Liverpool football fans have the slogan "You'll never walk alone", and their anthem runs "Walk on with hope in your hearts". Now they can be sure that they will never talk alone. We must all talk on with hope in our hearts. Keep talking.

    Sunday, 30 September 2012

    Is the public enemy no.1?

    September 2012

    As the world was distracted by the great Olympic sideshow, Britain and the US admitted to giving military aid to the insurgents in Syria. "And we will give them more", stated UK Foreign Secretary William Hague.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the US of trying to justify terrorism.

    Kabul Press notes the lack of comment from the US administration on the assassination of Syria's Foreign Minister, suggesting that they are encouraging Syrian suicide bombers.

    An article in Iran's Press TV website claims that NATO has secretly authorised an attack on Syria.

    History is repeating itself. The mainstream media seems to have learned nothing from Iraq. Yet Syria seems to be the line drawn in the sand, as far as Russia and China are concerned.

    Attempts to isolate Iran, again on the grounds of weapons of mass destruction, are now looking ridiculous, as 120 nations assemble in Tehran for a conference of the Non-Aligned Movement.

    "Non-Aligned Movement: Tehran's new secret weapon?" asks an article on the Russia Today website:

    Leaders and ranking envoys from more than 120 developing nations flew to Tehran this week to attend the 16th summit of the NAM. There, they are expected to throw their support behind Iran in its standoff with the UN Security Council and the ‘big six’ of world powers. Basking in the publicity they are usually deprived of by international media, the leaders of “underdeveloped and unprivileged” nations (to use the NAM’s parlance), will feel like real movers and shakers in world politics. At least, for the five days before they return home.

    Yet who is the enemy? They keep saying that terrorist incidents bear all the hallmarks of Al Qaida. I pointed out in my July newsletter that Al Qaida always has been a US database of CIA operatives and their co-fighters, and that perhaps it should be written as 'Al CIA da'.

    An analysis of the possible links with the CIA has since been published by Elias Davidsson on the website Muslims for 9/11 Truth, under the heading 'Al-CIA-duh exposed! Who are Al Qaeda's enemies?'

    I think we were all relieved that there wasn't a terrorist attack on London during the Olympics, but it's not over yet. The Paralympics ends on the 9th of September. In an article headed 'Imminent terror attack on London?', the Iranian television website Press TV has published further reasons to think that an attack may have been planned.

    In September 2011 the Westfield Stratford City Mall, situated next to the Olympic Park, was opened by former Executive Chairman and General President of the Westfield Group Frank Lowy. "Frank Lowy and his copartner Larry Silverstein had rented the whole World Trade Center (WTC) for 99 years just a few weeks before the 9/11 attacks", the article states. It also points out:

    "The WTC complex buildings 1, 2, and 7 along with Westfield Hotel were ruined in the 9/11 attacks, so Silverstein and the Westfield company pocketed about $5.4 billion from the attacks".

    I think that must have been the Marriott Hotel, owned by the Westfield Group. Other Marriott Hotels which suffered terrorist attacks were those in Islamabad (2008-09-20) and Jakarta (2008-07-17). "With regard to Lowy's talent for investment in places that are victims of terrorist attacks, the question raises that [of] whether the Olympic Park would be a possible target for terrorist attacks. The insurance companies have been committed to compensate about $7 billion for lost profits, if terrorist attacks happen", the article suggests

    I think we have to regard the scenario analysis published by the Rockefeller Foundation, which I reported on in my July newsletter, as being just that: four possible scenarios, one of which was the 'Hack Attack' involving a terrorist attack during the London Olympics. That document could have been put out to sound out ideas amongst the insiders, in rather a similar way that think tank reports in the UK can be put out to sound out political ideas before politicians have the courage to talk about them in public. Perhaps someone should be analysing the other three scenarios put out by the Rockefeller Foundation.

    I think there's not much doubt that the London Olympics must have been the most militarised and draconian ever. I don't think there can be many people left in the UK who would not agree that the Olympics were taken over by giant corporations. Stories of the 'brand police' defending the commercial rights of these corporations against other business told us whose side the Establishment was on. The most ludicrous of these that I came across was the announcement of an investigation when unofficial condoms were found in the Olympic village.

    So what's it all about? Suppose this were extended to the whole country, not just for the Olympics, but forever, with G4S running the brand police, the rest of the police, the prisons and possibly parts of the the judicial system, too. That's what Mussolini called Fascism. When I say we are governed by corporations, most people nowadays seem to agree. That is how close we are. Could it be that the Olympic circus was just an exercise for the coming Fascist state?

    There's been a lot of nonsense, as well as a lot of sense, talked of the year 2012. My own interpretation has been that 2012 is the culmination of a twenty-year operation to introduce the draconian New World Order. This may have consisted of four five-year plans following the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. In the UK these stages look like: stage 1 (1992 - 1997) establishment of New Labour, Demos, etc; stage 2 (1998- 2002): pretexts for Blair's wars; stage 3 (2003 - 2007) chaos in the Middle East and fear at home; stage 4 (2008 - 2012): financial control. So perhaps there's now a fifth stage (2013 - 2017): consolidation of the corporate / Fascist state.

    In my July newsletter I mentioned Richard Cottrell's idea that Tony Blair may be positioning himself to come back as Prime Minister. I thought he could never be an elected leader ever again, so if he was to become Prime Minister again they would get some clown elected in 2015 - perhaps the current Mayor of London Boris Johnson - then let Tony Blair take over in 2017.

    I asked Richard for his thoughts on this, and he wrote back, "I think we are mistaken that Bliar is popularly unelectable. I am afraid the electorate in the UK is now so dumbed down (just the same here in Italia, btw) that Iraq happened somewhere in the Old Testament, ...". He wrote that he thought there'll be a new openly 'National Socialist' movement, building on the rather successful New Labour model, except this will be a mass movement with distinct fascist overtones and organisation. "Somewhere in London", he wrote, "the blueprints are being worked on right now. The elimination of all opposition groups will lead the way to compulsory membership if there's to be any kind life for the ordinary individual: jobs, access to health and education, housing, even food - and the right to travel, especially abroad. Of course it won't happen overnight, it will 'evolve' with the assistance of a few dramatic false flags here and there". It's a chilling thought, but if you look at Tony Blair's website and you understand Orwellian newspeak, it's believable.

    Tony Blair came under attack from Archbishop Desmond Tutu in The Observer, in an article explaining why he refused to share a platform with Tony Blair at the 'Discovery Invest Leadership Summit' in Johannesburg the previous week. He wrote that those responsible for the suffering and loss of life arising from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 "should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague".

    It was a good time to bury bad news for the Chilcott inquiry into the Iraq war. Publication of the findings of the inquiry, which began in 2009, has been delayed for at least a further year, owing to the refusal of the government to release cabinet papers. However, the Chilcott committee has had access to those papers; the only issue is whether the papers can be released to the public. So why can't Chilcott go ahead with the report, even if it is partly based on evidence which they cannot publish? According to The Guardian article: "Chilcot has said Blair's claim that MI6 established 'beyond doubt' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was 'not possible to make on the basis of intelligence'".

    The Daily Mail reacted with an editorial, beginning:

    "Tony Blair stands accused, by this paper among many other observers, of one of the most serious abuses of power a prime minister can commit. The charge is that he made a private agreement with George Bush to join the US in an offensive war against Iraq. Then, with the aid of spin doctor Alastair Campbell, he wildly exaggerated evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a deadly threat to this country, so as to persuade the Cabinet, Parliament and the British people that the invasion was justified".

    What puzzles me is that the Daily Mail can condemn Tony Blair for deception over the Iraq War but remain quiet on deception over the Afghan War. Shortly after 9/11 Tony Blair told Parliament that he had proof that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, and that he would make the evidence available to MPs, who would be able to read it after the debate in the House of Commons Library. The document he deposited there said little more than he had told the Commons, and he could just as easily have presented that to the Commons as the speech he gave. That was plain deception. <

    Now history is repeating itself, with talk of possible use of chemical weapons by Syria, and development of a nuclear bomb by Iran, with Israel threatening to bomb Iran and presidential candidate Mitt Romney giving them the green light if he is elected as US President. If Israel were to carry out its threat it's unlikely they could disrupt any underground nuclear facility in Iran, unless they themselves dropped a nuclear bomb on Tehran in order to wipe out all the people involved. In carrying out any bombing campaign they would have most of the world against them, including many in Israel and the US. And if Tehran did have a nuclear bomb, could they use it? Their Muslim neighbours in Pakistan haven't used theirs yet.

    In this war rhetoric against Iran, Mitt Romney stated that Iran had "seized embassies". That is exactly what UK Foreign Secretary William Hague threatened to do to the London embassy of Ecuador, in order to arrest Julian Assange, who has been granted political asylum by Ecuador, and is now residing in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. On 19 August Julian Assange gave a speech from the embassy balcony, but beforehand, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray gave a speech outside, in which he stated:

    "The Vienna Convention is absolutely plain. The Vienna Convention of 1961 is the single most subscribed international treaty in existence, and it states in article 22 section 1 that the diplomatic premises of an embassy are inviolable. Full Stop. Are inviable. You can not invade the embassy of another country. As Tariq [Ali] rightly said, there were times when I sheltered Uzbek citizens from their government within the confines of the British embassy in Uzbekistan. Even during the height of the tensions of the Cold War the opposing parties never entered each other's embassies to abduct a dissident. The fact that William Hague now openly threatens the Ecuadorians with the invasion of their sovereign premises is one further example of the total abandonment of the very concept of international law by the Neoconservative juntas that are currently ruling the former Western democracies [cheering]".

    He went on to say:

    "And I tell you this: in international law and in Ecuadorian law, whatever British domestic legislation may say, if the Metropolitan Police enter the premises of the Ecuadorian embassy they are subject to Ecuadorian law, and they are committing a crime under Ecuadorian law [cheering] and for this as individuals policemen are quite likely liable to prosecution [cheering]".

    Answering a question from a journalist, Craig Murray said that the British diplomatic service was extremely unhappy at this threat by William Hague, and that it makes every British embassy around the world liable to invasion. The video and a full transcript were published on the Democracy Now website.

    Craig Murray wrote in his blog the following day that a Guardian editorial claimed that he had omitted all mention of the sexual allegations against Julian Assange, and that the Guardian had made no attempt to indicate the gist of what he had actually said. He wrote that even the New York Times had at least got to the point, when reporting: "a former British diplomat, Craig Murray, asserted that Mr. Assange had been 'fitted up with criminal offenses' as a pretext".

    The Guardian had earlier been working with Julian Assange in publishing some of the material which he had provided.

    "The Guardian's shrill and vitriolic campaign against Assange is extraordinary in its ferocity, persistence and pointless repetition", he wrote, "The sad truth is that its origins lie in the frustration of the Guardian's hopes to make a great deal of cash from involvement in Assange's putative memoirs".

    Perhaps the sad truth is that otherwise the Ecuadorian embassy might get a little overcrowded.

    The following day, Craig Murray appeared on Newsnight, and said, "I think there are elements of a set-up", and outlined why. He was widely criticised for naming Anna Ardin as one of the women who had made allegations against Julian Assange. He defended this on the grounds that this information was already widely known, and, indeed, Anna Ardin had herself publicised her case by giving interviews to the press. He also pointed out that the BBC had repeatedly named Nafissatou Diallo, the alleged rape victim of Dominique Strauss Kahn, while the criminal investigation into the alleged rape was still in progress. "Why the contradiction?", he asked.

    In the same edition of Newsnight, a video clip of Respect Party MP George Galloway was shown, in which he stated: 'The Julian Assange Sex Crime Allegations, If True, Are Not Rape'. This attracted widespread condemnation in the press, though I don't recall any similar condemnation when former cabinet minister and now veteran anti-war campaigner Tony Benn told the Stop the War Coalition on 7 February 2011, "The charge of rape simply doesn't stand up to examination". It's important to point out, though, that Julian Assange hasn't been charged; he's only wanted for questioning. The Swedish government's website states: "Within the EU the procedure for extradition has in general been replaced by surrender according to the European Arrest Warrent".

    So I'm confused.

    US feminist Naomi Wolf told Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight that the Assange case was being treated differently from other similar alleged rape cases in Sweden.

    Canadian author Naomi Klein, too, on December 2010 tweeted: "Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women's freedom was used to invade afghanistan. Wake up!"

    Australian author and film director John Pilger wrote on 23 August that the British government's threat to invade the Ecuadorean embassy in London and seize Julian Assange is of "historic significance". "Hague has made a laughing stock of Britain across the world", he wrote. "It is as if the Olympics happy-clappery has been subverted overnight by a revealing display of colonial thuggery", he continued, going onto the "Guardian's perfidious role in the whole Assange affair". He also wrote of a Pentagon document which described how Julian Assange would be destroyed with a smear campaign leading to "criminal prosecution".

    I have to say that there has been some scepticism within the 9/11 Truth Movement concerning Wikileaks. The amount of information and the amount of editing would suggest that there must be a national intelligence agency at work behind it. Some commentators whose analyses I generally value were taking this line, such as Gordon Duff of Veterans Today, who in December 2010 thought that Wikileaks was a Mossad operation and Webster Tarpley argues that Wikileaks is a CIA operation.

    It's possible, of course, that Julian Assange himself doesn't know where the information is coming from, since Wikileaks is the publisher rather than the spying network. It's quite possible that such an operation would be used by national intelligence agencies. One possibility that no-one ever seems to consider is that Russia could be behind Wikileaks. Julian Assange has had his own show on Russia Today, and the Russian intelligence services would surely not let their television station fall into such a trap. Russia does have an interest in limiting NATO's advance throughout the world, as we all have, and it would be expected that they would have some operation to counter the CIA/MI6 subversion that they are reporting across the globe, including Russia. Selective reporting would be expected, even if only to avoid revealing their sources. Russia Today does regularly interview people who are active in the truth movement in Britain and the US.

    Daniel Estulin, famous for his revelations on the secretive Bilderberg meetings, has just published a book called 'Deconstructing Wikileaks'. The author "freely admits to some ambivalence in his opinion of Wikileaks".

    Whatever the truth, the propaganda war continues. John Pilger's latest film 'The War You Don't See' is now available to watch online. It's about the role of journalists in military propaganda. "If people really knew the truth", British prime minister Lloyd George told the editor of The Manchester Guardian in 1917, "the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don't know, and can't know".

    "Never has so much official energy been expended in ensuring journalists collude with the makers of rapacious wars which, say the media-friendly generals, are now "perpetual". In echoing the west's more verbose warlords, such as the waterboarding former US vice-president Dick Cheney, who predicated "50 years of war", they plan a state of permanent conflict wholly dependent on keeping at bay an enemy whose name they dare not speak: the public."

    "What are you going to do about it?", asked John Pilger four times on 26 April 2012 in an article headed 'You are all suspects now. What are you going to do about it?'. I intend to do exactly what I have been urging others to do, and what we in '9/11 Keep Talking' are doing, and what John Pilger, Craig Murray and many others have been doing: Keep Talking!

    Sunday, 29 July 2012

    The G4Shambles, Gladio and AL-CIA-DA

    July 2012

    London is heading for a state of martial law. Some are saying we are already there. Craig Murray was the UK's ambassador to Uzbekistan until October 2004, when he blew the whistle on British complicity in torture. He has experience of totalitarian regimes, and he wrote in a blog headed 'Martial Law Britain', on 12 July, "Those coming from Central Asia, Bahrain, Qatar or Saudi Arabia to the Olympics, interested to see what life in a democracy feels like, will find it seems exactly like life at home in their dictatorship"

    Since I wrote my June newsletter the issue of G4S went viral in the UK's mainstream media. But they're still hiding a lot about the utter shambles within G4S in their training programme, as revealed first by whistleblower Sarah Hubble, who has set up a blog, then by undercover investigative journalist Lee Hazledean.

    The mainstream media story is mainly about the shortfall in numbers recruited by G4S, following the announcement by the British government of the deployment of 3500 extra troops to make up that shortfall, and it goes up a further 1200 as I write this. The head of G4S, Nick Buckles, stated that he had known nothing of the issue until 6 July, and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, claimed that she had not known about it until 11 July. That's interesting, because I knew about the omnishambles, and listeners to Tony Gosling's 'Friday Drivetime' programme on BCfm Radio knew about that on 22 June.

    It now appears that the Home Secretary admitted the shortfall in G4S recruitment in a letter the day after that broadcast, but no-one is quite admitting the omnishambles that was reported in Friday Drivetime. Will these people now be prosecuted for criminal negligence? Or will they be prosecuted for deception or something much worse?

    Lee Hazeldean eventually revealed himself as film director Ben Fellows in a radio discussion with Lou Collins and Infowars reporter Patrick Henningsen on Liberty Tactics. Not only did he tell us more of the detail of the shambles, but he also explained why he had revealed his true identity at that stage, having told Tony Gosling that he hoped to continue working undercover until the beginning of the Olympics. Tony Gosling had asked him whether he had contacted journalist Andy Davies of Channel 4 News, and Lee Hazeldean had replied that Andy Davies didn't want to know. It was that statement that led to him eventually pulling out of the operation.

    The part of the conversation relating to Andy Davies and Channel 4 News ran as follows (starting at 43:55):

    # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

    Lou: Lee, I just want to … I know Tony Gosling asked you "Have you gone to the mainstream with regards to this?"

    Ben: Er, yeah, I did, I mean, erm, at first, you know. One of the reasons I kind of did this was cause - I had a contact with Channel 4 which was Andy Davies, the home affairs correspondent, and so I thought, you know, he'll run with this - he'll take it. I emailed him on the 13th of June. He rang me back and basically he said: Look, you know, there seems to be some sort of like media blackout, there's … Channel 4 are not going to be interested and are not going to do anything that would damage the Olympics. That was basically what he said to me, and I went, "Oh! OK". Well, what's been interesting is that, you know, Tony Gosling - it's really thanks to him that this story ever got out because he ran with it on his radio show and we broke the story that way, and ... but yesterday I got a phone call from Andy Davies who, erm, really was - you know - he had a go at me and pretended that I'd never met him, that I never spoke to him, that he'd never said those things, and I said to him, "But Andy, I can prove it". [laughter] You know, and erm, and basically he accused me of being a liar, and he said he wanted me to retract what I had said about him speaking to me, and I wouldn't do it and I just said to him: Look, you know, you can't rewrite history like that, I'm sorry. He just sent me an email late last night pretending he hadn't even read my email. He even said, "Oh, I've just got your email". You know, I said, "That's not going to work. [laughter] You know, I can prove my side of things; can you prove your side of things?", and he wanted me to say that I was lying, and he wanted to say - obviously G4S had put pressure on him cause I'd named him in the interview, erm, and now he's putting pressure on me.

    Lou: So he's putting pressure, hang on, he's putting pressure on you to say you were lying about him or lying about what you've been exposing?

    Ben: No, no, lying about him.

    Lou: Right. OK

    Ben: He didn't care about me exposing G4S; it was because he was involved. And I'd spoken to him, and so he wanted me to basically say to everybody, "Actually, you know, I was lying, I've never said those things to Andy Davies. I never went to him, bla bla bla bla bla", and that's not true [laughter]. I mean it's simply not true. And erm, and I told him this: I wouldn't do it, and I was recording this conversation as you can tell, he was acting all kind of supersilious and arrogant and bogus, cause, like I was sort of recording something, erm, and so, you know, it was really disturbing to me. And he basically offered me a [???]. He comes with "Look, your story on G4S might have merrit". It might have merrit, mate? It's gone global [laughter]

    Lou: Yeah, yeah.

    Ben: You know, and so, erm, and he said, "Look, if you retract your statement I will sit down with you and talk to you about your story, and I went, "No, I'm not going to do that, you know, and really we had, you know, what, you know, I mean I was full of adrenalin; I wasn't expecting it. It came out of the blue. It was a late at night, you know. He called me at home. You know, if I hadn't spoken to him, how could he have my number? But he called be at home. You know what I mean? It's ridiculous, you know. what's going on.

    Lou: Yep. Totally ridiculous.

    Ben: And so he's going to expose me now, basically - that's what I think is going to happen - to G4. He knows who I am, and so erm he can tell G4S "Look, this is the person, this is what they're doing. But now it's gone from being a story about security to a story about a journalist, you know, trying to bully and control another journalist into lying, and this is the mainstream media we're talking about. We're not talking about some, you know, I don't know, bullies from down the road; we're talking about people who work for Channel 4 ITN News doing this. You know, I mean this is outrageous. Luckily, I recorded the conversation last night, er, because [???] didn't sound good, so I'll record this, and I'm glad I did this now because I wouldn't, you know, some things he said, and how he said them. I wouldn't be able to prove to anybody; they wouldn't believe me, you know, it's crazy.

    # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

    Lou Collins then said that she had phoned the BBC News Press Office with the story and was told that the message would be passed on and they would get someone to call her back. But it wasn't the BBC who phoned back; it was G4S telling her that she should not go on air and she should not be discussing the interview with Tony Gosling.

    More evidence of pressure to gag the press on negative stories on the Olympics is revealed in a discussion between Lou Collins, Ben Fellows, and Brian Gerrish, put out on the UKColumn website on 5 July.

    As far as I am aware, this gives us a unique insight into the mechanics of censureship in the British press, of which the whole of the truth movement is very aware, and of which George Orwell was aware in 1949 when he wrote in his censured preface to 'Animal Farm': "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. ... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness."

    It now appears that that censureship is not as voluntary as it appears. I queried in my June newsletter whether there could have been a D-notice on Olympics security; now it appears that the news blackout was brought about by intimidation on the part of G4S. Perhaps we could call it a 'G-notice'. It's not top-down censureship as in an open dictatorship; it's bottom-up censureship brought about by pressure of vested interests on individuals.

    I think it would be wrong to single out Andy Davies for criticism over this; after all, Ben Fellows would have regarded Andy Davies as the one who was most likely to take his story. There can hardly be a single political journalist in the mainstream media who doesn't feel for Andy Davies; any one of them could have been in a similar position. Whether one should submit to intimidation is a not the point, and I don't have enough detail to know what the pressures were anyway; the point is that people do submit to intimidation. "In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves", wrote George Orwell in that same preface. Surely now is a good moment for political journalists to make a stand against intimidation; they have a professional interest in being seen to be telling the truth rather than as political propagandists. When it comes to a security shambles of Olympic proportions lives are at stake. They should interview Ben Fellows and give him full credit for what he has done. This issue will not go away.

    Instead, Ben Fellows and others are staging their own event to bring this issue to the attention of the public. The event 'The Perfect G4Shambles' will take place in London on 25 July, when Ben Fellows will talk on 'Exposing the G4S debacle ... from the INSIDE!', Tony Gosling will talk on 'Exposing the mainstream media coverup', and Ian R Crane will talk on 'London 2012 ... Set up to FAIL!'. Their newsletter says that they will "produce the evidence which will effectively prove that the G4S debacle is a contrived event to facilitate the militarisation of London".

    But despite their shortcomings, the mainstream media are coming out with some of the information on the corporate takeover of the Olympic Games. 'Britain flooded with "brand police" to protect sponsors' ran a headline in The Independent on 16 July . "Hundreds of uniformed Olympics officers will begin touring the country today enforcing sponsors' multimillion-pound marketing deals, in a highly organised mission that contrasts with the scramble to find enough staff to secure Olympic sites. … Under legislation specially introduced for the London Games, they have the right to enter shops and offices and bring court action with fines of up to £20,000. … Olympics organisers have warned businesses that during London 2012 their advertising should not include a list of banned words, including 'gold', 'silver' and 'bronze', 'summer', 'sponsors' and 'London'", they write. I added a comment: "Next they'll be imprisoning Max Keiser for wanting to go back to the gold standard". This is a corporate takeover, in which corporations can censure the press, bring about new legislation, deploy police officers to enforce it, and even enjoy tax breaks, so that the public doesn't get any financial benefit out of their enterprise. I've just signed a petition demanding that Olympic corporate sponsors pay their fair share of tax and another one on the same site to ban secret lobbying.

    It seems the police are no longer there to protect the public, but that their role is, as Tony Farrell was told, merely "footsoldiers of the government". The verdict, just announced, of 'Not Guilty' in the trial of PC Simon Harwood, whose vicious attack on bystander Ian Tomlinson during the G20 demonstrations was seen by millions, was described by a spokesman for his family as 'a joke'. I'm sure the family will have widespread sympathy among the public, and that there will be increasing concern over the role of the courts.

    On 18 July the verdict was announce on the case of the 'zombies' arrested during the royal wedding, which I reported on in my April/May newsletter. The verdict was that the police acted lawfully. The campaigners are warning: "... this result could be interpreted as giving the police carte blanche to perform more pre-emptive arrests of 'known activists' over the Olympics".

    Our London colleague Mark Windows recently reported how a police officer attempted to entrap him by planting a knife in a tube carriage. Truth campaigners need now to be very careful. Most truth campaigners I know say they will stay well clear of London, but it can be a bit difficult for those who live there.

    It seems, that the BBC is planning some further disinformation on 'conspiracy theories'. Infowars London correspondent Paul Watson was invited to take part in a 'Conspiracy Theories' documentary from 9/11 to the Olympics and, in April, I received an invitation to take part in a new BBC documentary on 7/7 to express my "beliefs". "Should I?", I asked my colleagues in 9/11 Keep Talking. We all agreed to ignore it.

    I mentioned in my April/May newsletter a new book on Operation Gladio called 'Gladio: NATO's Dagger At The Heart Of Europe' by Richard Cottrell. I made contact with Richard Cottrell, a former journalist and MEP for Bristol, and on 16 July he provided the following analysis for this newsletter:

    "The morning's crop of stories on the Great Olympics Cock-up are - taken at face value - another example of legendary British incompetence in handling large scale events. There's an element of that, of course, but it seems to me that what we are really seeing is a good lacing of deliberate and intentional incompetence.

    "In short, lax security, inadequate numbers of trained personnel, last minute discovery of the almost complete collapse of efforts by a private security to firm to man the Olympics, are less the product of organic chaos than designer made preparations for some kind of false flag incident.

    "That Theresa May is not fit for any kind of important political duty is quite obvious: but of course that makes this hapless minister for synthetic chaos the perfect individual in the right place at the right time.

    "If something does go wrong, then the government has a made-to-order alibi: we did all we could, we brought in the army, we brought in the artillery, we even scraped the bottom of the Thames with one of our few remaining warcraft. We trusted a private security firm to deliver on time, which they did not, but since they failed to get things in order right up to the last moment, we had to either cancel the Olympics and disappoint millions, or press ahead in the confidence that extra trained personnel from the police and armed forces would suffice.

    "Yes it sounds pretty thin but in the unfortunate circumstances of some kind of attack (which need not by the way be devastating, rather more a great headline generator) the strongest defence will lie with 'attacking our way of life, pleasures and freedoms' and so forth. 'No-one even in perfect circumstances could guarantee the bomber would not get through.'

    "It seems to me that this could be the real script behind the warm up act which is now plastered all over the media."

    I would be happy if they were to just cancel the Olympics. The Olympic ideal is dead. Like all good ideas it has been taken over by vested interests and turned into something it was never intended to be. The company G4S itself now becomes a primary security risk, because if anyone is intending to explode bombs during the Olympics they will already have infiltrated G4S, and may well have their explosives in place already. The Olympic contract with G4S should be cancelled with immediate effect, whatever the cost. Nick Kollerstrom, author of 'Terror on the Tube' writes, "If you have a ticket for the Olympics, get rid of it! Just stay away".

    If there is a terror incident linked to the Olympics, it is likely that the authorities will very quickly put into the minds of the public the idea that it "bears all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda", or, as Tony Blair put it after the London bombings of 7 July 2005, "We know these people act in the name of Islam". Shortly after I had written the previous sentence I heard on the news of a bus of Israeli tourists who had been blown up in Bulgaria. According to one witness it was caused by a suicide bomber in the bus, and according to another witness the blast was in the luggage compartment under the bus. Yet two hours later Israel blamed Iran. Doesn't this sound just like 7/7?

    The constant repetition of the mantra means that most people will come to believe it, whatever contrary evidence is subsequently found. Yet if there is an incident at the Olympics, the probability of such statements being true has to be extremely low for anyone who has studied previous terror events, as South Yorkshire Police's Principal Intelligence Analist Tony Farrell did before he was sacked, as I have reported in previous newsletters. The idea that our own authorities could be a party to mass murder is still implausible to most people, yet there is overwhelming evidence to support just that.

    The case of Operation Gladio is well documented and should be much more widely known. US film producer Allan Francovich produced a three-part documentary, 'NATO's Secret Armies', in which he interviewed key Gladio players such as Propaganda Due head, Licio Gelli, Italian neofascist and terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra, Venetian judge Felice Casson, Italian Gladio commander General Gerardo Serravale, Belgian Senator Roger Lallemand, Belgian gendarme Martial Lekue and former CIA director William Colby. This was broadcast in the UK on BBC 2 in June 1992. The episodes were: 1: Gladio: The Ring Masters (1992-06-10); 2: Gladio: The Puppeteers (1992-06-10); 3: Gladio: The Footsoldiers (1992-06-24). (Five years later, Allan Francovich died whilst going through US customs in Texas.

    The first academic study of Operation Gladio was produced by swiss historian Daniele Ganser in his book 'NATO's Secret Armies'. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe'. That was published on 22 December 2004, and so would have been selling during the six months prior to 7/7. The world should have been alerted; many academics, politicians and journalists must have been aware of this, yet no-one was publicly raising the question of whether 7/7 could have been a part of Operation Gladio, or some such activity by NATO forces. The book has since appeared in nine further languages.

    Now, as I reported in my April/May newsletter, former British television journalist and Member of the European Parliament Richard Cottrell has just authored a book 'GLADIO NATO's Dagger at the heart of Europe: The Pentagon-Nazi-Mafia terror axis', published by Progressive Press in May 2012. So next time there's another terror event, will questions be raised on Gladio? Well, one has just happened in Bulgaria, and no, nothing at all is being said on Gladio.

    It seems to me that to counter the mantra of 'The Muslims done it', we need our own mantra. I think we need to get the name 'Gladio' out there far and wide. It's not the explanations that matter now, because there are plenty of explanations already on the web, but it's the number of times the word 'Gladio' gets repeated that matters, even if initially few people know what it is. The mission should be to get it out there in blogs and comments to blogs on news sites. If they state that the incident bears all the hallmarks of Al Qaida, then perhaps we should respell the name as 'Al CIA da'. After all, Al Qaida always has been a US database of CIA operatives and their co-fighters. What has changed? Key truth campaigners may find their computers are down; this has to be a grass roots activity.

    I think that truth campaigners generally would agree with MI5's assessment that the risk is 'substantial'. If nothing happens we may well be called 'paranoid', but so what? - we're all paranoid now. On 12 July Sky News reported: "An employee for security firm G4S has told Sky News he believes there is a 50-50 chance someone could carry a bomb into one of the Olympic venues."

    On 17 June we held a meeting of the 9/11 Keep Talking group that Nick Kollerstrom and I run in London, to discuss the possibility of a false-flag attack during the Olympics. Noel Glynn talked about his own analysis, which he had previously distributed quite widely by email. His analysis was based on an article called 'How to Stop a False Flag Terror Attack' by David Chase Taylor, who lists six signs that a false flag terror event is likely to happen. These are explained unde the headings:

    • News & Propaganda,
    • Whitepapers & Documents,
    • Internal Memos,
    • Plots & Patsies,
    • Private Security Firms,
    • Drills, War Games & Military Exercises

    Noel Glynn reached the conclusion that five out of six of those signs have been met. "My conclusion from all of the above is that there are plenty of warning signs that a false flag attack may be planned for the Olympics at the very moment when the eyes of the world are concentrated on London. This is enough to cause serious worry but not enough to feel certain that is what is happening. Alternatively an attack could be called off due to the fact that this possibility is getting too much publicity", he writes. He also draws attention to signs to look for after such an attack:

    • A terror script,
    • Conflicting reports,
    • Suspect identified within 24 hours,
    • Cui bono - who benefits,

    Let's consider when and where such an event could happen, should it happen. Nick Kollerstrom's concern is the amount of radioactive waste under the Olympic Stadium, and what the effects of that would be should an explosion rock the foundations. That might suggest an incident in the Olympic stadium itself at any time during the games, such as the scenario described in the BBC television series 'Spooks Code 9', in which there is a nuclear attack at the opening ceremony. Just as I was leaving, someone pointed out that the final day of the Paralympics was the 11th of September. That's food for thought.

    My own analysis was based on the scenario analysis by the Rockefeller Foundation, on which I reported in my June newsletter, and which investigative journalist Adrian Salbuchi thought might have been intended as a warning to the Establishment insiders of a planned false flag attack. In one scenario they talked of a bombing that kills 13000 people at the London Olympics. If Adrian Salbuchi is right on that, then they would have to specify in their coded warning three things: what, where and when. The 'what' and the 'where' are clear, but the 'when' is vague; it would have to be more specific than the period of the Olympics, since an absence of the Establishment insiders for the whole of the Olympics would be conspicuous. So we have to look for a day. I wrote in my June newsletter: "I wonder if, when translated, they could mean: 'the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13 August, 1000'. The thirteenth of August is the day the crowds will disperse from the Olympics". The stage could already be set, for instance at Heathrow Airport's new Olympic terminal. We seem to be being prepared for an event.

    '400 soldiers patrol Heathrow amid terror fears' reports the Daily Mail, saying that 450 troops with armoured cars had moved in because of the ending of the Muslim festival of Eid.

    Then Sky News reported: 'US Security Agents "At Heathrow For Olympics"'. I left a comment on the Daily Mail report of this: "Foreign troops in security operations in a British airport is itself a potential breach of national security. British national security should be handled by British people working for the British public. This is really, really dangerous".

    On the other hand, I now realise that the area of the Olympic Stadium is Hackney and Lee Valley, London E10. 'Hacken Lee' is the name of a Chinese singer who 'hosted' the Olympic Games in Beijing, as Wikipedia puts it. An advertisement which appeared on Chinese television for the Euro 2012 Football Championship features an athlete with 'Hacken Lee 10' on his T-shirt. This is an aggressive advert which depicts the destruction of London. Now look at a video of the British contribution to the closing ceremony at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. The Rockefeller Foundation's scenario in which 13000 people die is called 'Hack Attack'. Could it make sense for there to be an attack on 13 August in Hackney and Lee Valley, post code E10?

    At our Keep Talking meeting, one person, Kevin O'Connor thought that the hyping up of a terrorist threat might just be bluff, and that any attack might come after the Olympic Games ( I did hold a view that they might be able to instill the required level of fear in that way, for a military clampdown, but having now seen the scepticism of the public in what they are being told by politicians following the latest G4S debacle, I now have some doubts on that. There was some discussion on how big such an event might be. I suspect, like Richard Cottrell that a small event could cause an enormous amount of havoc, especially if it disrupted the transport system. After all, it didn't take an Olympic Games to cause the havoc of the August riots last year. What did cause them?

    Just as I try to bring my newsletter to a close I hear of a further example of Establishment censorship in the UK. The BBC were due to broadcast a two-part documentary drama based on the riots on July 16 and 18 when they received a court order stating: "It is ordered that the BBC programme 'The Riots: In their Own Words' due for broadcast on BBC 2 tonight is not broadcast by any media by any means until further order". Another part of the ruling states: "Further the clip currently available for viewing on the BBC website be removed forthwith". The BBC told The Guardian that for legal reasons it could not disclose details of the court. The film had been based on research by The Guardian and the London School of Economics, and some of their data is published on The Guardian's website. Perhaps the suspicions of many truth campaigners may be substantiated.

    Whatever does or doesn't happen at the Olympics, the event is likely to provide a hugh distraction. I see that The Sunday Times of 22 July gives extensive coverage to a preemptive claim by Israel that Iran may carry out a repeat of the Munich massacre of 1972, but I could find no mention in the paper edition of the recent scandal in Germany concerning the far-right involvement in the Munich massacre, with the knowledge of the German security service. I can already envisage writing in a future newsletter something like: "As the world was distracted by the great Olympic sideshow, Syria / Iran was invaded by NATO/Israeli troops".

    Richard Cottrell made a very interesting point to me on what might happen after the Olympics: "Why has Blair selected precisely this window of opportunity to declare he'd like another go at PM", he asks, "Does he mean PM or something a trifle more enduring? Shall we say, non-elective as a clue. Have the hour and the man met at last?". Indeed, whatever happens or doesn't happen during the Olympics, we could eventually end up with a Fascist dictatorship - or a corporate state, to use the current PC form - in the UK; Tony Blair could never be freely elected ever again. In his memoirs, Tony Blair described the Freedom of Information Act as one of his greatest mistakes while in office. Indeed it was. If you want to be a tyrant you don't do that sort of thing. The Information Commissioner recently claimed that secret documents were being destroyed, and that Whitehall officials were using private email addresses to evade scrutiny. But some information does get out.

    Secret documents were being destroyed in Germany, too. Richard Cottrell contributed a commentary in the 'End the Lie' website on the recent resignation of the German spy chief, Heinz Fromm, following the destruction by government agents of files on a far-right terrorist cell behind murderous attacks on immigrants. . Richard's analysis, headed 'German Gladio redux: Neo-Nazi murder scandal engulfs Merkel's government' describes this as "a strange case that once again points to security agencies stirring synthetic violence for political ends". This follows the revelation concerning the involvement of neo-Nazis in the Munich Olympic massacre of 1972, which I reported on in my June newsletter. When will people start resigning over the destruction of secret documents in the UK?

    Tyrants love false-flag attacks, in which they create a disturbance then blame it on their opponents. An understanding of Operation Gladio is key to understanding what is going on in British politics today, both at home and abroad. Suddenly, things begin to make sense. The situation in Syria makes sense, and remember that the CIA was behind the overthrow of the Mossadeq government in Iran, and the rise to power of Saddam Hussain in Iraq. Are those nice people in positions of power in the UK capable of such attrocities as torture and murder? Well look at the case of four elderly Kenyans, one now deceased, who have been trying to claim justice following the Kenyan uprising of the 1950s. The defence is the usual hypocritical mantra of 'That's history'. A new video, which shows how things can be seen very differently if you have the right glasses on, has been produced by some of our Keep Talking people. It's called 'Kollerstrom and Farrell are dead'. It has now appeared in lots of places on the web, such as the website of the Kent Freedom Movement.

    The immediate objective is to save lives, but a good general will always look ahead to the following battle. Hillary Clinton says that they are losing the information war; we must win it. Remember to keep talking, and don't forget the words 'Gladio' and 'Al CIAda'.

    Ian Fantom