"It's just horrible, and I myself have been crying a lot", wrote my correspondent in Oslo. I had just arrived in Copenhagen for the Universal Congress of Esperanto when I heard of the attacks. It felt so close. It could have happened in Copenhagen, and the conference at which the massacre took place could just as easily have been the Esperanto Congress. We did, after all, suffer attacks of vandalism in 2009 when it was held in Bialystok, Poland, a place where such vandalism is rare. I was relying mainly on the BBC World Service to keep me informed, though I did sometimes watch Danish Television, straining to make sense of the subtitles, the body language and the tone.
One of the first public statements on the attacks came from President Obama of the US, who said that the events in Oslo were a reminder that the world has a role in stopping acts of terrorism
Twelve minutes later a BBC correspondent put out that he believed an al-Qaeda influenced group was most likely to be behind the attacks. Then one minute after that the Norwegian Prime Minister urged Norwegians not to cave in to fear caused by the bombing. "But it's important that we don't let ourselves be scared, because the purpose of that kind of violence is to create fear", he added. Forty-three minutes later the BBC reports that the Norwegian government has not yet pointed the finger toward groups who could be responsible. I saw a press conference with a police representative, who was very correct, stating that all options had to be considered. How very different that was from Tony Blair's reaction to 7/7, when he stated: "We know those who did this did so in the name of Islam". Yet after the Oslo bombing the government line remained firm. "You will not destroy our democracy or our ideals for a better world", declared the Norwegian Prime Minister.
But who did he have in mind? Was it a message directed at the the US and NATO to keep out, in response to President Obama's suggestion? Or was it aimed at someone else? Or was it aimed just at the people of Norway? They were right to keep their options open. The man arrested at Utøya was ethnic Norwegian, and no Islamic links were in evidence.
At the opening ceremony of the Esperanto congress we held a minute's silence in memory of the victims. During the week it wasn't difficult to lapse into conversation on the Norwegian attacks, or on the bigger picture, with people from a whole range of nationalities across the world. How the climate of opinion has changed from five years ago when I started talking to people about the 9/11 truth movement, the false flag attacks, state intervention in civilian groups and the subversion of democracy at all levels in Western societies. No-one at the Copenhagen congress thought I was crazy. I could talk freely about topics which only five years ago would have brought about cynical responses or ridicule, or would be ignored altogether. Everyone I spoke with in Copenhagen was positive and interested.
When I got home I looked up the Norwegian 9/11 truth website (http://www.911truth.no/2011/07/oslo-zionist-terror-not-a-false-flag-op/) and found that they man they had arrested had written a 1516 page manifesto, '2083 – A European Declaration of Independence' (http://911truth.no/oslo-j22-abb-terror-manifesto.pdf). under the anglised name of Andrew Berwick. I skimmed through about two thirds of that manifesto, and it was a detailed treatise on multiculturalism and why he was against it. The final part was about militancy and weird stuff about the Knights Templar. So why, if he was protesting against multiculturalism would he be bombing ethnic Norwegians? The Norwegian 9/11 truth website quoted a passage on page 1167 of his book: "So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists".
In the meantime, my colleague Nick Kollerstrom had been writing up events on his website: "Was Anders Breivik a Zionist, who massacred the children in response to Norway's anti-Israeli stance? Or did he do it for the reason he stated, namely that too many Muslims were flooding into Norway?", he asked. The media have taken the latter view, he stated, whilst some had taken the former.
Norway's Labour Party had passed resolutions just a day or two before the youth gathering on Utøya Island, and the day before the attacks, Norway's Foreign Minister told the youth meeting that the Palestinians must have their own state, the occupation must end, the wall must be demolished and it must happen now. If we go to the Norwegian 9/11 site we see a photo of the Foreign Minister with the young people on Utøya Island, who are holding up a banner 'Boikott Israel'. The website also points out that the attack came on the 65th anniversary of Irgun's attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
This is very much ongoing work. Nick has already included much analysis on his website. The Oslo article points out that the mainstream media have failed to mention the link to the Jerusalem bombing. "Zionism – obviously – is still very much a taboo subject in Norway", the article states. The author explains in reply to one of the comments, that the word 'Zionist' relates to Jew just like 'Nazi' relates to German. I've always thought that the word 'Zionist' is bandied about too easily. In this context it refers to Zionist militants, rather than those who emigrated to Israel for a more peaceful life, by buying up land from willing arabs.
One thing that still puzzles me is why Breivik should have added to the end of his treatise a number of quality press photos, ready for immediate use by the press when he was arrested. It seems that he wanted to be arrested and to become the focus of the investigation, presenting himself as a lone nutter. Why would he do that? Was he a decoy for a larger operation? Does he have an escape route? Was he told he had an escape route and did he believe it?
Another thing is that, whilst reading his document, I couldn't help but think of that other report against multiculturalism issued by the Conservative Party think tank Policy Exchange on 29 January 2007. It was headed 'Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism'
I carried out a study of that and gave a talk on it to our London Keep Talking group in February. That was after the Prime Minister had stated that multiculturalism had failed in a speech in Munich on terrorism. It seemed to me self-evident that his speech was based on that document. The report was 90 pages long and used the same sort of twisted logic that Anders Breivik seemed capable of. The gist of the argument in the Policy Exchange report was that terrorists in the UK were normal Muslims, rather than extremists, and so there was a paradox. It therefore followed that the root source of terrorism in the UK was multiculturalism. Shortly after issuing that report, Policy Exchange issued a further report about terrorist literature in mosques. That was widely reported in the press, until Newsnight discovered that some of their receipts had been falsified.
Then came the August riots in England. So who was behind them? What has been emerging is that in London alone there were 200 gangs which were normally fighting each other, but which suddenly called a truce in order to wreck selected areas in London. When the rioting began, the Metropolitan police held back, letting them get on with it. The social networking sites Facebook and Blackberry were blamed, and the secure encoding of the Blackberry phones meant that the police didn't know what was going on, and so were taken by surprise. They arrived unprepared for criminal activity, just expecting some sort of peaceful demonstration. Is that credible?
One man who doesn't think so is Brian Paddick, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, and now a high profile member of the Liberal Democratic Party. In a special session of the BBC Television's Question Time (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/9562804.stm) on Thursday, August 11, he said there was no excuse for not having sufficient officers on duty in Tottenham on the Saturday night, and that if they had had that, and if the officers had acted rather than standing back, then he didn't think that they would have had the copy-cat violence in Clapham Junction or anywhere else. He also said: " ... these crowds were organising themselves using social networks, using Twitter, using Blackberry messaging. Well, why weren't the police on Twitter, on Facebook, on Blackberry messaging, getting one step ahead of the crowd?".
Another panel member, David Davis, MP, pointed the finger at ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, saying: "The place where this is discussed broadly is ACPO ... and they're the ones bluntly who made the mistake on this".
So what is really going on? Who was behind the August riots? In any investigation you start off with three basic questions: 1: Cui bono? (Who benefits?), 2: Who has the means, and 3: Who has done it before? The third question is easy to answer.
There is a thuggish gang based in London which has been found to be engaged in infiltrating peaceful civilian groups and inciting people to break the law and wreck other people's property. In one instance, one of their agent provocateurs was found to be inciting to riot abroad. The Germans I spoke with in Copenhagen were generally aware that a British undercover police officer had been sent in as an agent provocateur to incite riotous behaviour in their country. His name was Mark Kennedy, and I wrote about that case in my newsletters of May and June/July this year. The gang for which he was working was ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, which had set up a secret police force in the UK, operating not for national security but against our own people. This, it appears, was done in collusion with the Crown Prosecution Service. The only substantial difference I can see between the Mark Kennedy case and the August rioting is a matter of scale.
Why were there no prosecutions of members of this gang? Instead, the police force merely announced that responsibility for infiltration had been transferred to the London Metropolitan Police. Do we believe them? We have no means of checking. One of the high-profile police officers – probably the most high profile police officer in the mainstream media – appearing during this period on national radio and television was Sir Hugh Orde, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers. So not only does ACPO have the means of inciting rioting, they have the means of covering up, even if their cover-up of the Mark Kennedy case, in collusion with the Crown Prosecution Service, did eventually break down after seven years of betrayal.
Another thuggish gang which I have reported on in previously is one that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was a member of in his youth, together with the current Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Other former members include the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, and former Prime Minister Tony Blair. The gang is called the Bullingdon Club, which had a reputation for being awfully polite and respectable, arrogant and snobbish, and smashing up high-class restaurants. They would get away with that because they had more money than sense, and would pay off the restaurant owners in hard cash to keep them quiet. On one occasion, when the restaurant owner complained to the police, the police just held them overnight for questioning, then let them go free. The film 'When Boris met Dave', which I reported on in my October 2009 newsletter, is well worth watching for anyone who is interested in understanding how elitist cliques take control, not only in government but at all levels of society. The Bullingdon Club clearly provides excellent training for going into politics, where graduates can put into practice the art of charm, arrogance, and selective aggression, as in smashing up civilian life in Afghanistan and Iraq, and probably many other places, including the UK.
There was no suggestion that Cameron and Co were themselves responsible for smashing up restaurants, but they were members of a gang which had that reputation. If I had been invited to join such a group when I was a student I would have said "No, thank you". I wouldn't have been invited, though, because I wasn't at Oxford University, and I hadn't been to a training camp within a stone-throw of Windsor Castle, known as Eton College. But there are plenty of thuggish groups willing to smash things up at all levels of society, and I just wasn't interested in that sort of thing. Mere membership of such a group from a top politician who is condemning similar behaviour from others is sheer hipocracy. What signals does that send out when leading members of the political establishment and the police force itself are members of such gangs? If we are really interested in stamping out such behaviour, then we have to seriously consider what the root cause could be, and what measures have to be taken.
The BBC television programme Newsnight sometimes presents some excellent investigation into possible criminal activity by the state, but in a special edition on August 12 about the August riots, they invited historian Professor David Starkey to take part in an ill-informed discussion.
David Starkey is well known for his arrogant and uncompromising views. He appeared to be blaming the August riots on immigrant groups from the West Indies, even though most of them weren't from the West Indies. His justification was that some of the white English rioters used some West Indian dialect. His absolutely uncompromising manner was a complete distraction from the real issues. Although he lacked the subtlety of expression, the version of English which he was using was that used by elite English bankers.
The Cameron-Blair formula is to turn the whole situation into abstract nouns. Just as Blair put it about that 9/11 was due to mindless terrorism, justifying his 'war on terror', Cameron has attributed the August riots to 'criminality'. Of course, that doesn't apply to the Bullingdon Club or to ACPO, because they seem to have some sort of immunity to prosecution. Most of these gangs no doubt do have a thuggish mentality, but is that enough to make them all suddenly declare a truce and start attacking shops in the high street? Of course not. It is enough, though, together with a widespread sense of grievance against a racist and unjust establishment, for unthinking people to be incited into action that they would not normally be involved in as individuals. The ground would be fertile for the secret police and their agent provocateurs.
So, cui bono? The London Metropolitan police force had been itself coming under pressure, with talk of criminal collusion with people in the Murdoch empire. A national scandal was developing, in which the police were being discredited, and public confidence in them was evaporating. Suddenly all that changed. With the August riots, the police were suddenly held in high esteem. The public suddenly realised they needed the police to enforce law and order. Their sins were forgiven. New, and more repressive laws were talked of by senior politicians, in addition to the current draconian legislation that has been introduced since the attacks of 9/11. Many in the truth movement are very aware that all the legislation they need to turn the UK into an overtly fascist state is already in place. All it would take would be some sort of false flag attack, and an enactment of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, alternatively known as the Abolition of Parliament Act.
It may not even take that:
There has been some apprehension that the 2012 Olympic Games in London could provide the background for such an excuse. There could be a repeat of the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972. The police force would be overstretched, and so the army would be called in to keep order on the streets of Britain, whilst their own agent provocateurs incite rioting to give them the excuse. Perhaps the August riots were a trial run for this. It's not a nice prospect, but the one thing that makes such things possible is that the public still believe such things to be impossible, because we're British.
We need urgently to sort out these thuggish gangs, and we need to start at the top. Members of such gangs in leading positions in the police force or in Government, should be removed. There should then be a proper inquiry into the August riots, and any investigation should start by asking the standard questions: (1) Cui bono? (2) Who has the means? and (3) Who has done it before?
As part of this, we need to establish and maintain standards of honesty and decency within the police force itself. The job of the police is to solve crime, not to cover it up, and not to avoid rocking the boat when inconvenient evidence crops up. The Guardian contained an interview with Brian Paddick on Saturday, August 11. The article states that Brian Paddick's rise in the London Metropolitan Police was halted when he revealed, five hours after Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by armed police at Stockwell tube in 2005, that senior officers had known he was carrying a Brazilian passport, and was therefore unlikely to have been a suicide bomber.
"The police's release of misleading information to the media following the death of an innocent man has become a familiar pattern", writes The Guardian, "It was repeated when newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson died after being shoved to the ground by a police officer during the 2009 G20 protests. Then, nine days later, when Mark Duggan was shot dead by police in Tottenham, police accounts told of a shootout with Duggan and an officer's life freakishly saved when a bullet lodged in his police radio". It was later revealed that the bullet in the radio was police issue, and a non-police weapon retrieved from the scene had not been fired. "There is still this belief amongst senior officers that it's better to cover up than own up", said Brian Paddick.
A strong desire not to rock the boat was reported at a meeting of the Keep Talking group in London on 5 July when a former Principal Intelligence Analyst for South Yorkshire Police narrated how he had been sacked, after having come to the conclusion that the biggest single threat to terrorism to the UK was now coming from internal tyranny and in his opinion far exceeded any threat from Islamic terrorism. It was his job to produce an annual 'Strategic Threat Assessment Matrix', giving probabilities of threats to public order in the area. His assessment for 2010 was due on 8 July, but a week earlier he stumbled upon information on 9/11, which led him on to further information on 7/7. Like many of us, he was shocked at what he found, but he had only one week to digest the information and decide what to do. He told us of the reactions of his bosses when he told them of his findings. "Tony, you and I will never get to the truth – we are mere footsoldiers of the government", he was told.
As a result, he rewrote his Strategic Threat Assessment Matrix as a brief document, stating that the real threat to society was almost entirely of the state-sponsored kind, and that other threats were insignificant by comparison. On being dismissed, he was told by the Director of Finance: "Your beliefs are very sincere, and you may be right, but it is I'm afraid incompatible at the moment with where we are". Why the Director of Finance?
We discussed going public on this at the Keep Talking meeting, but we agreed for the moment to treat the issue with discretion. Otherwise, we would have had a national scoop.
Later, Tony decided to go public, and a report appeared in The Sun and the Mirror
It was, of course, the sort of thing you'd expect, but, as Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". I was actually quite encouraged. Then a similar report appeared in the Sheffield Star on 19 July
Tony took the matter to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal, and his appear hearing will begin on 7 September. Nick Kollerstrom did an excellent write-up of this story on his Terror on the Tube website, with links and comments
Best of luck to Tony, who has shown outstanding courage. If the hearing goes against him, that will confirm that the primary objective is not to rock the boat, even in a case in which the police have admitted that he may be right.
This brings us up to the tenth anniversary of 9/11 and the onslaught of repeated lies that will hit us through the mainstream media. That has already started with the BBC's television programme '9/11 Ten Years On', broadcast on 29 August produced by (Mike Rudin's discredited 'Conspiracy Files' team.
It's encouraging to see that they are being pushed further and further into a defensive position, broadcasting material that couldn't have been shown just a few years ago, even if they are still countering good science with bad science, and telling us that the 'conspiracy theorists' are wrong. Perhaps that's because the BBC's own opinion poll shows that one in seven people in the UK believe that the US government staged the 9/11 attacks, and that the equivalent figure for 16-24 year-olds is one in four. So how many would have answered 'No' to a straight question 'Do you believe the government is telling the truth about 9/11?'.
One in seven people are convinced that the U.S. government was involved in a conspiracy to stage the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people.
A survey, which interviewed 1,000 people in the UK and the same number in the U.S., found that 14 per cent of Britons 15 per cent of Americans think the past administration was involved in the tragedy.
They were asked: 'It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda. However some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?'
No comments:
Post a Comment