Sunday, 3 June 2012

I am incredibly hacked off!

April/May 2012

There can hardly be an adult in the country, other than a hermit, who is not now aware that there is something seriously wrong in public affairs. The press has been full of it. The Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking has developed into something much more sinister than a few journalists breaching the privacy of a few celebrities; it goes right to the heart of government. It's about the relationship between government, the press and the police force.

Tom Watson, the MP whose investigations led to this inquiry with journalist Martin Hickman, titled 'M for Murdoch'(

A Berkshire colleague of mine wrote, "I have read Flat Earth News and I think this will be even better".

Now we hear that government ministers have been having regular meetings with Google, too. We are seeing the merging of corporate and government interests, which the truth movement has been trying to warn the public about over recent years

Tory ministers have held meetings with Google an average of once a month since the General Election.
The revelation of the extraordinarily close relationship increases concerns that the internet giant has the ear of the Government on a host of sensitive topics. Official records show that David Cameron has met Google executives three times and Chancellor George Osborne four times. Culture minister Ed Vaizey has met the firm no fewer than seven times while his Culture Secretary boss Jeremy Hunt – currently under pressure over his links to another media giant, News Corp – has held four meetings.

I think that this is now at last coming home to ordinary members of the public, via a very reticent mainstream media which is being dragged into reality.

So what do you do if you're in charge of the government, you're in the deepest economic crisis since 1929, the Euro looks as if it might collapse, you're involved in wars all over the Middle East, you've just been through a horrendous press frenzy on MPs expenses, and now the very existence of your government is under threat as more and more is being uncovered about the merging of government interests and massive corporate interests? Well, obviously, you introduce legislation to fine people for keeping too much rubbish in their gardens:

Householders who regularly dump rubbish in their own garden will be guilty of a criminal offence and hit with a hefty fine. The penalty will also apply to anyone who leaves an old sofa or fridge in their garden, or has mountains of pizza boxes or takeaway cartons lying around. They will receive an on-the-spot fine of up to £100 or be taken to court – where the maximum fine would be £2,500. The new Community Protection Notice is a key part of new anti-yob laws unveiled by Theresa May today.

Yes, that's what they're doing, and now they have the means of seeing just what rubbish we all may have in our gardens, thanks to their corporate links with Google. But Google not only provide aerial surveillance of the world, they have also been illegally collecting data on individuals via their home wireless computer networks. Many of these networks are not passworded, and so Google's vans, as they pass by taking street videos, have been tuning into these home networks, to find out what we are all up to:

Google has been accused of a cover-up over claims it knew its controversial Street View programme could collect private wi-fi data for three years before admitting it publicly. The US media regulator said the technology giant was aware in 2007 that it was harvesting personal information such as emails and passwords. But it was not until 2010 that Google owned up to what it was doing when concerns were raised by others, the Federal Communications Commission said.

Of course, such information may not be too intrusive when it is used only for advertising, but if it is supplied to government, then there is plenty of scope for it to be misused. It could, for instance, be linked to their database of dissidents. I know two individuals who tell me they have been harassed by the police for no apparent reason. It's already considered an offence in the US to 'drive whilst black'. It's already dangerous in the UK to criticise the government whilst Muslim. Perhaps soon it will be an offence to criticise the government whilst having rubbish in your garden.

During the Royal Wedding last year the police went on a rampage of pre-emptive arrests. There were press reports that 52 people had been arrested, including five young people drinking coffee in a coffee shop, out of whom three had zombie make-up on, preparing to go on a zombie picnic, as an alternative to the Royal Wedding.

The Network for Police Monitoring reported:

"Thirteen months later, 15 of those arrested have been granted leave to challenge their arrests by way of a Judicial Review, which will begin at the High Court on Monday 28th of May 2012. It is hoped that the results of the court case will have an impact on future policing of such events such as the Olympics, or the Diamond Jubilee which will take place immediately after the Judicial Review hearing"

I have heard comments from all sorts of people saying they will stay clear of London for the period of the Olympics. They give a variety of reasons, ranging from the traffic chaos which has already been arising
at Heathrow Airport well before the Olympics, to a possible terrorist event, whether by Al Qaeda or false-flag. It seems now that it could be dangerous for anyone on the police's dissidents database to be seen walking down the street in London during that period. Indeed, according to the Network for Police Monitoring mentioned above, one of those arrested during the Royal Wedding was a man who was simply walking in London and was stopped and arrested by plainclothes officers because he was a 'known activist'.
The main question for me is whether the UK will be catapulted into the 'Post Democratic Era', as some are calling it, by a false-flag terrorist event, which many have been predicting, or whether we will just slide
into it, as the police seize the opportunity to arrest whoever they don't like the look of.

The whole set-up for the Olympic Games in London is now looking ludicrous, with ordinary citizens being told that the the military are installing surface to air rocket launchers on the roofs of their flats, in preparation for possible terrorist attacks

London is fast becoming a military police state, with a military build-up, arbitrary arrests, suppression of free speech, and a secret political police force. The Daily Mail on its front page illustrated 'the chilling (and balaclava-clad) face of modern British policing', showing a picture of an armed-to-the-teeth London police officer.

Even the Amateur Photographer was getting worried when someone sent in the conditions of entry for Olympic ticket holders, which state that they may not publish recordings on social networking sites.

I thought the Olympic spirit was just the opposite of all this militarisation and control. And it has all been enabled by the simple fact that overwhelmingly the people of this country thought that such things were impossible here in the UK.

Newspaper headline writers drew their own conclusions. "Murdered" ran the headline in The Independent, "MI6 and Met condemned by coroner over spy death" announced The Guardian, and "50 agents face DNA test over spy in the bag killing" stated The Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail also compared the Gareth Williams case with those of other mysterious deaths of British intelligence agents, under the title 'Sex, spies and seven suspicious deaths: The murky waters of the intelligence world – coincidence or conspiracy?". They report that former spy Nicholas Anderson had told their reporter that he believes 'cleaners' – espionage experts trained in removing clues from a crime scene – had undoubtedly been into Williams's Pimlico flat before police were alerted.

So if it is now possible for the mainstream media to draw such conclusions, what about the death of former UK Weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, who never received an inquest because of government intervention? How long can the government continue to cover up over this? For that matter, what about the death of Princess Diana in 1997? Australian journalist John Morgan has just published a fifth volume in his series 'Diana Inquest: The untold story', and this one is titled 'Who killed Princess Diana?'. According to their product description, the book contains evidence that the assassination was carried out by MI6 on orders of senior members of the Royal family. When a human rights lawyer such as Michael Mansfield praises the book, you have to take it seriously

The government have had to back down on legislation to enable inquests to be held in secret, following an intervention by David Davis, MP, who claimed that US intelligence services used similar powers to cover up embarrassing details of how the attacks of 9/11 may have been prevented.

A senior Tory MP last night issued a warning over the dangers of Government plans for ‘secret courts’ as he claimed U.S. intelligence services used similar powers to cover up embarrassing details of how the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis used Parliamentary privilege to allege that officials squandered the chance to have access to al-Qaeda and Taliban calls and emails two years before the attacks in New York.

Last week, when I went down town to the market, someone asked me, "Syria – what's going on?" I had met him in a shop several months earlier, and told him about 9/11. We are no longer being dismissed as paranoid conspiracy theorists, because the idea that we are constantly lied to is now very credible. The fact that the mainstream media is so packed with stories about the abuse of power of those we had previously had some trust in means that the 9/11 truth movement is no longer just a voice in the wilderness. People start to latch on to propaganda on all sorts of other issues, too. Yet the vilification of President Assad by the Western politicians and the Western mainstream media seems to have been particularly successful. Virtually everyone seemed to be persuaded by it. In most people's minds there was no doubt about it: Assad was gratuitously killing his own people. What I wrote in my previous newsletter was unthinkable. Nevertheless, public opinion is strongly against a British military intervention.

Yet as I write this newsletter on 28 May, I hear on the one o'clock BBC Radio 4 news for the first time that Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has stated that both sides were involved in the latest outrage – that was the massacre of over a hundred people in Houla. What's more, that was the main BBC news headline. Why couldn't the BBC admit the blindingly obvious months ago? Why do people like me have to balance the story by finding out about the unreported side to conflicts?

The horrific rows of bodies laid out on the ground in Houla reminded me of similar scenes we had been seeing on previous occasions in Iraq. Is what Assad is reportedly doing in Syria any worse than what NATO was doing in Iraq, I wondered. Within seconds of Internet searching I found, to my surprise, that one of the pictures of Houla put out by the BBC was actually taken on 27 March 2003 in Iraq.

The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria. Photographer Marco di Lauro said he nearly “fell off his chair” when he saw the image being used, and said he was “astonished” at the failure of the corporation to check their sources. The picture, which was actually taken on March 27, 2003, shows a young Iraqi child jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad. It was posted on the BBC news website today under the heading “Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows”.

The Syrian National Council's (SNC) call on Monday for military intervention by Arab and Western governments has widened divisions in an already fragmented Syrian opposition.

George Sabra, a spokesman for the SNC, told a news conference in Istanbul that the Turkish-based opposition group had decided to arm rebels inside Syria and added that some foreign governments were helping to send weapons, without specifying which countries.

It seems that Kofi Annan's peace plan never did get off the ground. A call by the Syrian National Council at its meeting in Ankara in March for military intervention by Arab and Western governments can not have helped Relations between the US and Russia really hit a low when Hillary Clinton called the Russians 'despicable'. At least if you're going to take a view on a conflict you really should find out what both sides are claiming, rather than just cheering one side on. But they treat international conflicts as if they were football matches. I suppose the BBC eventually realised that they can't suppress what the Russians are saying for too long, if their foreign minister is prepared to make a stand on the issue. As I reported in my last newsletter, it looks as if the Russians and the Chinese were prepared to draw a line in the sand over Syria. I have found the reporting on Russia Today on the Syria issue fair-minded. Most people in the UK can now tune into Russia Today to get the other side. It's on Freeview, Channel 85.

But then, having reported on that BBC Radio 4 news headline what Sergei Lavrov had to say, the BBC News reporter went on to ask whether they had enough evidence to charge President Assad for war crimes. What about the war crimes of those who were sending prisoners of war to Syria, Poland and other places, for torture by their secret services under 'extraordinary rendition'. My guess is that Bashir al-Assad had every good intention of liberalising the regime he inherited by his father, but at some stage he would have been told of the likely consequences if he did – that there would be destabilisation of the country by the CIA and MI6, resulting in armed insurrection and the bringing in of Syria into the US sphere of influence.
The implication, of course, is that the crime is in killing your own people, as if it's OK to kill others. The pretexts for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were faked. Most of us think the pretext for the intervention in Libya was faked, too, but that one seems now to be backfiring, as evidence emerges of UK complicity in extraordinary rendition to Libya of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, then leader of the anti-Ghadafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and now Tripoli's military commander .

In fact, there is much evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the British elite throughout Britain's imperial past, and continuing to the present day. A new book was published in November
last year called 'Britain's Empire: Resistance, Repression and Revolt':

"This revelatory new history punctures the still widely held belief that the British Empire was an enlightened and civilizing enterprise of great benefit to its subject peoples. Instead, Britain’s Empire reveals a history of systemic repression and almost continual violence, showing how British rule was imposed as a military operation and maintained as a military dictatorship. For colonized peoples, the experience was a horrific one—of slavery, famine, battle and extermination."

Yet the crimes of 9/11 and 7/7 just seem too awful to take in. Could these really have been carried out by agents of the state killing their own people? We don't know who did carry out those crimes, but we do know who is covering them up: the US and the UK governments. Their stories just do not tie up, and as the public become more and more aware of the awful lies that governments of so-called democratic countries are capable of, they become more and more amenable to taking seriously the possibility that 9/11 and 7/7 may have been committed not by Islamic terrorists, but by Western terrorists who speak English and have white skins.

But there is one elephant in the room which has to be uncovered before the general public and the mainstream media will start taking such a possibility really seriously. It's called Operation Gladio. Former British television journalist and Member of the European Parliament Richard Cottrell has just authored a book called 'GLADIO NATO's Dagger at the heart of Europe: The Pentagon-Nazi-Mafia terror axis', published by Progressive Press in May 2012.

"Masquerading as a rear guard against Soviet invaders, NATO’s covert forces warped into psychological and physical terrorism. These were the ‘years of lead,’ in which hundreds perished in a synthetic war in the
streets of Europe. NATO commander General Lyman Lemnitzer ordered serial attacks on French president Charles de Gaulle. Sacked from the Pentagon by John F. Kennedy for rank insubordination, then exiled to Europe, Lemnitzer reaped revenge in Dallas. The secret armies forged bonds with organized crime and neo-fascists. NATO-backed coups struck down governments in Greece and Turkey; the island state of Cyprus was sundered amid bitter genocide. Urban guerrillas like the Red Brigades and Baader-Meinhof Gang were cunningly manipulated. Italy gained a deep-state government, the ultra-secret P2 pseudo-Masonic lodge founded by former Blackshirts. Swedish PM Olof Palme and Italian ex-PM Aldo Moro were assassinated. Pope John Paul II was shot by Turkish gangsters who had regular work as Gladio guns for hire. In 2009 a Gladio copy-cat outfit codenamed Ergenekon came to light in Turkey. The shootings in Norway in July 2011, and in Belgium, France and Italy in 2012, all bore the classic stripe of Gladio false-flag operations."

You wouldn't think it, but Operation Gladio was even the subject of a BBC television programme before "things went wrong", as Jeremy Paxman put it – although at the stage in which the BBC screened its programme on Operation Gladio, it was only on the urban terrorist events. This book puts together the whole range of issues, and I shall read it with great interest. We need to get it talked about, because when people can talk about that, 9/11 and 7/7 start to make sense.
So who is behind all this? According to a new video, "The governments don't rule the world; Goldman Sachs rules the world". '97% Owned' is a public education film about how money is really created, and how the ability of banks to create money out of thin air has led to the present economic crisis, with enormous implications for democratic government. They are looking for translators to get it out into as many languages as possible, and I've just submitted an Esperanto version. They are holding a 'Cast and Crew' event in London on 26 June.

Anne Belsey of the Monetary Reform Party said in the video, that when she tried to explain to people just how the money system really works, she found an almost in-built refusal of people to accept that such a bizarre situation could actually exist, saying such things as: "Ah no, it can't possibly. What do you mean? It can't...banks can't...banks don't create money out of thin air. That's ridiculous".

I was getting similar reactions to that when I ventured into the high finances of Esperanto Association of Britain, which was later to lead me on to greater things. The treasurer, Mrs Joyce Bunting, has now accepted that my figures were correct, which means that she did indeed put out an untruth before members voted to sell their building in London, and the Inner Circle were indeed to blame in covering this untruth up from the members. Yet for several years the editor of EAB Update would only say to me: "Go away!". Even when he was finally persuaded to publish my data I had to endure a whole page of insults before it appeared. It's called Cognitive Dissonance.

I recently received an anonymous letter through the post, with an address format identical to that in the EAB membership database. I recognised the style, too, from messages I was getting from the inner circle shortly after I had joined the Management Committee in 2005. It was in Esperanto and ran:

"Dear Mr Fantom,

"With interest I read your usual mailings (I suppose that all members of EAB with a valid email address receive the same copy).

"I said 'with interest', but not 'with concern'. EAB is a quasi-freemasonic association. If you are not in accord with the collective mindset and actions of the membership, you may not penetrate the secret places of the association. That is happening to you. You refuse to drink from the same chalice. You, as one says in English, 'are barking up the wrong tree'. For your own mental health, perhaps it would be advisable for you to concentrate your energies on Esperanto outside EAB."

I sent a copy of that anonymous letter to the Charity Commission, and they replied that in the lack of any evidence the Commission cannot become involved! They also wrote, "Where there are properly appointed trustees in place we will not get involved". So, the trustees can tell untruths to the members over major issues of finances, and the Charity Commission will not intervene? And interfering with the election procedure is not of concern to the Charity Commission if "properly appointed trustees" are in place? I see what David Cameron means when he says they're all in it together.
I think someone must be getting desperate. What is he suggesting about my "own mental health". Perhaps I'd better have a look at 'CIA Mind Control Brainwashing. So if I start saying that I'm the Messiah you'll be able to guess what's going on!

Ian Fantom