The battle lines are drawn and they are in your head!

February/March 2012

When the US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs describes the governments of Russia and China as 'despicable', then you know things are getting pretty serious. Yet that is what Hillary Clinton did in condemning them for their veto on a UN Security Council resolution over Syria in her address to the Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Tunis on February 24.



Yet had they not done so, we could now have a major conflagration throughout the Middle East.

This resulted in a war of words, for instance between Pravda and the Washington Post

The television channel Russia Today has carried many reports and analyses of the Syrian situation including China's People's Daily.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how people in the West still believe what they're being told by politicians and the mass media even when they know they're being lied to. The Big Lie over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is now generally understood to have been just that. But all Tony Blair had to do was to move on to other fortunes and keep smiling, whilst a look-alike takes over in Downing Street. It's still the same Eton/Bullingdon Club clique. It's still the same City of London who dominate the financial markets, and, it seems, the press and the politicians, as again illustrated by the resignation of Conservative Party treasurer Peter Cruddas, who had been caught offering access to the heart of government in exchange for large donations.

It's still the same Big Lies. It's still to a large extent the same deferential public. Even though things are beginning to change, the Establishment still manages to maintain an illusion of normality.

When the press reported an attempted assassination of Vladimir Putin, many Russians were sceptical, saying that he may have made the whole story up himself. Judging by a television report on Channel 4 News, most Muscovites appeared to think that, but that doesn't seem entirely consistent with Putin's high popularity rating. It does mean, though, that at least that was what some were thinking. The Russians know they're being lied to; the English don't, and even when they do they still believe what they're being told. It's taking a long time to change that.

I think it's a dangerous game for Western reporters to play, because sooner or later Westerners will latch on to the idea that if a terrorist attack on Putin can be faked, then possibly so can a terrorist attack in London. How long will it be before people in the street will start questioning who was behind the 7/7 attacks in London in 2005? Perhaps showing the film 'ZERO: An investigation into 9/11' on television more widely throughout the world would help build up the resistance to new NATO adventures. How about it, Russia Today? Or would RT get itself banned in the UK as Iran's Press TV did?

How much do we actually know about what is going on in Syria? We are being asked to believe that the Syrian government is placing snipers on rooftops and are gratuitously shooting their own citizens and firing missiles into their own cities for no reason whatsoever. There's a war on. There are at least two sides. We don't know who is firing what. We're not being told, and quite probably the reporters don't know either. Yet we're constantly being told that Assad is behind it all. I have been constantly dismayed at the degree of one-sided reporting by the generally available free television channels in the UK, systematically ignoring the possibility that Assad's forces may have been reacting to an armed insurrection instigated from outside Syria. I was particularly disappointed with Al Jazeera. Russia Today reported on 12 March: "Qatar's aggressive stance towards Assad has led to a string of resignations at the country's al-Jazeera TV news channel. Those who left describe bias at the station which they say has become a tool to target the Syrian regime".



Russia Today carried a further report two days later ('Media - West proxy to fuel Syria conflict':



Last August, James Corbett, who produces The Corbett Report, warned that there were some very strange things going on, and that it was encumbant on the public to always be sceptical.



Historian Webster Tarpley, too, warned in August that the public should treat media reports with scepticism, saying that the destabilisation of Syria is an armed insurrection, and was largely artificial ('Tarpley on Syria: Beware of fraud and fabrications!':



More recently an interviewee talks of state-sponsored terrorism and terror management by the US in Syria ('Terror Management: US losing credibility in Syria':



US activist and journalist Don Debar says that the head of the Syrian National Council, sitting in Paris, is the head of an armed terrorist group, which could not operate in Syria with impunity without the backing of the US and the Arab League countries ('Arab states support for Syrian rebels pure terrorism':



John R Bradley is author of a recently published book 'After the Arab Spring' (http://johnrbradley.wordpress.com/4-after-the-arab-spring). He told Russia Today: "NATO is determined to bring the Assad regime to its knees as a prelude to invading Iran and also to further marginalising Russia ... Saudi Arabia is financially and politically supporting the civilian opposition, and Qatar has been widely reported to be funding and arming the jihadi rebels who are leading this insurrection" (''Saudi-funded jihad targets Syria as last secular Arab state':



In December last year the multilingual Voltaire Network carried an article by investigative journalist Thierry Meyssan, who claimed that Aldel Hakim Belhaj, historic leader of Al Qaeda in Libya, and Military Governor of Tripoli, was chief of the Free Syrian Army. He wrote: "The UN Security Council members are at loggerheads over the interpretation of the events that are rocking Syria. One the one hand, France, the United Kingdom and the United States claim that a revolution has swept the country, in the aftermath of the 'Arab Spring', and suffering a bloody crackdown. On the other hand, Russia's and China's take is that Syria is having to cope with armed gangs from abroad, which it is fighting awkwardly thereby causing collateral victims among the civilian popoulation it seeks to protect. The on-the-spot investigation undertaken by Voltaire Network validated the latter interpretation". He states that their findings reinforce the thesis which he has defended since the attacks of September 11, 2001, that Al Qaeda fighters are mercenaries of the service of the CIA

Following the massive bomb explosions in Aleppo on 10 February, the Western press was blaming the Syrian government, reports Russia Today, but then Colonel Arif Hamood of the Free Syrian Army was reported to have claimed responsibility for the two blasts that targeted military and security buildings in the city (' Dozens dead as rebel bomb wave rips Syria's second city:



Remember Operation Gladio? Most readers of this newsletter will be aware of it, but most members of the public will have no idea, even though a BBC documentary on it was broadcast on the BBC in 1992, when the BBC was more at liberty to expose such things than it is now.

It was quite clear that NATO's secret armies were behind terrorist events throughout Western Europe, as part of a 'strategy of tension' to keep the populations under control. Yet it has been wiped out of our collective memory by a mainstream media more keen to cover up than to write up. The idea that a terrorist attack could be linked to Western security services is just not thinkable in England. Anyone who even suggests that as a possibility could find himself accused of antisemitism or holocaust denial. Yet it happened. And the mass of detail contained in Nick Kollerstrom's excellently researched book 'Terror on the Tube' can lead us to no other sensible conclusion.

So if that can happen in Western Europe, what is happening in Syria today? Governments outside the anglosphere must be scarred stiff of such interventions. They will all remember the overthrow of the Mossadeq government in Iran by MI6 and the CIA, which President Obama admitted to in his famous speech in Cairo.

The Russian security services must be scared stiff of that, too. Senator John McCain told the BBC's Newsnight on 11 October last year that Putin and some of the Chinese leaders could face the same fate as Gadaffi.



How is it possible to run a democracy under such conditions? The terror threat has been consistently ramped up in order to gain popular support and stay in power. I thought the Cold War was supposed to be over.

A Japanese reader forwarded me a circular from Aavaz headed 'Arrest the torturers'. It was about Syrian torturers and the need to take military action against the Assad regime. In the whole circular there wasn't a word about the fact that the US had been sending people under extraordinary rendition to Syria for torture. Yet it was all written up in Stephen Grey's book 'Ghost Plane'. That makes those responsible in the US at least as bad as the Syrian security services. Some may call it hypocrisy, but I think that many in the inner circles of the Anglo-American Establishment would take that as a compliment. It looks to me like a pretext for war.

People in the truth movement have been talking about the anglosphere moving towards World War III for some time. Now that possibility is being talked about more widely.

Russia Today broadcast an interview with Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, based in Canada, about his new book 'Towards a World War Three Scenario'.

"The WWIII scenario is unthinkable. This war would extend from the Mediteranean to the Chinese border. It could possibly include Russia and China", he told Russia Today, "We could find ourselves at a very critical crossroads".

The trigger for WW3 could be extremists in charge of Israel, who are talking about attacking Iran. Iran knows that if it did develop nuclear weapons and attempt to use them they would be very heavily outnumbered, and that they would be obliterated well before they had the chance to do that to anyone else. An Iranian friend told me several years ago that he was worried that the Iranian government was doing just what Saddam Hussain did in Iraq. But Iran is not Iraq, and it would be far more difficult for NATO to control such mountainous terrain. So what would be the sense in bombing it, other than as a provocation?

If Israel does bomb Iran, let's hope that Obama manages to resist the powerful Israeli lobby in the US, and at least stay out of this. Ahmadinejad's best bet would be not to retaliate; the rest of the world would then be against such aggression. Public opinion would be split in Israel itself. An Israeli Rabbi has argued that there is in any case no need to attack since, in his view, they will destroy themselves. There would be massive demonstrations in the US and the UK. Perhaps in the UK they would be ignored, as they were at the time of the attack on Iraq, or perhaps there would be a vicious clamp-down by the security services, using the Olympic Games as a pretext.

An excellent analysis has just appeared on Alexander Higgin's blog, headed 'WW3 Trigger: US To Implement Syria Aerial Blockade'. It reports on alleged US plans to implement a no-fly zone over Syria, and the existence of drones flying over the territory. It also reports on "stern warnings from China and Russia to respect Syria's sovereignty", and on Russian and Iranian warships off the Syrian coast. President Obama now has the power to launch war on Iran without approval of Congress, having invoked the National Defense Authorisation Act .

(Remember how upset the Icelanders were when the UK invoke counterterrorism legislation against them after the collapse of their bank?). The blog also links to an interview with General Wesley Clark, who reported that immediately after 9/11 the US had plans to invade seven nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iran. Alexander Higgin writes:

"Clearly, Russia, China and Iran have joined forces and said that Syria is a line drawn in the sand just as allied forces drew the line in the sand in Czechoslovakia before Hitler invaded marking the official start of World War Two"

In December last year, China's President Hu Jintao told the Chinese navy to prepare for war. So how would the countries of the world line up in the event of World War III? I found an overview titled 'NATO/US/EU Prepares Global War -- Russian and Chinese Military on Highest Alert. (WW3)'. I don't know who the commentator is, but he seems to present a very clear picture, with a map showing the pro-NATO areas and the rest.



It's all supposed to be about democracy, freedom and human rights, yet such values seem to be constantly eroded in the present-day anglosphere. After I'd written the piece above saying that Russia Today might get itself banned in the UK if it were to broadcast the film ZERO, there were widespread reports that their YouTube site had been suspended. On 18 March viewers were getting a message: "This account has been suspended due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, scams and commercially deceptive content". The service was soon restored, and the disruption was attributed to a technical problem. YouTube is owned by Google, so I looked up what Alex Jones had to say, and found an interesting compilation posted on 12 February. I also found a recent broadcast based on research by his London correspondent headed 'Steve Watson: Google launches Cover-up of Google Spies Story' in which he states that Google is basically an NSA front.

"This isn't the government taking over corporations; this is the government merging with corporations", Alex Jones said. As I was researching that I found a further Infowars article by Steve Watson, which appeared on 16 March, under the heading 'CIA Head: We Will Spy On Americans Through Electrical Appliances'. On 12 December 2010 Angela Levin wrote in the Daily Mail,

In truth, though, it is a creepy, multi¬national company that spies on us, as I found out a week ago after I foolishly left my laptop in the back of a London taxi.

I was bereft when I lost my laptop and absolutely overjoyed a few days later when the taxi driver emerged from the snowed-in wilds of Essex and returned it to me. I immediately emailed friends with the good news.

But within a second of the email being sent, a column of adverts had appeared down the right hand side of my Gmail screen. The adverts offered me the chance to ‘save hundreds’ on a new PC.

A shiver slid slowly down my spine.

Now imagine if they did that for political purposes. I've been assuming since 2005 that my emails could be being trawled by GHCQ and automatically redirected to relevant people, some of whom seemed to know too much.

In January's newsletter I wrote about the investigation by Mark Windows into the Bank of Ideas, a group which appears to have taken over the now disbanded Occupy camp outside St Paul's Cathedral in central London. Further research has revealed a link with the organisation Common Purpose. Mark wrote to me: "The Occupy movement quickly spread around the world. At St. Pauls in London 'facilitators' were brought in to lead the Consensus meetings. The meetings are referred to as General Assemblies. The facilitators appeared soon after St Pauls Occupy started. The main facilitator at St. Pauls was Saskia Kent. Saskia with the help of a new group of leaders set about splitting the camp into groups. The agenda changed from exposing and changing the financial system into promoting climate change and the principles of [the UN action plan] Agenda 21. Many of the most influential voices were shut down and many started leaving. The attendance at General Assemblies slowly dwindled. One of the techniques used is The 'Human Mic' where the crowd repeat robotically what the facilitator says. Meaningless and bland statements, such as 'Humanity towards irreversible climate change', are repeated by the crowd. Saskia attended a Common Purpose Matrix Course and also is involved with government programs like the Global Entrepreneurial awards and promoting climate change in schools. … The control of the Occupy groups may include Delphi technique, the use of 'dragons' in the crowd to shut down protest or dissent and of co-facilitators who filter what questions are brought up at meetings. This technique once discovered is fairly simple to counter." This is demonstrated in his latest video,'The Puppet Master of Occupy'.



I think the best concise description of Common Purpose that I have found is one given by David Icke headed "Traitorous UK 'Common Purpose' Shills for NWO".



I, too, found a link with Common Purpose in my Esperanto work. The Wedgwood Memorial College in Barlaston, Staffordshire, comes under the control of the local authorities in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. It was paying its way when the authorities started 'messing up', with the inevitable result that they can now claim that it is not paying its way, and should be closed down. In order to 'save' the college a group has been sending out anonymous emails asking for pledges for donations should their scheme, which has already been rejected, go ahead to take over the running of the college. I understand that the co-ordinator of that group, and possibly the sole member, is the College's former Principal, Dr Derek Tatton. I now find in the Common Purpose Exposed website that Derek Tatton took the Common Purpose Matrix course in 1996.

No-one is suggesting that all those who took a Common Purpose course would necessarily have subsequently taken part in the network, but why should a local authority pay nearly £4 000 to send an employee on a leadership course, "making connections", when he had already been in the same job for 16 years and would continue for another six or seven years until his retirement. What would it have been preparing him for? Some time after that he learned Esperanto, and said to me "Nun mi estas Esperantisto". Shortly afterwards he joined the Esperanto management committee where he became the key player in relocating the association's headquarters to the college under a ludicrous contract that no-one seemed to understand and no-one had voted for. Then he was a keen player in disputes with the new Principal, and then, when she resigned, in keeping members ignorant of an attempt to save the college from closure in 2007. A friend of mine who was at the college in January this year told me there was an air of normality, and that you wouldn't think the place was going to be boarded up on 1 April. It's an illusion of normality. I do think the people of Stoke-on-Trent need to wake up to such things; someone needs to check out the other names on the Common Purpose Database.

I would have been amazed to have heard of such things fifty years ago when I learned Esperanto; the first of March was my anniversary. It actually took two months to become reasonably fluent, but on the first of March I completed Chapter 5 of my textbook, which informed me that I now had all the basics. Ten years ago I celebrated by taking wine and nibbles to the London Esperanto Club. Twenty years ago the sharp decline in membership of the national association began, brought about through 'messing up'. Forty years ago I was starting to notice a few things, and started researching in the library. I was amazed to find that similar things had been happening twenty years before that, yet no-one had said a thing about it to me. If they had just kept talking, I would have made the link much earlier, and would have raised the issue much earlier with the president of the Universal Esperanto Association, who was being targeted at the time just as he had been in the 1950s. When I did raise it with him it was too late. I had suspicions that both frenzies could have been coming from Washington, whereas he was about to publish a scathing attack on Moscow, who he believed to be trying to take the association over, in collusion with the Communist Party of Great Britain. If people had kept talking, we could well have come to the idea that the whole furore had been coming from London all the time and that I, too, was right at the centre of it, as it now seems. The whole course of history in the movement could well have been changed.

But there's been a positive and very interesting development, too. Google has at last included Esperanto in its list of languages covered in its automatic translation system. The reason this is particularly interesting is that the quality of translation from Esperanto is far higher than that obtained from other languages. That was the theory some of us were working on in the 1980s with a commercial research project in which Esperanto was used as the pivot language. Once a text could be converted to Esperanto, the rest was easy. Now we know that that principle works. One implication of that is that if you want to make a website really multilingual, then produce it in Esperanto, and put a 'Google translate' button on the page. At the same time, when I was reading David Icke's article on Common Purpse on Jeff Rense's website I noticed an advertising banner at the top, worded: 'HALTU – Nova Monda Ordo'. Brilliant! I hadn't noticed at first that it was in Esperanto. It took me to an Esperanto radio ham site written in ham Esperanto. Sooner or later we'll have truly multilingual truth sites springing up based on Esperanto. Unless, of course, Common Purpose or some other network manage to intervene and mess that one up, too!

If Hillary Clinton does lose the information war then when the 9/11 wars are over, and eventually military might is restricted to just what is needed for defence rather than for empire-building, and we get the freedom of speech that we used to think we had, and they stop dumbing down the learning of foreign languages other than English, what language will we be speaking as our main second language? Will it be English? Or Russian? Or Chinese? Or Arabic? Or will it be Esperanto? The Economist has posed a 'Big Question' on which language people think is most worth learning.

But first, we have to win the information war. The military situation is critical and could go either way; its a situation in which individuals can indeed make a difference in tipping the balance of power. Whatever language you do it in, do keep talking.

"Belief amongst senior officers that it's better to cover up than own up", says former Met Police Officer

August 2011

"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?'

When we stop debating important topics is the day we surrender freedom

Originally sent October 2009

Censureship and suppression of the truth has been on many people’s minds over the past few weeks in the UK, and even the mainstream media are getting concerned.

The case of Binyam Mohammad, the former Guantanamo Bay captive, who claimed British involvement in his torture, returned to the headlines when

the Law Lords stated that seven redacted paragraphs of their initial judgment should be made public. The paragraphs relate to CIA documents passed to MI5, relating to Binyam’s treatment. The judges said that the public interest in making the paragraphs public was “overwhelming”.

The minister has stated his intention to appeal against that ruling, on the basis of a letter from the CIA which stated that public disclosure could be reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the UK’s national security.

If the minister does appeal, says Clare Algar, executive director of the charity Reprieve, “he will be saying that English Court has no right to decide what information is necessary to disclose in the public interest. If this is right, we will have become an American client state, and the rule of law will no longer exist”.

There has long been a supposition in the UK that parliamentary proceedings are public. Yet the country’s most senior judge, Lord Judge, found it necessary to speak out following the use of a ‘super-injunction’, deployed to gag the media from reporting on a question raised by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly.

The issue concerns an attempt to suppress the Minton report on dumping of toxic waste by the company Trafigura. One MP, Peter Bottomley, said the order should never have been granted, and that he intended to report the lawyers concerned to the Law Society. Speaking at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Lord Judge added: "We use the words 'fundamental principle' very frequently, but this is a fundamental principle. The absolute privilege for Members to speak freely in Parliament did not come without a price, and previous generations fought – and indeed died – for it. It is a very precious heritage which should be vigorously maintained and defended by this generation”.

The Independent reports on plans to introduce secret inquiries into controversial deaths from which the public and bereaved families could be banned, and that they are to be pushed through the House of Commons despite a Lords defeat. The new powers, it states, would allow them to turn inquests such as that of Jean Charles de Menezes and those involving the deaths of British soldiers into secret hearings.

We need only think of the deaths of Dr David Kelly, Princess Dianna, and those 52 people in London who died in the terrorist attacks of July 7, 2005, to have deep concerns. In my September Newsletter I reported on the banning of the book ‘The Terrorist Hunters’, written by the the top counter terrorist officer of the London Metropolitan Police at the time of the London bombings of July 7, 2005. I received an email from the author, Andy Hayman, saying that the book has now been unbanned. We weren’t allowed to know at the time why the book was banned, but the story now is that “further sales of the book should be delayed to ensure a section was not read by jurors in an ongoing court case and interpreted by them, rightly or not, as a reference to that case”.

Publication of ‘The Terrorist Hunters’ may also, of course, have complicated things following Mike Rudin’s BBC Conspiracy Files piece on 7/7 on June 30. I wrote in my September Newsletter, that the documentary seemed more interested in discrediting bona fide researchers who had found inconsistencies in the official version of events than in trying to establish the truth. What I didn’t spell out, because I think it was a red herring, was that they denounced one researcher as being a ‘holocaust denier’. I think it is true that most of us would agree that the far-right in the UK are using this issue to stir up racial hatred for their own political agenda. However, as with everything else, there is a small number of academics who question the generally accepted view. I have no reason to think that Nick Kollerstrom, the author of ‘Terror on the Tube’ has any links or sympathies with the far-right, and every reason to think he doesn’t. Mike Rudin’s team were clearly playing the racist card in order to discredit meticulous research on 7/7, research which had even brought a government minister to account before Parliament when one crucial part of the official theory was proved to be wrong. Yet even the government minister did not play the racist card. My impression after that programme had gone out was that it was so over-the-top in its propaganda effort that a substantial number of viewers would have realised that there had to be something to hide.

Shorty after sending the September Newsletter out, I received an insinuating email from one guy, who is supposed to be on the side of truth in the 9/11 truth movement, attacking Nick’s book, but even worse, attacking me personally for reporting on its launch. He wrote: “If you too are a Holocaust denier than that would perhaps explain your treatment in the esperanto society”. There has clearly been a substantial effort put into suppressing information on the 7/7 issue, which could be embarrassing to the powers that be, and I reported on the antics of the wreckers in the September Newsletter. I was not surprised to come under attack following that Newsletter, but the insinuation was awful. I have been in the Esperanto movement since 1962, and never once have I been involved in any dispute concerning race or religion. I had to think hard before I could even recollect anyone else being in a dispute of that nature in the movement, before coming up with a charming nutter in Switzerland who set up a quasimasonic organisation that uses Esperanto and subverts the Esperanto movement.

Many Esperantistists, as well as Jews, Gypsies and others died under both Hitler and Stalin. The estimate for Esperantists was 30 000 , and I have regularly rubbed shoulders with people from all nationalities, including some who had fled Nazi Germany.

I took that email along to the following 9/11 meeting in London, because the only item announced for the agenda was whether or not to exclude Nick. Of course, with such an agenda, you wouldn’t expect many people to turn up, and they didn’t. The point I made was that they could do the same to anyone, and what they were saying didn’t even have to be true. It turned out, as I had expected, that despite being a charming guy in public, he had been abrasive to others, too. After the meeting, there was a flurry of emails, in which two of us were described as Nazi sympathisers, as well as Nick, who was accused of having posted on Nazi websites. None of this was true. It was nasty stuff, and all carefully worded. You can’t reasonably condemn someone for offensive views and yet send out that sort of stuff.

My own view is that this sort of stuff has to be faced up to, otherwise, we find that people just drop by the wayside. We need to deal with the matter, and then just carry on promoting the cause. If we accept that some people can go around labeling others, banning them and instigating quarreling, then how do we in future discuss the central issues? Any serious discussion on 7/7 would necessarily eventually contain references to Nick’s book. Anyone referring to Nick’s book, as I did in the newsletter, would then run the risk of being called a Nazi sympathiser. That is censorship in its worst form. I would call it intimidation.

There was a parallel case in France, in which a new law was brought in to control dissenting opinion.

The linguist and social commentator Noam Chomsky was one of those petitioning against that law. When he came under attack for that, he wrote an essay, stating: “Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy”. On Faurisson's alleged anti-semitism, Chomsky wrote “such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here”. Further on, he wrote: “Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort”.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm

As I write, we have a press frenzy over whether the leader of the British National Party should have been invited by the BBC to take part in the panel discussion programme Question Time. The most objectionable part of the BNP is that they exclude people from their party whom they consider to be ethnically not indigenous to Britain. That one is being dealt with by the courts. Politicians may justifiably complain about that, but it is for the courts to decide. I think that the general public opinion is to agree with the decision, because, whatever his views, his party did receive a million votes in the EU election, and he is an MEP. A minority, including some in government, have been expressing the opposite point of view. If we accept that an MEP and party leader should be excluded because we don’t like his views, then what is to stop the government from excluding others, like 9/11 Truthers? Perhaps they are already. I haven’t heard of Michael Meacher on this topic for a while. The leader of the BNP has spoken out against the Afghan war. Does that make everone else who opposes that war a Nazi? Of course not. What if he now tells the world that 9/11 was an inside job? We don’t solve anything by allowing disreputable journalists to set our agenda. If they throw in red herrings, we should just say, “So what?”. That is more-or-less what a primary school teacher told one of my children when he had been denounced by another as not believing in God.








The US 9/11 truth movement is much stronger than that in the UK. I was sorry to hear that the 9/11 truth movement in the US is going the same way as that in the UK, but our young US friend seems to have got it spot on. He was describing a combination of elitism and in-fighting. He wouldn’t have had the life experience to realise that such things don’t just happen by chance, but that’s exactly what you look out for. Perhaps we need more sixteen-year-olds in the 9/11 truth movement in the UK.

At the very first meeting of the 9/11 truth movement, in Ipswich on December 13, 2006, it was made clear that the truth movement was not set up as a national membership association, because it would be infiltrated and dismantled from within. David Shayler then talked of ‘Very Persuasive People’. One thing to look for, they told us later, was quarreling. They had set up the truth movement to be flexible, as a chaotic network of individuals and groups. When one group gets into trouble, another might spring up. So many people are now aware of the 9/11 issue that when they move on to other issues of public concern, the 9/11 issue is always there in background.

It’s the seminal event that made us aware that we live in a managed democracy. You don’t expect a smooth ride when you go into something like this.


The combination of elitism and quarreling was evident in the More 4 documentary ‘When Boris met Dave’, which went out on October 7

about the mayor of London and the leader of the opposition, when they were both members of the exclusive Bullingdon Club at Oxford University. It showed the aristocratic swagger, together with the smashing up of the middle classes.

This was a development of their life at Eton, where pupils learn not only to be highly competitive, but, according to the programme, to be pathologically power-hungry. They could probably have produced a programme on Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, too, if they had thought of that early enough. Former Bullingdon Club members had taken over the heart of both major parties, essentially giving the electorate a choice between Bullingdon and Bullingdon.

Now I hear that there is to be a historic debate on French television on the 9/11 issue. “You have until October 28 to learn French because French TV France 2’s “L’objet du scandale” with Guillaume Durand will air a historic debate over the official version of the 9/11 events”, says the World for 9/11 Truth website (http://world911truth.org/historic-911-debate-with-bigard-laurent-kassovitz-and-harrit-on-french-tv/).

“This is already a victory for the Bigard/Kassovitz camp who challenged the French media to organize a fair debate over 9/11 after being vilified by many French journalists because of their positions on 9/11. They have been called many names and even received death threats. But no serious journalist was able to challenge them on their positions and to seriously make a case against them based on facts. Now will be their chance, and like Bigard mentions in the below video, ‘good luck to them.’”, says the website.

They also point out that this is also a victory for the 9/11 truth movement because “the official US government conspiracy theory is supposedly not debatable. ... The day we stop debating important topics is the day we surrender freedom. Not only is it debatable, but the 9/11 truth movement is growing faster than ever — worldwide — and nothing will stop it”.

That indeed is a breakthrough, but we’re still not getting through to the mainstream media in the UK. The British have a unique way of dealing with censorship when they see it. The trouble is, they don’t usually see it.

George Orwell described how censureship works in the UK in his introduction to the first edition of Animal Farm in 1945. Unfortunately, his introduction didn’t appear in the book. Here is one paragraph from that essay, which seems timeless:

“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 has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news - things which on their own merits would get the big headlines - being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodials.”

7/7 and the mystery of the late train

Originally sent September 2009

The silly season started early this year, with a new BBC television documentary in Mike Rudin’s conspiracy files series. This was on the London bomb attacks of July 7, 2005, in which 52 people were killed. The documentary seemed more interested in discrediting bona fide researchers who had found inconsistencies in the official version of events than in trying to establish the truth. The programme, ‘The Conspiracy Files: 7/7’ was broadcast in the evening of June 30,

just when science historian Nick Kollerstrom was launching his new book ‘Terror on the Tube’ in a London pub.

This is a meticulous piece of work, showing page after page how the official version of events just cannot be right. It was Nick who brought to light the fact that the terrorists reached the scene of the crime by taking a train from Luton to King’s Cross which happened to have been cancelled on that day.


This led to the minister having to correct this error in the House of Commons. However, if they had taken an earlier train, then the time stamps on the surveillance video must have been wrong, and if they had taken a later train, then they would have missed their own suicides.

But the wreckers were out. There were messages coming through on the 9/11 Forum that the event had been cancelled, and denials of this from the organiser. When I turned up at Conway Hall, we were told that the event had been cancelled, but there were conflicting stories on who had cancelled it. Then the organiser turned up and led us to an alternative venue, which was closed, and, as it turned out, had been closed for a week. We ended up in a noisy room in a pub. Then there were allegations that some in the truth movement were undercover agents for the Ministry of Defence, with no attempt at providing any evidence whatsoever, and bouncers at the doorway to stop anyone filming the event. The whole thing just got silly. Despite all that, Nick gave a very good introduction to his book to those of us who were left. Afterwards we watched the BBC documentary.

Among those calling for a public enquiry into the events of 7/7 was even the top counter terrorist officer of the London Metropolitan Police, who was responsible for the police response to those terrorist attacks. A few days earlier, Andy Hayman had appeared in a national television interview on his new book, The Terrorist Hunters, which was about to come out.He said in the interview, that although he was in charge, he didn’t feel he was in charge.

While he should have been in a situation of directing matters, he was called to a meeting of a coordinating committee with the minister and others. He related how the government appeared to have an agenda of their own in connection with the events. One minister insisted that there were eight terrorists, whilst he was reporting the police version, that there were four. He thought that the coordinating committee was slowing things down. “We have to be prepared to think the unthinkable”, he said in the interview.

On July 2, the government decreed, through the courts, that the book should be banned in British shops. The decision to ban it just hours before its launch seemed absurd. It had already been distributed to the bookshops, and it had already appeared in those in the Internet. According to one report, 2 500 copies of the book had already been sold.

If it was to do with security, that would be difficult to understand. The Russian and Chinese secret services would surely already have their own copies, and Osama bin Laden, if he still exists, would surely have his in the caves of Torra Bora, or wherever, possibly even in arabic translation, provided by his family members and friends of George Bush. Clearly, that was not the danger that they were shielding themselves from. The public is not allowed to know the reason for the ban. The real danger to the government can only be that the book should fall into your hands, or my hands, or the hands of sixty million other Brits, whose eyes might begin to open up to the deeds of the clownocratic elite.

On the same day as Nick’s book launch and the BBC documentary, Russia Today put out an interview with US investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who claimed that

American intelligence had sent Afghan mercenaries into Iraq, in order to attack the country’s civilians and military personnel. Madsen said that the Afghans were recruited from the Taliban and were paid for their services.

Not much of this seems to make sense, until you learn of Operation Gladio, a NATO operation said to be responsible for terrorist attacks in Europe

A report is currently circulating that former Italian President Cossiga, who was one of those who revealed the existence of Gladio, had told national daily Corriera della Sera that

the 9/11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. I couldn’t find the original source of this, which in one report was given as Issue 52, December 24, 2007

The report also states that in March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

At the end of July I attended this year’s Universal Esperanto Congress in Bialystok in Eastern Poland, where the Esperanto idea began in the mind of young Lazarus Zamenhof. He was a life-long peace campaigner, and he identified language as one of the main barriers separating different populations, even in his home town. Later he was to work on interfaith ideas, and in 1906 had prepared to launch these ideas at the Universal Esperanto Congress in Geneva. Taking advice from friends, though, he cut that part of his speech, because the wreckers were out. It was the same wreckers who were to split the movement the following year in the famous ‘Ido schism’. This followed the pogroms of 1905 and 1906. What he did say in his speech was:

“It is now known, that it wasn’t the Russian population that was to blame for the bestial butchery in Bielystok and many other towns, because the Russian population was never crual and savage; it is known that it wasn’t the Tartars and the Armenians who were culpable in the persistent butchery, because both peoples are calm peoples, who don’t want to impose their control over anyone, and the only thing that they want is just to be left to live in peace. It is now known quite clearly that that those to blame are a group of abominable criminals, who, by various and most disreputable means, by widely spread lies and slanders, artfully create terrible hate amongst some peoples against others”.

He argued that we need to get people talking to each other across the barriers to counter such propaganda. This year’s congress, with 1800 people from 62 countries and celebrating the 150th anniversary of the birth of Zamenhof, struck the imagination of the local council. Their contribution was outstanding. They had just opened a Zamenhof museum in the town centre, and all over the town there were Esperanto flags, together with Polish and local flags. The congress coincided with their music festival, and as part of that there was a concert in the central square, including poems set to music by a local composer, and a rendering of Beethoven’s choral symphony in Esperanto. Esperanto was everywhere. Across a side road from ‘Esperanto Cafè’ was an ice-cream shop called ‘Glaciajoj’. But the wreckers were out.

Zamenhof’s bust was daubed with paint, Coach tyres were slashed, A heavy stone was thrown through a window, injuring a young man from Brazil, Esperanto flags were removed from their holders near the Zamenhof bust, A marquee outside the congress centre had been set alight a few days before the opening ceremony, A Molotov cocktail was thrown at the Zamenhof Centre, A plaque outside Zamenhof’s old school was broken, and a congress poster was defaced

Clearly, this was not just bored kids, but a concerted attack.

Following an earlier incident, Professor Zbigniew Galor of Poznan University had stated that antisemitism in Poland is no longer connected with Jews. It is, he said, only an ideological mask for economic interests.

Following the congress in Bialystok, the local police said they had not known of anything similar happening in the town

The vandalism was clearly targeting Esperanto. The economic interests are unlikely to be those of the Czar, but much more likely to be those of the financial oligarchy behind the New World Order.

A friend of mine from the Esperanto movement recently gave a presentation on a Muslim radio station in Reading, Berkshire, on the topic of flouridation of drinking water. The campaign for flouridation was, he says, a public relations campaign run by the master of spin Edward Bernays. He also stated that the campaign has taken hold only in English-speaking countries. Such is the power of language.

The English-language version of the documentary film ‘ZERO: An investigation into 9/11’ has now found its way on to the Independent’s website, which is perhaps not too surprising, since the Independent sponsored the film in the first place.

This must be one step nearer to the film, or its contents, being discussed openly in the press. I should have thought that by now some television channel, such as Channel 4 or More 4 would have had its eye on this film. This is the obvious film to choose, since it examines only the evidence and does not attempt to deal with any conspiracy theories other than the official one.

The BBC, too, has been ignoring the evidence, and because of this, some activists held a demonstration outside the BBC studios in Shepherds Bush on the eighth anniversary of 9/11.







A new version of the Loose Change video has now been issued on DVD. It’s called ‘LOOSE CHANGE 9/11: An American Coup’. Loose Change has made video history, now with over two million views world-wide.


I’ve just come across a magazine called ‘Republic Magazine’ (http://www.republicmagazine.com/), which describes itself as ‘politics with an edge’. The latest issue is ‘Issue 16 – 911 Uncovering the Truth’. It’s a subscription magazine, but the contents eventually appear on their website, as did Issue 11 – The Dark Hand of History’

The theme of this month’s magazine, it states, is to expose the ‘puppet master’.

“The late [comedian] George Carlin said it best ‘it’s a private club, and you ain’t invited!’ Are deals really made in smoky back rooms? Are there really bizarre initiation rites to become accepted by those mortals who pull the strings of society? In this, our 11th issue of Republic, we have dared to venture into the tombs, temples and halls of the secret rulers to bring light to the dark places so that you may know where to clip the strings of the puppet masters”.

There are articles on Freemasonry, the order of Scull and Bones, the Quigley Formula , The Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission, and The Bohemian Grove, as well as an introduction to the New World Order.

A secret society which is known to have bred influential politicians in the UK is Oxford University’s Bullingdon Club. There was much discussion of this in the mainstream press, including BBC’s Newsnight, when Peter Mandelson came back into the Cabinet.

I think we all have to be aware of the sorts of things that do go on, and be vigilant, whatever society, association or club we happen to be in. Some people think it’s not patriotic to tell the truth; I think the opposite. People need to talk about these things across cultural divides.

Democracy, they say, is not something you have; it’s something you do.