Mainstream media this is your chance

November / December 2012

Deception as a cause of war

Gaza: Jews speak out

UN recognises Palestine – but what difference will it make?

British Jews for Justice petition UK Foreign Secretary

Nuke Afghanistan and Pakistan, says Tony Blair's former minister

Are micro-nukes being used for state terror?

9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera

President of Italy's Supreme Court to refer 9/11 crimes to the International Criminal Court

Government think-tanks, and back-door manipulation

Press control proposal could backfire to expose 9/11 deception

Crisis initiation, and why we need to pay attention

They say that truth is the first casualty of war. It's not true. When war breaks out, truth has already died. Deception is the main ingredient in creating wars in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recognising storms-in-teacups for what they are

September / October 2012

Big conspiracy cover-ups do happen: UK wakes up!

EU Nobel Peace Prize baffling, and against Nobel's will

Petition not to accept Nobel Prize – feel free to sign

Paedophilia ring in high places rocks BBC, politicians and society

How the Establishment 'amnesiated' the public over a century ago

Massive criminal police cover-up outrages the Brits

How the public is being 'amnesiated' following exposure of police crime

Storms in teacups as a form of false-flag operation

False 9/11 prophet

BBC continues cover-up with '7/7 Conspiracy Road Show'

NATO's Gladio may be behind Greece's Kristallnacht and Turkey's Ergenekon

How social movements are reduced to tea and crumpets

'9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out': new film goes viral

Election of UK Police Commissioners: lobby your candidates!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth movement itself has much to learn in recognising storms in teacups. The breaking up of the national 9/11 Coordinating Committee was clearly such a case, yet it wasn't recognised as such. There were cries of 'antisemitism' against Tony Gosling, who does an excellent job in running the 9/11 Truth Forum (http://www.911forum.org). There seemed to be no willingness in some quarters to reach any sort of reconcilliation, but only to whip up the quarreling further. Then there was a further storm in a teacup, over alleged 'holocaust denial'. When they extended that to me, suggesting that that was the source of my problems in the Esperanto movement, even though I had never been involved in the holocaust controversy, and my friend with whom I was working on the Esperanto affair happened to be Jewish, it was pretty obvious what was happening. When we set up '9/11 Keep Talking', it was my full expectation that from time to time we would have to deal with such storms in teacups in the future. Accordingly, we set up a private email group, with no anonymous members. I was fully prepared to deal with any disruptive elements who were attempting to instigate storms in teacups. A short time ago I was incapacitated for a week, and when I came to look at the correspondence, I found just that. It wasn't that I disagreed with what two of them were saying, though indeed I did. Nor was it that they had turned the whole thing into an irrelevant religious rant, which indeed they did. Nor was it that I thought they were infiltrators from the Establishment with a mission to neutralise our activities, though I do have my suspicions on that. It was that they were being disrespectful to others, were being autocratic, were being foul-mouthed, and they were creating an elite which was impervious to criticism whilst they launched personal attacks on others. They were also inciting others to break the law and thus get arrested. I put them under moderation and they left in indignation. These are pretty typical signs – together with trying to change the objectives of the group rather than themselves setting up a new group with different objectives – and it has to be dealt with calmly and surgically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't dare criticise Israel, you will be called an anti-semite

Originally sent June 2010

When I sat down to write this newsletter, I had intended to start off by congratulating peace campaigner Brian Haw for getting a bigger picture on the front page of the London Evening Standard on the day that the Queen opened Parliament than the Queen did herself.

But then, the world went crazy again.

The attack by the Israeli Defence Force on an aid convoy in international waters shocked the world. Even the Israeli version admits that they did it. They may attribute the deaths to armed resistance, but if that were true – and many are disputing that - would it have been unreasonable to have put up resistance when your boat is being pirated in international waters?

Angry demonstrations rapidly spread across the world, and early images appearing on our television screens included orthodox Jews demonstrating against the Israeli government. There are now various Jewish groups who are opposed to the military actions taken by Israel against the people of Gaza, and on other issues, too. A demonstration outside the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv against the storming of the Gaza Flotilla was reported on Israel Social TV but, they say, not in the mainstream media:





If any good is to come from this sorry story, it has to be the realisation that you can now criticise Israel, or rather the actions of those who pull the strings in Israel, without being credibly accused of antisemitism, as you can for any other state. There has been much talk recently of covert operations by the Israeli secret service Mossad.


The UK government protested to Israel about the forging of UK passports in an undercover operation to assassinate a Hamas leader in Dubai.

There has been growing impatience in the US over Israel’s treatment of the people of Gaza. Considering that the US is Israel’s main ally and backer, and that they are also the world’s military superpower, it would seem surprising that a small beseiged country like Israel would want to go it alone. In the case of the Free Gaza flotilla, the Israeli forces would have known that even if the operation had been carried out without violence, they would still have been seen on virtually every television screen outside Israel as agressors on the high seas. How can we account for this behaviour?

It seems to me to be a symptom of overconfidence in one’s own strength. If we reduce the world stage to the laboratory of a tiny organisation which poses no threat to national security, we sometimes see the same sort of arrogance.

In my case, I could not understand how my opponents thought they could possibly get away with some of the blatent things they were saying and doing. Any normal person, I thought, would be able to see through them right away; it was as if they didn’t care. Yet, in the short term, they were right, because they knew one or two things that I didn’t know. They knew how accepting the ordinary members had become after years of brainwashing. I was later to find out that it was no use trying to present evidence to the members; they just weren’t interested, because they knew that I was wrong, even if they didn’t know what I was saying. It was no use showing them simple financial charts which appeared to contradict what they had been told for years. Yet these points could be grasped very quickly by others outside the organisation. The only defence which my opponents could offer, when their conspiracy of silence failed, was to react with contrived indignation, as if it were all an anticommittee plot by one individual. Yet I had only been putting together their own statements.

If we now replace our microscope with a telescope, we see the equivalent on the world stage. On the world stage, it was becoming increasingly clear that it was difficult to criticise Israeli policy without being vulnerable to allegations of antisemitism or of being a Nazi sympathiser. I first became aware of a possible Mossad connection with the London bombings of July 7, 2005, after I had written about the launch of the book ‘Terror on the Tube’ in my newsletter of September 2009, when emails were going around with suggestions of Nazi sympathies. Yet I had not touched upon issues concerning the Nazis, or indeed anything that would have made me vulnerable to such allegations.

I had so far assumed that the ludicrous interventions in the launch of Nick Kollerstrom’s book would have been coming from our own secret services, which may have had something to hide. Yet where was this coming from? Sure enough, I then realised that the CCTV surveillance in the London Underground was being run by an Israeli company.

Chapter Three of Terror on the Tube quotes an announcement on this from Israel National News of September 21, 2004:


"Verint Systems, a subsidiary of Israel's Comverse Technology announced that Metronet Rail has selected Verint's networked video solution to enhance security of the London Underground, according to an Israel21c report
...
Verint president and CEO Dan Bodner told Israel21c: 'We have significant experience working with transportation authorities and are committed to delivering innovative networked video security solutions for the transportation industry.'".

So what happened to the masses of CCTV footage that should have been available, which would have given a much more complete picture of what was going on? Were all those cameras dummies, or was footage being withheld from the public? Was that footage being withheld by the London Metropolitan Police, or was it being withheld from them?

According to the announcement, “The system will enable security personnel to monitor passenger platforms and certain remote portions of the track”. So would some people in or from the Middle East have had instant access to pictures of the London Underground at the time of the terrorist attacks? What we find, Nick writes, “is a company with 24 hour access to the entire tube network run by a senior ex-Israeli army officer, whose former employers are engaged in a largely covert war against Arabs for land”. The company, and its controlling company, according to Appendix 2 of the book, are run by ex Shin Beth and Mossad officers. How could a government minister have been so convinced that she knew better than the police at a meeting of COBRA, the government's emergency committee, in which she was insisting that there were eight incidents when the police representative was insisting that there were four?

This conversation was described in Andy Hayman’s book ‘The Terrorist Hunters’, which the UK government banned for a while after its publication.

Was the government minister making this up, or was she repeating what she had been told to say? Where did that information come from ultimately? If the minister’s information was correct, then the most obvious source of that would have been the Israeli company operating the CCTV cameras. That leads us again to the question of who is running the country. Constantly we are led in the direction of the big financial institutions. We need to ask where the political influence in those institutions lies. The picture that seems to be emerging is not one of unified central control, but of various competing factions, which all have a common interest in keeping the public in ignorance.

Whatever horrors one faction brings about, they can be confident that competing factions will retain a conspiracy of silence, because it is in their best interests to do so. If we pick up the microscope again, we see various individual police officers going beyond the law in their treatment of members of the public, but what do other police officers do about it? If they witness such an event yet remain silent, then surely they are guilty of complicity.

In false flag terrorism, what incentive is there for one group to speak out against another if they may be guilty of something similar themselves. Inevitably, the more ruthless groups will be outdoing each other, and so a bubble will be created. Eventually, the whole thing will get out of hand, and various groups will realise that they have to speak out. Then the bubble bursts.

I think we have just witnessed the bursting of such a bubble. I saw a snippet of news on the television, in which Bill Clinton asked, “Who’s the superpower here?”. Apparently that happened when he met Binjamin Netanyahu for the first time, in 2006.

Did that mean that Israel was punching above its weight even then, or did it mean that the Israeli lobby have more influence in Washington than we had imagined? The Israeli lobbying organisation AIPAC held its largest ever conference in Washington in March, and amongst its main speakers were Hillary Clinton, Binjamin Netanyahu and Tony Blair. Shortly beforehand, there had been a diplomatic incident when, during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden, the Israeli government announced more construction work on occupied land in Jerusalem.

Aljazeera put out a programme analysing the strength of the Israeli lobby in the US under the title ‘Inside Story - US-Israel: Unsettled dispute’:






On November 16, 2009, Channel 4 put out a programme in its Dispatches series, under the title ‘Inside Britain's Israel Lobby’, in which they showed how the Israeli lobby appear to be using financial pressure to censure political opinion in the UK.

All political parties are affected, they said, but they focused on the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

Given this degree of influence, it is interesting that UK Foreign Secretary William Hague was so outspoken in speaking out against the attack when funding had previously been cut off when he had spoken out against Israeli action in Gaza, according to the Dispatches programme.

The programme shows how branding people as ‘antisemitic’ is a deliberate policy by the pro-Israel lobby to silence critics. Over the past few months there have been increasing concerns over a possible Mossad connection with 9/11.

Dr Alan Sabrosky is a former director of studies of the Strategic Studies Institute at US War College, and was described in the Kevin Barrat Show on No Lies Radio as “the most controversial voice in the 9/11 truth movement”, in an introduction to an interview on March 30, in which he claims that Mossad was behind 9/11.

There has been much speculation, but we need hard facts. It would be difficult to see how Bulding 7, which housed a major centre of the CIA, could have been prepared for controlled demolition without the knowledge of the CIA. That, of course, could mean some faction in the CIA, but at a high level. If Mossad and the CIA were complicit, then we would need detailed evidence to know which of them was in the lead role. Many questions remain to be answered concerning the attacks of 9/11. One thing we do know, however, is that for 25 seconds Building 7 was in free fall, within a margin of error of 1%.

Physics teacher David Chandler recently produced a new analysis of the collapse of the tower, based on new information released from the NIST final report on Building 7.

“This is high school physics we’re talking about”, he says, “If they can’t get the high school physics right, what confidence can we have in their multicoloured computer-generated whizz-bang simulations that tell us of the exact sequence of girder failures, without any physical evidence for any of it. I’m a high school physics teacher. I teach my students better lab practice than NIST demonstrates here”. He calls the NIST report a “cover-up by a government agency”. How could those who set up this operation possibly hope to get away with it, when they knew there would likely to be video footage and scientific analysis?

Again, it seems to me to be a symptom of overconfidence in one’s own strength, in this case, the strength of the mass media brainwashing of the population. The video is pretty conclusive proof of controlled demolition, yet they have got away with it for nearly nine years. It’s an analogous situation to my financial charts. The bubble has yet to burst. False flag terrorism is so widely known about amongst people with inquisitive minds who look for alternative sources of information than the mainstream media, that that has to be another bubble waiting to burst.

The Israeli assault on the Free Gaza Flotilla will remind many of the sinking of the USS Liberty in 1967, which is now well-documented yet unknown to the general readership of the mainstream media.

In this incident, the Israeli forces were in collusion with the US in attacking the US surveillance ship Liberty during the 1967 war, in an operation apparently designed to give a pretext to attack Egypt. The attack was witnessed by a Soviet ship, and so the operation was called off at the last moment. The recent assault on the Free Gaza Flotilla may bring the matter of the USS Liberty to the public’s attention, now that the UK government has stated that there should be an inquiry into the recent event.

Meanwhile, another dangerous situation is building up between North and South Korea, regarding the alleged sinking by North Korea of the South Korean warship Cheonan. This was investigated by ‘The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group’ of South Korea, with additional experts from the US, Australia, the UK and Sweden. In their final report, they conclude:

“Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS ‘Cheonan’ was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation”.

Yet the only evidence that they present of the torpedo being fired by a North Korean submarine is that the torpedo was marked with “No. 1” written in Hangul. That is the script of the Korean language, used both in North Korea and South Korea. I would say that evidence points overwhelmingly to faked stupidity. It seems the Chinese are not impressed either.

Premier Wen Jiabao stated that China will take its position on the basis of truth and facts, and that it will seek information from various sources and seriously study it before making clear its stand in "a fair and objective manner”.

He also stated that China understands the current difficult situation President Lee Myung-bak and the South Korean government are facing. The publishing of the Cheonan report comes at a very convenient moment for the pro-American government of South Korea, just ahead of their general election on June 3.

The New York Times reports:

“Soon after taking office two years ago, Mr. Lee appeared at risk of losing public support, as he faced mass demonstrations on the streets of Seoul against the import of United States beef. Now, political experts are talking about the ‘Cheonan effect’, as polls show that more than half of expected voters approve of the president and his tougher line toward the North.”

Brian Haw has been on a protest vigil since June 2, 2001. Initially he was campaigning against the economic sanctions on Iraq and the bombing of the country by the US and UK. After 11 September 2001, he widened his focus, directing his messages of peace against the 'war on terror', the terror that the US and UK have inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq.

During this time, he has successfully fought legal battles against actions to get him removed from his camp on the green opposite Parliament. The police at times have been brutal, and gone beyond the law. Parliament even introduced a law which is generally believed to have been aimed at removing him, now known as Haw’s Law, but when challenged, the court ruled that the law could not be applied retrospectively. The result was that Brian Haw became the only person in the world with the legal right to protest outside the UK Parliament without police permission.

On May 1 this year, a group of about fifty peace demonstrators set up camp on the same piece of land, calling themselves the Democracy Village. Unlike Brian Haw, some of them dug the turf and started growing vegetables there, and unlike Brian Haw, they were not targeted by the police. There was talk of possible agents, or provocateurs amongst them, who would turn the whole protest into a circus and enjoy police immunity. Brian Haw wisely dissociated himself from them, apparently anticipating what was about to happen. On the evening of May 25, the day of the Queen’s speech and the opening of Parliament, the London Evening Standard reported on its front page: “The Queen was greeted by extraordinary scenes as she arrived at Westminster for the state opening of Parliament today. Dozens of campaigners encamped outside the Commons jeered and waved banners as her coach drove past – but the only people to be arrested were veteran anti-war protester Brian Haw and his friend Barbara Tucker. Sixty-year-old Mr Haw, who has been living in a tent opposite Parliament for nine years, was dragged off for obstructing police sniffer dogs”. Inside, there was a two-page spread under the heading “Why did Boris allow shanty town to stay there so long?”, Boris being the London mayor Boris Johnson, whose spokesman stated: “The Mayor respects the right to demonstrate. However, the scale and impact of the protest is now doing considerable damage to Parliament Square and preventing its peaceful use by other Londoners, including those who may wish to have an authorised protest”.

Clearly the whole operation had to be a set-up, with the police targeting Brian Haw, and the politicians using the Democracy Village as an excuse. The behaviour of the authorities in this issue seems to have been extraordinary. How can we account for this behaviour? It seems to me to be a symptom of overconfidence in one’s own strength. Instead of quietly removing Brian Haw whilst the nation’s attention was on the Queen’s speech, they succeeded in making the Queen’s speech look ridiculous, and in focusing attention on Brian Haw. Brain had not been demonstrating against the monarchy, but nothing could have been more damaging to the monarchy than what happened. The Independent covered the story on its front page with two photos, one headed ‘Inside’ and the other headed ‘Outside’. It contrasted the promises of reintroducing some of the civil liberties taken away by the Blair regime with the suppression of what was, after all, a legal vigil outside Parliament. Yet cabinet minister Vince Cable in the new coalition has in the past given his support to Brian Haw.

In a gesture of support, together with Susan Kramer MP, he offered a new poster to Brian Haw in 2006, to replace one of those taken by the police, and is pictured on Brian’s website. The Independent contrasted what was in the Queen’s Speech on civil liberties with what was actually happening in Parliament Square.

The contrast of the ostentatious splendour of the throne and the crown with the T-shirt of a lone protester being dragged from his tent outside put the monarchy itself into disrepute. Buckingham Palace’s PR people will need to do something to repair the damage. If Brain is allowed to return, the Establishment will lose face. If he is imprisoned or dies, he will become a martyr. If he is simply evicted, he will become a celebrity.


In 2007 the Tate Modern staged an exhibition under the title ‘State Britain’, which was a recreation of Brian’s display just before it was removed by police in May 2006.

I think the best way out of the current predicament would be for the Tate Modern to exhibit a monument in memory of Brian Haw’s vigil. Respectable members of the Establishment are calling his camp an ‘eyesore’ and so the monument should be an eyesore, too. It should be a piece of modern sculpture depicting the ugliness of war. When eventually Brian Haw’s vigil does come to an end, that monument should be placed on the very same spot as his vigil. It should be a permanent monument, and it should be named ‘The Westminster Haw Memorial’.