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.

Hegemonic NWO or peaceful coexistence

November and December 2011

I wish the season of goodwill was at the beginning of the year rather than the end, tagged on merely as an afterthought. We will have a short break (a good time to bury bad news), then everything will be back to normal. The wars will continue, and so will the belligerence which could so easily lead to new wars. Not so long ago there was talk of bombing Iran, then the focus moved to Pakistan, until China warned the US that an attack on Pakistan would be considered an attack on China. Then it was Syria, and still is, though Russia has now placed two warships off the coast of Syria.

And then it was back to Iran. And in the meantime there was the matter of regime change in Libya, which had little to do with bringing democracy to the country, and everything to do with control of an area with huge oil assets and an independent banking system.

Suddenly the Werritty Affair blew up, as questions were asked why defence minister Liam Fox was being accompanied by his friend Adam Werritty in diplomatic meetings. Craig Murray, the whistleblowing former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, has been investigating. Under the heading ' Liam Fox, Adam Werritty, and the curious case of Our Man in Tel Aviv' the Independent reported

on the involvement of the UK ambassador to Israel, and secret meetings between the three of them. Yet it has been left to the former UK ambassador Craig Murray to uncover four more similar meetings, they reported.

"I have no doubt that there is a 'separate policy' on Israel and Iran, different to that acknowledged in public. I have no doubt that the Fox/Gould/Werritty meetings – and the blanket cover-up of them from scrutiny in parliament, documents or the media – afford a key way into it".

But now we have disturbing reports of US troop activity in and around Syria. A report appeared on Russia Today's website headed 'US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?' stating:


"A former official from within the ranks of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is reporting that US and NATO forces have landed outside of Syria and are training militants to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, formerly a translator with the FBI, wrote over the weekend that American soldiers are among the NATO troops that have mysteriously and suddenly landed on the Jordanian and Syrian border. … Additionally, Edmonds says that American and NATO forces are training Turkish troops as well, to possibly launch a strike from the north of Syria".

Further details are given on her 'Boiling Frogs' website, which also contains an article reminding us that not long ago the US was sending people to Syria for torture.

But perhaps it won't be Syria after all. Or perhaps it will be Syria, and after that London. It's just been announced that 13 500 troops will occupy part of London for the Olympic Games, with the support of two warships, military helicopters, fighter jets and ground-to-air missiles.

Britain will provide up to 13,500 troops to protect next summer's London Olympics -- more than it has in Afghanistan -- after organisers said international uncertainty meant security for the event needed to be doubled.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the military support would provide back-up for police and private staff already hired to secure the perimeters of the Olympic and Paralympic venues in what will be Britain's largest peacetime security operation.

The military presence will also include special forces and specialist bomb disposal units as well as a 1,000-strong contingency force "in the event of an Olympics-related civil emergency".

So perhaps when we've had a short break (a good time to bury bad news), we'll be told after the season of goodwill has ended, who we're going to be at war with in the new year. It's all supposed to be about bringing democracy to these countries, but democracy itself is the most easily undermined and destabilised form of government there is. With the best will in the world, how do run a democracy when you know how easily it can be usurped by a foreign power, especially if you're Iranian and have vivid memories of the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohamad Mosadeq? Is the fighting in Syria just a local rebellion, as we in the West are led to believe, or is it civil war fueled by a foreign power, as the Russians seem to believe?

There is now a war of words over the recent Russian elections between the US and Russia. Was Russia being destabilised by the CIA, as the Putin and Co seem to think, or were the protests merely internally generated amongst the Russian people, as Hilary Clinton seems to be suggesting? The best way to encourage a fledgling democracy is not to intervene subversively, but to let the people of the country get on with it. Otherwise clamp-downs become inevitable. Unfortunately, not everyone has the best will in the world, and constant destabilising foreign interventions will sooner or later lead to a return of Stalin and Hitler.

In the EU itself democracy seems to be being extinguished. Elected governments are being replaced by financial technocrats. In the UK we have a dramatically growing scepticism over the EU, starting with the Euro, which was clearly a project destined to failure.

The UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, who wants the UK to withdraw completely from the EU, is now becoming incredibly popular with the mainstream media.

I suspect, though, that some of the big-wigs in Government want to return EU powers not to Westminster, but to The City, and so to the financial institutions that seem to be running this country. Others want to make the EU more democratic, but they are losing the battle. The 17 Eurozone countries have now accepted fiscal union. So who will now be running the Eurozone if not the financial institutions? These changes were not brought about my normal democratic processes, but by a project destined to failure, whose objective could only have been to consolidate power at the heart of Europe. Can the fiscal union work? In the short term it probably can, but in the long term I should have thought there would be a backlash from the far right, in particular in France, when they see themselves being taken over by German corporate interests. How will the union respond to that? Probably by a clamp-down, thus further consolidating power in the hands of the few; otherwise the whole union could break up.

I was amazed to see the film 'Inside Job' on BBC Four.





This film is the financial equivalent of 'ZERO: an investigation into 9/11', which has never been broadcast on mainstream television in the UK. That's why I was amazed that the BBC would broadcast it. Public interest into the economic meltdown is now so intense, that even the BBC must be under great pressure to admit that the whole thing was a set-up. That set-up was enabled by the 'light touch' of the regulators in the US and the UK. I would like to know what pressures the politicians were under to bring about that 'light touch'. Since this was international, it seems likely that those pressures would have been coming from financial corporate interests.

In the UK the government's Financial Services Authority has published a report into the failure of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Their press release reports that "RBS’s failure amid the systemic crisis ultimately resulted from poor decisions made by the RBS management and Board. But deficiencies in the global capital regime and liquidity regulations made the crisis much more likely". In addition, the press release says, "flaws in the FSA’s supervisory approach provided insufficient challenge to RBS".

However Craig Woodhouse in The London Evening Standard writing under the heading ' FSA blames Blair, Brown and Balls for RBS collapse' digs a little deeper, and states: "Labour's light-touch regulation of the City was a key factor in the near-collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland, a report by the financial watchdog found today. The Financial Services Authority said it came under 'sustained' political pressure to spare the Square Mile from red tape in the years before the banking crisis"

It seems that a 'light touch' has been the policy also in the regulation of the education system in the UK.

The Daily Telegraph carried out an investigation into the practices of school examination boards in the UK following commercialisation initiated by the Blair government.

They found that exam boards were secretly coaching teachers on how to increase pupils’ marks in GCSEs and A-Levels. They also found evidence that exam boards are actively boasting about the ease of their courses in an apparent attempt to try to secure valuable business. "The increasing commercialisation of exams has coincided with a sharp rise in the number of children achieving top grades", they stated. This survey led to concerns that exam boards are driving down standards by aggressively competing with one another to persuade schools to take their tests. A senior official of one board stated in a covert recording that she didn't know how they got their syllabus through the official regulation system that is supposed to ensure high standards in GCSEs and A-Levels.

As a result, the education secretary has ordered an inquiry

Could this have just been due to criminal neglect? Or could it be that politicians like to falsify reality if that makes things look good for them? Or could it be that somone is trying to dumb down the education of our kids in order to make them politically more compliant? From a sociopath's point of view, the purpose of the education system would be merely to provide skilled people for employment in the industries that would build up the strength of the corporations. Beyond that, education could be dangerous. Having trained physicists specialising in physics is fine, but the last thing you want is trained physicists enquiring too much into social issues and the power structures of the country. That would, as I discovered, be dangerous. In the UK, knowledge of foreign languages could undermine the push for linguistic hegemony, and we saw how Baroness Catherine Ashton, then an unelected politician under Tony Blair, brought about the collapse of an already faltering language teaching programme in England's schools. So could all this be part of an intentional dumbing down process?

Shortly before reading about the Telegraph's research, I had come across an Alex Jones video, called 'Charlotte Iserbyt: The Miseducation of America'. Charlotte Iserbyt served as the head of policy at the Department of Education during the first administration of Ronald Reagan. While working there she discovered a long-term strategic plan to transform America from a nation of individualists and problem solvers to a country of servile, brainwashed minions who simply regurgitate whatever they're told.

She explains how conditioning and training under a corporate agenda has replaced traditional education, leading to a deliberate dumbing down of Americans.

She linked her own experiences to the financial and militaristic ambitions of those behind the New World Order, which she had read about in a book published in 1970 called 'None dare call it conspiracy'

Link to Amazon

which put together how financial institutions had been involved in political propaganda in controlling populations, even to the extent of initiating wars, in which they would finance both sides, so that when the wars came to and end both sides would be indebted to the banks that they had borrowed from. She had been sent that book by a friend, and by chance, I had been sent a copy by a friend and was reading it when I came across the video. Much of the book is based on the writings of Professor Carroll Quigley, who revealed much of the workings of the 'insiders'.

Then a story broke about a row in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. The Council had published a proposed budget for the following year, which included quite severe cuts, and had announced a consultation period, to end on 23 December.

However, a local independent news website published an article under the heading 'Are We Really Being Consulted On The 2012 Budget?' It stated:

"It seems that the decision to close the Wedgwood Memorial College has already been taken and just needs to be rubber-stamped by the Cabinet at their meeting on 15 December which is a day before the last public consultation event and over a week before the consultation closes on 23 December".

The Wedgwood Memorial College is an adult residential college offering short courses. I had understood that the college had, until some time in the 1990s been run by the Workers' Education Association, and that the Principal was in their employ. When it was taken over by Stoke-on-Trent Council, the Council became his new employer. Following his retirement the new Principal managed to make the College pay its own way, but then in 2007 she resigned, and was not replaced. The Friends of the College believed that there was an intent to close the college down, but since it was breaking even, they concluded that the motive could not have been to save money, but to gain money by selling the assets off. They campaigned to save the college. An inquiry by Staffordshire County Council concluded that the college was viable. Stoke-on-Trent Council reacted by changing its use so that it wasn't viable, and is now proposing to close the college to save money. So here we have a viable educational establishment being taken over by a local authority which is now attempting to close it down.

The Wedgwood College is also the location of the headquarters of Esperanto Association of Britain, which moved there in 2002, following a grand opening of Esperanto House.That building had been payed for and built on the college premises by the Esperanto Association for the College, and so for the City of Stoke-on-Trent Council. Members were led to believe that the association had a 99 year lease on the property, whereas in fact they had a lease only for one room of the house, used as their office, with separate arrangements for the use of other parts of college property and the hire of an office administrator from the City of Stoke-on-Trent Council. The long-standing Principal of the College had not been an Esperantist, but learned Esperanto and entered the Management Committee of Esperanto Association of Britain in 2000, taking on a leading role in the negotiations to relocate to the college.

Members had in 1999 voted for the sale of their London premises on the basis of three factors put to them by the Management Committee:

(1) the falling capital of the association
(2) the decrepit state of their own property
(3) professional advice received

I have to say that in my studies I could not substantiate any of those claims. Furthermore, I found that the capital had actually been rising dramatically over that period. It took more than five years for the treasurer to finally admit that my figures were correct (See my October newsletter). The current treasurer has now acknowledged that the association did not have exclusive occupancy of the whole house, and that they took legal advice on the situation which would arise if the college were to close. She reported that the association would receive occupancy of the whole house, but would have to pay more for the maintenance costs. Taking legal advice would of course not have been necessary had the association simply had a lease for the whole house as they had led members to believe.

A letter of mine, calling for a public inquiry, appeared in the Staffordshire Newsletter.

It seems that in one foul swoop, antidemocratic forces in Stoke-on-Trent were dumbing down the educational activities of two registered charities.

Next year should be an interesting year (A medical practitioner once told me what 'interesting' meant!). It is the year for which I had in 2005 forecast the demise of the Esperanto association. My colleague thought that they would keep it running as a token group, in order to block anyone else who might want to set up a new national association. Perhaps we were both right. I was amazed later to find that 2012 was being forecast as the year in which the New World Order takes over. All sorts of justifications were being put forward, ranging from astrology to the Book of Revelations. Looking back on that, it now looks quite simple; it looks as if there may have been a twenty-year programme starting in 1992, the year after the fall of Communism, which comes to completion in 2012. It was around that time that we saw the appearance of Demos, the New Labour group in the Labour Party, Common Purpose, which according to Brian Gerrish's researches has been 'messing up' in local government and other institutions, and Academic Cooperation Association, which looks as if it may may be a front for pushing for the hegemony of English in the EU. It was also the year of an otherwise unexplained sudden linear decline in membership of Esperanto Association of Britain.

Next year will also see the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic, and with it the extinction of a leading light in investigative journalism, as well as founder of the then 'Stop the War' campaign. William T Stead was the most famous passenger on the Titanic, and he had acquired a phenominal reputation in the UK for his highlighting of social injustices. He also had ideas of bringing peace to the world by benevolent use of capital raised by entrepreneurs.

There was a television programme on BBC2 on 22 November called 'When bankers were good' (Youtube link) narrated by Ian Hislop who explained about the growth of the banking industry following the industrial revolution, and how some of those leading bankers, being members of religious communities, left huge fortunes in trust for the public good. He finished by explaining the ideas of nineteenth century Oxford don John Ruskin, who developed the idea, distinguishing between what he called 'wealth' and 'illth'.

I had just finished reading the book 'None dare call it conspiracy', which explains how John Ruskin's ideas were subsequently developed, I think not quite in the direction that John Ruskin would have hoped.

Before reading that, I had just read a more recent book, also based largely on the writings of Carroll Quigley, called 'Brotherhood of Darkness' by Stanley Monteith.



This book, too, had just been sent to me by a friend. It concentrated more on the personalities involved, and how they operated internally.

One student at the time of John Ruskin was Cecil Rhodes, who was so taken with Ruskin's idea of using huge fortunes to bring peace to the world, that he himself gained huge fortunes in Southern Africa, and became a strong force in colonisation. In the name of peace, he recruited two other very influential people. In 'The Anglo-American Establishment ' Carroll Quigley writes: "One wintry afternoon in 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire and to the world as a whole. For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than 50 years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation and execution of British imperial and foreign policy. "The three men thus engaged were already well known in England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealthy empire builder and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably also the most sensational, journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V." It emerged that Rhodes' idea of bringing peace to the world included further colonisation. Of course, the main military opposition would come not from the natives, but from other Europeans. When Rhodes used his position to provoke the Boer War, Stead objected. Rhodes insisted on absolute loyalty, and that caused a bitter schism in the movement for a New World Order. Stead was marginalised, but campaigned hard against the Boer War. In 1904 he suffered a nervous breakdown, which I can well understand. He wanted to pursue the way of co-operation between ethnic groups, rather than to impose hegemony on them. As part of that, he supported the idea of an easily learned auxiliary language, and in 1904 became the first President of the newly formed British Esperantists Association (Inc).

That schism still exists today. Carroll Quigley was one of Bill Clinton's professors at Georgetown University, before Bill Clinton became a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. He paid homage to Carroll Quigley in his 1992 nomination acceptance speech for the US Presidency. Quigley wrote in 'The Anglo-American Establishment': "The Rhodes scholarship established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes’ seventh will are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes, in five previous wills, left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire". In another book, 'Tragedy and Hope' Quigley wrote that the aim of this secret society was “…nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole".

Carroll Quigley wrote that he knew of the operation of this network because he had been permitted to study it for two years in the 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. "I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have for much of my life been close to it and to many of its instruments", he wrote, "In general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown". That sounds to me a bit like the Demos people, who have been advocating 'open infiltration', presumably because people have become so accepting of what is going on that the public would just become acquiescent. So we can trace Rhodes' ideas on a militaristic hegemonic New World Order through Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Tony Blair, and through to the present-day wars. The Stead side of the schism was marginalised. A strong pacifist movement grew up. I knew one or two pacifists from the First World War, including the concert pianist Frank Merrick, whom I interviewed on his 90th birthday in 1976 when he was Honorary President of The London Esperanto Club. Belatedly, I now find I can understand their pacifism. I still think we have the right to defend ourselves, but this wasn't about defence, unless, of course, 'defence' is interpreted in the Orwellian sense. Since 9/11, these values have been revived. There is now a huge truth movement throughout the Western world, consisting of thousands of individuals who want to know the truth about the real sources of terrorism in all its forms, including financial terrorism and the use of 'illth'. But governments and the mainstream media are overwhelmingly controlled by corporate interests, to such an extent, as George Orwell put it in his introduction to 'Animal Farm' that "anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness".

The world has to decide which way to go. Will it take the route of Cecil Rhodes, Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, towards a hegemonic New World Order controlled by huge corporate financial interests, or will it take the route of democratic peaceful co-existence, respecting each others' human rights, their cultures and their languages, and turning the huge financial resources available into wealth rather than illth?

We need to spread that question far and wide. Whatever language you do it in, keep talking.

Its Democracy, Jim, but not as we know it

It seems the revolution has begun. The Occupy demonstrations have taken place in over 95 cities across 82 countries but it's no longer just about 'the economy, stupid' (to use Bill Clinton's famous phrase), but about the corporate state. The economic crisis was caused by large financial institutions which had more power than elected governments. It was the economy that moved people into activism, but a bigger picture is now emerging.

Mussolini talked of the "Corporate State of Fascism". That's exactly what's developing now. It's been a hidden Fascism, with a democratic veneer, but since the turn of the century people in the US and the UK – 'Oceania', as George Orwell described it in '1984' – have been increasingly frustrated at their lack of a voice in big decisions of state. In the UK we had no voice in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, despite there being two million people out on the streets; Parliament voted on the basis of a lie. In 2001 Parliament had no vote at all, since decisions on waging war could at that stage be taken only by the Prime Minister in conjunction with the Monarch. So who did take these decisions? There is a growing feeling throughout the Western world that such decisions are taken not by elected politicians, but by gigantic financial institutions which in the end will profit from these wars.

So what would one expect from a corporate society? We may not expect the same brutality that one would have in an openly tyrannical regime, and, indeed, I am grateful to my opponents for not pulling my fingernails out, but in principle we would expect something similar. A corporate society does not uphold democratic values, even if it pretends to. Any troublesome group will be infiltrated by the corporate state, to neutralise its activities, or at least to keep them within certain limits.

This is exactly what has been emerging over the past year. On 20 October Newsnight broadcast a further revelation about an undercover policeman having infiltrated a civilian group with the purpose of subverting it:

"So far this year there have been no fewer than eight inquiries set up, after the discovery that undercover police have been used to infiltrate political organisations. There may be a ninth soon, because Newsnight has evidence of another operation, in which undercover policemen may have given false evidence in court. The officer became an activist in the Reclaim the Streets campaign, and was arrested after a group from the campaign occupied an office".

'Reclaim the Streets' is a direct action group which is concerned about the increasing takeover of urban streets by the corporate state. Their video documentary does show law-breaking, and indeed this is to be expected in a society which is more and more sceptical of the democratic processes in the country. "It turns the street into a road …", says their video, " the street can be much more about community, about social interaction … the road is a means of getting from A to B". The police do have a responsibility to keep the traffic flowing, but are their methods appropriate, and is it acceptable for the police to incite the very law-breaking which they are supposed to prevent, by means of agent provocateurs?

The Newsnight programme was about a cyclists demonstration of August 1996 in Central Lonon, in which a splinter group went to the headquarters of London Underground to unfurl protest banners. The incident led to the false arrest of one protestor, and false testimony in court by the undercover cop, who had played a leading role. The officer concerned was Jim Boyling, known in 'Reclaim the Streets' as Jim Sutton.

The Metropolitan Police were due to publish a report on an internal inquiry the following day, but at the last moment that report was delayed

It transpired that the alternative news source Indymedia had first become aware of the issue of undercover cops in protest movements and had passed information to The Guardian and BBC's Newsnight team, who worked together on their investigations. Again, the agenda is being driven by the alternative media rather than by paid investigative journalists

Since this is not just a British issue – some of these British cops had also been subverting groups abroad - Indymedia is now asking people to translate a statement on this into various languages.

I reported previously on Mark Kennedy, who had been posing as Mark (Flash) Stone in an environmental group, and whose actions had nearly led to the imprisonment of at least twenty innocent campaigners,

Lynn Watson (real name unknown), the police officer dressed as a clown in the Rebel Clown Army, a tiny group protesting against the Iraq war,

Other undercover police officers unmasked were Bob Lambert, posing as Bob Robinson,

Mark (Marco) Jacobs, whose real name is unknown,

Peter Black

and

Simon Wellings.

Groups infected were a variety of protest groups, such as anarchist, animal rights, anti-fascist, anti-globalisation, anti-racist, environmental and left-wing political groups. Those groups included: 2008 Camp For Climate Action, 2008 demo against the planned military academy at St Athan, Aldermaston Women’s Peace Camp, Animal Liberation Front, anti-EDL, Cardiff Anarchist Network (CAN), Cardiff Radical Socialist Forum, Climate Camp, The Common Place (Leeds anarchist centre), Dissent! (the network mobilising protesters for the G8 summit at Gleneagles), Globalise Resistance, London Greenpeace, No Border campaigns, Rebel Clown Army, Reclaim the Streets, Rising Tide Network, and Trident Ploughshares direct action network.

The lengths some of these undercover cops will go to in gaining credibility in the groups they have infiltrated are extraordinary. Kennedy provoked fellow officers to beat him up in a Climate Camp. Jim Boyling lied under oath in a criminal trial to protect his identity. Bob Lambert appeared in court under a fictional name. Several of them had sexual relationships with some of their victims, sometimes long-term relationships.

Jim Boyling even married one of his victims and had two children with her, now aged 5 and 7. How do you explain that one to the children, even when they are older, and how will they feel when they realise how they were brought into the world? Does the state have liabilities for their maintenance and for compensation for possible psychological trauma?

So if all this is going on with the police force in groups taking part in street activism, then what is going on with the security services in other groups that the corporate state disapproves of? I have already dealt with reports from former MI5 officers of large-scale infiltration in political parties, even "tiny organisations which pose no threat to national security". The purpose would be to turn these groups into controlled opposition, or to dismantle them, or at least make them ineffectual. It appears that the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Socialist Workers Party had around a thousand members each at the time the Berlin Wall fell, and each had, I understand 20 to 40 agents, whose job it was to cause quarreling and to demolish the organisations. How extensive is this, and how far will they go in 'gaining credence of the committee', to use a phrase from an email to me from the Director of Development of Esperanto Association of Britain shortly after he had left, admitting that that was all he had been doing for the two years in which he was being paid to develop the association.

Most people's reaction to anything like this is to pretend it isn't happening, and to try to shut others up when they talk about it. They'll tell you you're putting people off joining. I take the opposite view. I'm pleased to see that Cardiff Anarchists Network put out a statement on this:

But he [Marco Jacobs] also deliberately and systematically set out to damage a movement, and we think it is important that knowledge of what he did, and how he did it, is shared and discussed as widely as possible". They also wrote that many members were reeling with anger, resentment and guilt. "Marco worked hard to sow distrust, dislike and suspicion amongst us, and it was allowing him to do [that] that was perhaps our biggest mistake", they wrote.

Yet after all this, no-one, it seems, is capable of uttering the words 'the British secret police', even though it is patently obvious that such a thing exists. Yet the police now have a problem, because if they carry on behaving like SS thugs more cases will be uncovered. It will be in their interests to keep their noses clean until the whole issue has passed over. Perhaps that is why there was so little violence in the Occupy demonstrations in London this month. It is generally believed by many of the regulars who demonstrate for various causes in Central London that the police regularly use such tactics.

The late Brian Haw complained bitterly about such things and former MP George Galloway made allegations about agent provocateurs during some demonstrations. I myself would not have believed that such things could happen until I started taking part in truth and anti-war demonstrations only a few years ago, and started seeing things for myself.

We need more people to speak out. Most people who know things won't, and those who do will get criticised for their 'methods'. Some people, such as those in the South Yorkshire Police in the Tony Farrell case, see themselves as 'footsoldiers of the Government' and are therefore consciously complicit in the cover-ups. Others, like many I know, are simply in denial, or are suffering from Cognitive Dissonance or doublethink. Even those who recognise what is going on remain silent. Yet a few, like Tony Farrell have the courage to speak out.

During my researches into the Esperanto association in 2005, I would have loved to have come across a report somewhere of subversion in some other membership association which was being taken over by an inner clique, so that I could see how that may work, and so that I would have a base for comparison. Surely someone, somewhere would have been carrying out some investigation into their own association. Did no-one in the Labour Party compile membership statistics and link them to what was recorded in the minutes and the accounts? I could find nothing. If anyone knows of any such work, I would love to receive information on it. We need this information in order to build up the bigger picture, which is now looking very ominous indeed.

I can say that at long last we have a response from the Esperanto association to my financial chart, which I eventually managed to publish in EAB Update (pp 12-13) and, in the following issue, the treasurer accepted that my figures were correct. That issue of the periodical has now appeared on the Internet for all to see (p19).

That means that she should now explain why she told the Management Committee that the capital was being eaten up when at the time it was growing. Instead of doing that, she demonstrated how she had also given the same impression to members, by producing a rival chart showing a decreasing capital. She can be sure that few members will read the text, because they have such confidence in the treasurer, that they would refuse to believe that such a contradiction would be possible, rather than looking at the evidence, so they would not notice that that was a forecast for November 1994! Why produce the forecast figures when you have the real figures, unless the intent was to deceive? The other chart gives the impression of annual losses, which obviously could not have been the case if the capital was in fact increasing.

Yet members will not speak out, but will criticise me for doing so. In the same issue (page 17) a former Honorary Secretary expresses that he could not see the point in publishing my article, even though he says I have a point. He also wrote that my chart raises the question of why they sold the shop in London. Fine, but that's his point, not mine. I could have made a case out on that, but I didn't. That letter had actually been written before my article appeared, though it was presented as a reaction to it. Criticism of the President, with which I wholeheartedly agreed, had been cut out by the editor, who also rejected my reply, saying that the matter of the capital was a 'non-issue'.

A second letter in the same issue, from a former President, criticises me for virtually everything under the sun, including my work for the 9/11 truth movement, but avoids the issue which I had raised in my article (pp 17-18). There was nothing provocative about my article, and in no way was it critical of the committee, since that had been an explicit condition imposed by the editor. The problem of waking people up in a membership association is a small-scale example of waking up the masses in the case of hidden tyranny. The solution that I see is two-fold: (1) engage with the small minority who will be prepared to engage with you, and (2) take the issue outside the brainwashed community. Then things can start to happen. The statement by the Cardiff Anarchists Network may help to encourage others to speak out.

I also found an article by comedian Mark Thomas, who had had to come to terms with the fact that a close friend and trusted co-worker had been found to be spying on his activities. That turned out to be industrial espionage, which takes us back to consider the whole lot as different aspects of the corporate state. If that causes such soul-searching, imaging what it's like if there are five, ten or twenty of them whom you've known for as many years.


I found an interesting video called 'Psychologists help 9/11 truth deniers' which describes how people react when their fundamental beliefs are challenged. This is well-worth watching by anyone who understands English. It applies not only to 9/11 but to any situation in which people may react by saying "I refuse to believe ...", rather than looking at the evidence.






I've received a couple of messages from Esperantists, saying that they were interested to hear of the infiltration of the cyclist group or the environmental group, but that I should keep quiet about the Esperanto case. Eventually they will realise that by the same logic some in the cyclist group, the enviromental group, the 9/11 truth movement, and many other groups, may be interested in the Esperanto case for the same reason. The common issue for all these groups, even though they may be working for different causes and may not agree with each other, is the defence of democracy. For undemocratic methods to be brought to light, people need to speak out in public. It's not necessary to be able to prove who has infiltrated an organisation and with what purpose; it's only necessary to demonstrate behaviour. My crime was to produce hard facts, with no allegations or interpretation. It was then for others to interpret those facts, and we have just seen examples of that in the magazine. On the other hand, members should have been more alert to undemocratic methods being used by people of influence. This is essentially the point being made by former accountant for the European Commission Martha Andreasson, who is now an MEP for my area. The accounts had not been audited, and that in itself should be good reason to replace the people in charge. Concealment in itself should be sufficient reason to remove people's representatives from office whether at governmental level or in a tiny membership association.

My idea of advancing this issue at about the same rate as the general truth movement seems to be paying off. I reported in my last newsletter about the Guardian report of a 9/11 conference in the US.

Since then we have seen a blog in the Daily Telegraph, usually one of the most establishment of the national newspapers, with the title 'The 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't as irrational as you might think'.The rest of the article was critical of the truth movement, but at least here we have a grudging acceptance that we may actually have a point. Keep them coming! Encourage them to keep slagging us off, as long as there is a grudging admission that we may be right!

There are also big issues arising in the mainstream media. The Murder of Muammar Gadaffi may have been an uncontrolled revenge killing by soldiers on the ground, or it may have been allowed to happen by those higher up. Gadaffi would have realised that they couldn't send him to the International Criminal Court for trial because of the incriminating evidence he may provide against some of the NATO governments. His murder had actually been attempted by a group in the 1990s by what is now known as Al Qaeda, paid for by MI6, but it was bungled. That was what eventually made David Shayler decide to leave MI5 and blow the whistle.

As regards the Euro crisis, was it not all inevitable from the start? I kept quiet when the Euro was about to be introduced because I regarded myself as an ignoramus on economic affairs, when the experts were telling us all that it would be alright. Are we really to believe that no-one in the higher echelons of the EU spotted the flaw? Many in the financial markets below them would have been fooling themselves rather than accepting the obvious. So was this a project destined to failure? Was the objective to force the EU countries into a United States of Europe similar to the United States of America? Fine if they want to form such a union, but only if such a decision is taken by democratic means. So what happens if we in the UK have a referendum on leaving the EU? It's quite simple, really. If the vote goes against, we stay in, and if it goes in favour, we have another referendum. But if we were really to withdraw, what would be the consequences? Is it not time someone produced a proper analysis? Are those who want power to return to Westminster deluding themselves? Who has the power now, and who would have it if we were to withdraw? It sounds to me like the gigantic financial corporations in both cases. It's just a question of which financial corporations.

So where do we go from here? I think we are on the right track. We need to maintain an awareness of the bigger picture regarding corporate control of our society, the way in which we are manipulated by hidden propaganda, financial dealing, fear-mongering, and infiltration even in tiny membership association which pose no threat to national security. There will be more revelations. When the Occupy movement starts putting up placards relating to 9/11 truth, then the whole issue of who controls our society will come to a head.

But the danger is, as always, some false-flag terror event, which could bring everyone back into line, in supporting the next war, and persuading the population that they really do love Big Brother. At the October meeting of the Keep Talking group in London we had a guest speaker from Oslo, Torstein Viddal, who is the key researcher in the truth movement into the Norwegian attacks of 22/7. He lives only a couple of minutes away from where the Oslo bomb exploded, and despite a building between there and his flat, his window was blown open. He grabbed his camera and rushed out. At the Keep Talking meeting he showed a short video of how the International Criminal Court works, and suggested that we call for an investigation by the ICC with a view to prosecuting for war crimes. That's worth thinking about. His text can be read on the Norwegian 9/11 Truth site

Also worth thinking about is the issue of corporate government, and how to bring all these issues together in the current rebellion, and how to cope with the next terrorist event, which may well be intended to derail the rebellion and give an excuse for going in with truncheons, tasers, jack-boots and worse. Keep thinking. And keep talking.

War is nothing more than a business venture

April 2011

We seem to have got ourselves embroiled in yet another war, leaving us trying to figure out just what happened when it’s too late to do anything about it. For a while, the world faced a dilemma of letting the people of Benghazi be slaughtered or let in NATO under a dark suspicion that their motive may not be humanitarian but oil. Was it really like that?

Analysts are working on it, but there were dire warnings in the UK Parliament against mission creep. It now seems that that is exactly what is happening. Surely, if the mission is to protect the population in an area, the remedy is not to send in the bombers, but to set up a UN protectorate and send in UN peace-keeping troops, under a mandate that allows them to do just that and nothing more.

The President of the Public Banking Institute, which campaigns for banking reform in the US, thinks that the motive may be to do with banking. Writing in Global Research, Ellen Brown reports on

“the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from the rebellion in March to create their own central bank – this before they even had a government”.

It appears that the Central Bank of Libya is state owned, and that it has nearly 144 tons of gold. Retired US General Wesley Clark is reported to have said that after 9/11 there were plans to take out seven countries, including Iraq and Libya.

“What do these countries have in common?” asks Ellen Brown, “In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements ... The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq”.

If wars are really manufactured for financial gain, then it makes sense to try to figure out how the rich and powerful operate, and that means looking fundamentally at the banking system.

I’ve been following the development of a group called Positive Money (http://www.positivemoney.org), which is campaigning in the UK for fundamental reform of the banking system.

At first I thought they wouldn’t stand a chance against the gigantic vested interests of the top bankers, so I went to a public meeting at Oxford University on ‘The Future of Banking’ at which Ben Dyson of Positive Money was one of the speakers, in order to hear what the mainstream economic gurus had to say about his ideas.

I was expecting them to say that they had already studied such proposals before, but they didn’t. It was as if it was all new to them, too. I was interested to hear that the Governer of the Bank of England himself is sympathetic to reform. “Of all the ways of organising banking, the worst is the one we have today”, he is quoted as saying. Positive Money have opened up an office in London, and are, or have been, looking for volunteers to man it. They are engaged in research, education, and promotion of ideas on banking reform.

I went to a meeting in London on 5th April, which they were videoing for the purposes of producing a DVD. Ben Dyson explained the problems of the current banking system, and how it is open to abuse.

One statement that amazed me was that most of the mainstream economists, including many financial journalists, don’t understand how the fractional reserve system works. I suspect in many cases it’s just that they don’t want to.

Watch 'Money as Debt'

In the subsequent discussion, I said that I had first had it explained to me by people I happened to meet in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square on 9/11 truth demonstrations and Iraq war demonstrations. I had been amazed to hear that banks just create money out of thin air whenever a loan is made. They were telling me of the forthcoming economic crisis long before it actually happened. It would be contrived, they said, and that is how it appears to have been.

I recently saw the film ‘Inside Job’ about the financial corruption leading to the economic crisis:

From Academy Award nominated filmmaker, Charles Ferguson (“No End In Sight”), comes INSIDE JOB, the first film to expose the shocking truth behind the economic crisis of 2008. The global financial meltdown, at a cost of over $20 trillion, resulted in millions of people losing their homes and jobs.





Even the credit rating agencies seem to have been corrupted, which is very worrying, considering that the fete of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and any other country with a vulnerable economy is largely determined by such agencies.

Positive Money are now asking people to write to their MPs, and one early MP to speak out is 9/11 truther Michael Meacher, who agrees with two reforms:
():

"One is that the bank payments system is separated from risky lending activity" and the other "is that the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) should influence money supply, not by the indirect and uncertain method of setting interest rates, but directly through the creation of new money when necessary, though only within strict constraints to avoid inflationary and deflationary pressure."

It seems that banking reform, because of the high impact that the economic crisis is having on everyday life, is getting reasonable coverage in the mainstream media where other topics, such as what really happened in 9/11 and 7/7 remain taboo (although Mr Meacher did write the foreward to the revised edition of David Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbour"). It seems, though, that the government will be more concerned in appearing to do something than actually doing something.

Positive Money have produced a video response to the government’s Independent Banking Commission’s interim report, saying that it gives a biased and misleading summary of the proposals that they spent three hourse explaining to them.

Just after I had sent out my last newsletter I heard that Muad’Dib, the author of the ‘7/7 Ripple Effect’ video, had been released from Wandsworth prison on bail. This was a surprise, since the previous day he had been refused the right to attend his own bail hearing. So we invited him to an informal meeting of the London ‘9/11 Keep Talking’ group, which we held one afternoon because of a curfew being imposed. We heard how the prison authorities had been making excuses for not taking Muad’Dib to court, but eventually were forced to do so by the judge who “got serious” with them. It was also a good meeting from the point of view of exchanging information on 7/7, even though Muad’Dib had not been able to keep up with the inquest hearings from his prison cell.

Later, he was interviewed on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio, which is run as part of American Freedom Radio. He explained how he had sent a padded envelope of DVDs to the court administrators. On receiving it, they called in the bomb squad, and then the anti-terrorist branch of the police.

“They’re treating me as though I’m a terrorist”, he said, “It’s absolutely ridiculous”.


His trial is set for 9 May, three days after the verdict of the 7/7 inquest is to be announced. I see that there are legal procedures for submitting information to a court of law under ‘amicus curiae’; you can’t just send the material to the court.

But to get a conviction, the prosecution would have to prove intent to pervert the course of justice, which is not proven merely by showing that the accused has not followed proper procedures. I should have thought that common sense would dictate that the court administrators would merely send a copy of the legal procedures to anyone approaching them. It’s not as if he had approached jurors individually. Muad’Dib told us that others had sent the DVDs to the court and had not been arrested, so clearly he was arrested because he was the author. I got a bit concerned at the meeting, when Muad’Dib said that he was going to challenge the jurisdiction of the court on a religious argument concerning the authenticity of the coronation stone. But then he assured us that if that failed, he would have proper legal representation in the court to defend him on the specific charge. The question of the coronation stone doesn’t mean much to me personally, since I don’t believe in divine rights of the monarchy anyway. I see state religion as being a pretext for power rather than an authority for power. But then, if they justify themselves on religious grounds, I suppose they should expect to be challenged on religious grounds. It seems to me that the court will reject Muad’Dib’s argument on the grounds that it is not in their interests to accept it.

The people who really matter in the power structure are the people who control the wealth of the nation. They are now generally believed to be the power behind the monarchy. They are also widely believed to be the people behind the current economic crisis and lots of other things.

Two days before Muad’Dib’s interview on Truth Jihad Radio, I was interviewed on the contents of my previous newsletter, in which I had reported Hillary Clinton’s statement that they, whoever they were, were losing the information war.

Kevin Barratt did a nice write-up on his website before the interview, quoting the relevant text from my newsletter. I felt quite honored to be interviewed on an American radio channel about Hillary Clinton.

Essentially, if they are losing the information war, then we in the truth movement are winning it. But it’s not quite that simple, because here in the UK the truth movement seems to lurch from crisis to crisis, and the truthers seem to be plagued by various types of trolling by enigmatic people.

During the interview I gave an example of how people can be accepting of authority, and not see the obvious, even when it is presented before their own eyes.

The phenomenon, together with the sense of discomfort they experience, is called ‘cognitive dissonance’, and it’s the same whether we’re talking about the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, or the financial chart of Esperanto Association of Britain, which shows the opposite of what members had been led to believe.

I went to the Annual General Meeting of Esperanto Association of Britain, which was held during the British Esperanto Congress in Eastbourne. I was a presidential candidate, standing on a platform of openness, though few would have known it because my election statement wasn’t published this year. They seem to get everything wrong all the time, then blame it on cock-up theory or play dumb.

Before going to Eastbourne, I sent an email round to the Keep Talking group to ask for their impressions of the description on the congress website. I got just one answer, which stated: “Language buffs should go for it if your web page gets an airing ... I’m not into languages at all though, so my judgement might be marred by a lack of awareness”. Exactly. You wouldn’t think that the Esperanto movement was meant to be a popular movement promoting an easy-to-learn second language for people who aren’t necessarily into languages. They’ve presented it as if it were some sort of deviant Klingon club with a pussy cat on the committee. Their congress theme of ‘Lumturoj, Lumuloj, Lumaĵoj’ wasn’t translated on the English-language page, and if it had been it wouldn’t have thrown much light on the matter. It means: ‘Light houses, luminants, illuminations’. If the topic had had anything to do with what the association existed for I might even have gone to the congress. When I was there for the AGM I told two people that I hadn’t joined the congress because no programme had been published. They both looked non-plussed. One of them was on the organising committee and insisted that you first join, then you get the programme. What’s happened to these people? They would have been amongst the first to insist on common sense until recently.

Now if you look back to how those of us who were organising the ‘Renewal’ congress of 2007 were castigated by the editor of The British Esperantist, you have to wonder what’s going on.

We had at that stage published quite a full programme, focusing on renewal of the Esperanto movement in Britain, yet the Esperanto association itself was putting out that we only had a ‘vague programme’ and that there was little on renewal in it, saying that at the end of January the organisation of the May congress seemed ‘still chaotic’. It was hypocritical negative propaganda undermining the concept of ‘renewal’, and was put out with the backing of the president. If you want a case study to see how brainwashing works, you couldn’t do better than to study the Esperanto movement in Britain. At the AGM the president did, to his credit, allow me to read out my 200 word election statement, but I had prepared a five-minute address as presidential candidate, which I was not allowed to present, because it was “not on the agenda”. No discussion on the candidates was allowed. That idea was introduced in 2002 when there were vigorous protests from members, but the then Director of Development, who chaired the meeting during the voting, insisted that he had strict instructions from the Management Committee. So this year I handed out copies of my election address to members as they were voting. It pointed out that two of the people they were just about to elect to the committee had been openly castigating the objectives of the Esperanto movement. One of them had written obsene stuff about not giving “two f**ks about harassing MPs into accepting Esperanto”, and the other had sabotaged proper discussion about furthering Esperanto in the Yahoo email group esper-brit. I had been trying to warn of negative things going on covertly in the Management Committee, but now they seem to be openly admitting it. This reminds me of the report by the think tank DEMOS, ‘The Power of Unreason’ which I reported on in my newsletters last year. They were essentially saying that the public are now so brainwashed that it is no longer necessary to infiltrate groups covertly when you can do it overtly. That’s exactly what seems to be happening. I had eventually managed to persuade the editor of the association’s newsletter to publish my financial chart, which had brought about the personal attacks and condemnations for ‘behaviour’ by the president, Professor John Wells, after I had delivered it to him in December 2005. It showed that, contrary to popular belief, the capital of the association had not been ‘eaten up’ before the sale of their property in 1999, but had been rising dramatically. I had expected to be ignored again, but this time I was delighted to receive a full page of invective, in which he stated that he would consider publishing an article including the chart if it wasn’t critical of the committee.

So I sent him a purely historical article, and he published it. After the AGM I wrote the whole thing up in the Esperanto web newspaper La Libera Folio.


The new treasurer has added an agressive comment, saying that she was a professional accountant, and “as a trustee of the association, I of course have already studied and, to use Ian’s preferred expression, ‘researched’ the accounts of EAB”, adding that her professional opinion is that everything is in order and that there has been no fraud. I suppose a new treasurer would by the end of her first week, as a matter of course, have checked all the accounts of the association back to about the time she was in nappies. Yet no-one was suggesting that the accounts weren’t in order; I had merely compared them with what members were being led to believe at the time.

Last November, the association’s secretary, Dr David Kelso, disappeared without trace in the hills of Calabria. The President, in his election statement, stated that David Kelso should now be presumed dead.

Yet the statistics from the Missing Persons Bureau give a 90% probability of a missing adult being alive, and a 64% probability of having preplanned his own disappearance, perhaps in order to take on a new identity. So why should the President want members to believe he is dead?

I wrote this up in La Libera Folio, and added in previously published material on the problems of the association. This caused something of a storm. A retired lawyer told me the other day that he thought there was something weird about the Kelso case. Normally, in his experience, you would expect such a disappearence to be widely reported, but in this case it was as if people were uninterested.

Also, he said, you would expect the police to be contacting virtually everyone who knew him. “Would that include me?”, I asked. “Definately”, he replied, “That’s their job”. I suppose from the police’s point of view it could be potentially an investigation of murder, abduction or concealment. Any decent investigation would quickly have revealed that David Kelso had been a top civil servant who took early retirement and then became heavily involved in a voluntary organisation, where he became involved in some sort of major dispute for five years before his disappearance. Of course they would have been contacting people.

This makes me think of the failure of Thames Valley Police to open a murder investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly, on which I have reported in previous newsletters.

I am particularly concerned because Thames Valley Police is the police force for my area. Several years ago I reported to my local police station the apparent theft of a thousand pounds from a charity based in Oxford; I had been following the story as editor of the now defunct news website ‘Esperanto Britain’. The administrator of the charity was reluctant to contact the police herself, but agreed to my doing it. I was amazed that as soon as I mentioned Esperanto they played dumb. So I tried the Oxford police station and they did the same. I had at that stage no thoughts of the possibility that there could be some sort of blacklist of taboo topics. It’s all fascinating stuff when you follow through how it works. And, of course, it can happen in any social movement that is promoting something that the Establishment doesn’t want to happen. It tells us how propaganda works at the microlevel, which is really important to understand if we want to preserve democracy at all levels. There must be something resiliant about Esperanto. “There must be something irresistable about it” said the Polish ambassador to the UK at the opening of Esperanto House in Barlaston in 2002. Indeed, it took over a century to do to the Esperanto movement what it took less than a decade to do to the 9/11 truth movement. The problems of the Esperanto movement and the 9/11 Truth Movement are essentially the same: most people want to believe what they are told by authority, however ridiculous it may be. A hundred years ago, when the Esperantists were complaining of ‘fraud and treachery’, there was no talk of ‘paranoia’ or ‘conspiracy theories’. I first became aware of ‘paranoia’ following the resignation of the president of the Universal Esperanto Association, Professor Ivo Lapenna, in 1974, when John Wells – yes the same John Wells – told me: “Lapenna is paranoid”. I was puzzled about that, but put it out of my mind until Autumn 2004, when I had asked John Wells for a chat, and he went into histrionics saying “You are childish and like Lapenna”. Then in December 2005, on seeing my financial chart, he said: “Ian is paranoid”. Now we all know what ‘paranoid’ means: it says more about the speaker than the accused. It seems that a whole set of psychological vocabulary has been brought into force since the end of the Second World War. Breaking that now seems to me to be of the highest priority in winning the information war. They seem to be succeeding in the US. Can we do that here in the UK?