Keep Talking / Berkshire 9/11 Truth Movement Analytical Newsletter. This issue covers three months of the British General Election campaign, and it’s about a single issue: a Fifth Column that is stifling debate over crucial issues of foreign policy. We have, effectively, a one-party state in Britain today – and probably across the NATO countries.
- Who is pulling the strings of government?
- Charlie Hebdo and the banning of ‘conspiracy theories’
- God’s chosen peoples
- 9/11: Don’t mention the Kosher Nostra, vicar told
- The Israel Lobby – and what they learned from the Esperanto Lobby
- Musicians intimidated
- Southampton University cancels conference following smear campaign
- Architects cancel 9/11 meeting: was it intimidation?
- RIBA calls for informed debate – so let’s have it
- 9/11: Something amazing is happening in The Netherlands
- Resolution calls upon the AIA to support a new WTC 7 investigation
- The Lords Spiritual: vote responsibly but don’t question our wars
- MI5, MI6, now MI7
- Thought crime legislation
- The backlash – it’s coming
- The Bitch of Buchenwald
“The pheasant shooting season has ended in England, and the political sniping has begun; it will last until 7 May when there’s a General Election. Then the pheasants and the political beasts will again turn in on themselves, establishing a pecking order, and strengthening their numbers, ready for the next shooting season”. That’s how I began this newsletter in February. But then things developed during the period of the election campaign, until I finished up with a full-blown report on how a Neo-Conservative Fifth Column is keeping foreign policy off the agenda in British politics, and probably throughout NATO. It is of course foreign policy that determines most of the country’s home policies, such as anti-terrorist laws, mass immigration from countries we bomb, and austerity caused by the international banking fraud of 2008.
The whole of this issue has a central theme: the question of who rules Britain, and, by implication, all the NATO countries. It covers the question of how free discussion is being suppressed in our supposed democracy. Musicians, architects, linguists, historians – pretty well any group can be affected. As I developed the theme, more and more damning material was uncovered, and it’s all happening under our noses.
- Who is pulling the strings of government?
The big election question isn’t who to vote for, but whether to vote. I heard the announcer on BBC Radio 4’s programme Any Answers refer to those who are not ‘passionate enough to vote’. She must know that those who are the most passionate are the most likely to intentionally abstain. As former MP and Times journalist Mathew Paris said on Newsnight to an election candidate, “If you think you can make a difference on the back benches, you’re wrong”.
A new political grouping is putting up candidates under the label ‘None of the Above’, hoping to attract the disaffected voters, but I’ve just discovered that the Electoral Commission have revoked their permission for the NOTA party, on the grounds that ‘None of the Above’ is a banned phrase (http://notavote.co.uk/). Perhaps ‘Conservative’ and ‘Labour’ should be banned phrases, too. I wonder whether ‘truth’ is. Not to be deterred, NOTA are suggesting ways of standing as independents, whilst still making their intentions clear. They say that full support will be given, and that all candidates will have individual crowd funding accounts set up to help with all costs. In my constituancy my colleague Barrie Singleton is standing under the label ‘Stop Party Games’ (http://spoilpartygames.co.uk/). But will people vote for them? Most people who vote Conservative do so to keep Labour out, and most of those who vote Labour do so to keep the Conservatives out, and most of those who used to vote Liberal Democrat did so to keep both out. So why not recognise that and ask people to vote against candidates rather than for them, so that the least unpopular candidate wins. That would require multiple votes, and so more administration, but it would get the people out in droves.
But who is pulling the strings in government, if members of parliament aren’t? I think most people now accept that it’s the bankers. So why aren’t we electing the bankers? Perhaps all British subjects should be given a equal vote in the shareholders’ meetings – perhaps they should be co-operatives – so that the banks come under democratic control. I think the answer to that one would be the charge that it’s antisemitic.
- Charlie Hebdo and the banning of ‘conspiracy theories’
The hysteria about antisemitism following the Charlie Hebdo incident, which I covered in my January newsletter, continued unabated, fueled by Benjamin Netanyahu, in trying to persuade European Jews that they would be safer in war-torn Israel, with their compulsory military service and their ravaging of Gaza. A German reader of my January newsletter was worried about reported allegations that Israelis had been behind the Charlie Hebdo attack. In my reply, I acknowledged that the issue would be especially sensitive in Germany. He wrote back, saying that he understood my comments on Germans having a special relationship with the Israelis. He had just been to a church service, in which the Pastor spoke on Israel and the crimes committed by the Germans. After the service, my friend got into conversation with another couple from the congregation, and mentioned that the Pastor had unfortunately forgotten to mention the plight of the Palestinians. Their reply was “Yes, they too are brothers of the Isrealis, but Israel is the chosen people”.
A book has now been published on the Charlie Hebdo Affair. It’s called ‘We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo: Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11’, and in it, twenty leading public intellectuals refuse the invitation to identify with ‘Je Suis Charlie’. “Jews, Muslims, Christians, Protestants, Catholics, atheists, people of the left and right, progressives and traditionalists, people from many different countries and ethnicities – all have united to say ‘we are NOT Charlie Hebdo’. Most suspect the whole affair was a false flag operation or psy-op. (Evidence for that interpretation is presented in the book.) Others merely dissent from the official, mythic false consensus”, says the website (http://wearenotcharliehebdo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/we-are-not-charlie-hebdo-free-thinkers.html). The editor, Kevin Barrett, has just completed a lecture tour promoting the book (http://truthjihad.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/we-are-not-charlie-hebdo-book-tour.html). In a circular he reported that he’s selling out so fast it’s driving him crazy.
Kevin reports that the French President, Francoise Hollande, has attacked him, and wants to ban his ‘conspiracy theories’ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/20/banned-in-france/). Speaking at a Holocaust memorial event, President Hollande stated that ‘conspiracy theories’ had led to the Holocaust, and he wanted to ban them (http://www.voltairenet.org/article187030.html). David Cameron has already taken the lead in saying that he wants 9/11 and 7/7 ‘conspiracy theory’ groups, like ours, banned, and I previously reported our little protest on that, when I accompanied Nick Kollerstrom to Scotland Yard, where Nick told them he wanted to hand himself in as a ‘non-violent extremist’ as defined by David Cameron. Already websites in France are being taken down with no judicial process. At the request of President François Hollande, the French Socialist Party has published a note on the international “conspiracy theorist” movement. His goal: to prepare new legislation prohibiting it to express itself. (http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/19/france-moves-to-make-conspiracy-theories-illegal-by-government-decree/). The report, published on 24 February by the French Socialists’ thinktank, Fondation Jean-Jaurès, is headed ‘Conspirationnisme: Un Étate des Lieux’ (http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/CONSPIRATIONNISME-10.pdf) and mentions Kevin Barrett as one of the four leading US ‘conspiracy theorists’. I was disappointed not to find my name, or Nick’s, in the report, but I did find David Shayler’s in a ‘who’s who’ (as they called it in French) of European conspiracy theorists. Kevin responded with an open letter to President Hollande, thanking him for giving the book such publicity (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/26/dearfrancois/). In the video he discusses this with Jim Fetzer – well worth listening to. They also talk about a developing split between the US and Benjamin Netanyahoo. I flagged that up in the early stages in my newsletters last year. The book may be ordered from CreateSpace (https://www.createspace.com/5404955) or Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0996143009)
- God’s chosen peoples
This idea that the Jews were the chosen people is one that I heard from my teacher when I was eight. I must have queried that in my own mind to have remembered it, just as I remembered the same teacher explaining to us that the people in Gaza wanted to take land from Israel. “That’s not right, is it?”, he said. I think he believed in what he was saying. I was amazed a few years later to realise that Israel hadn’t even existed six years before that. Yet this idea of a chosen people, a Herrenvolk, was also the philosophy of the German Nazis just before I was born. It was also the philosophy of the English imperialist Cecil Rhodes, half a century earlier, who was pushing the ‘English Speaking Idea’ on the basis that the ‘English Speaking Race’ was chosen by God to dominate the world. All that changes is the name of the people, identified mainly by language. Cecil Rhodes even set up a secret society under the banking imperialist Lord Rothschild to promote the ‘English Speaking Idea’, shortly before Lord Rothschild backed the resurrection of Hebrew as the language of God’s other chosen people. So Yiddish gave way to Hebrew, and Esperanto gave way to English, and Ludovik Zamenhof wrote the first grammars of both. It seems clear that the same banking fraternity is using the same argument in different circumstances, but merely changing God’s selection of the chosen people.
Criticism of Israel or of Zionists supporting Israel is verboten. Yet criticism of other Jews is OK, even by the Establishment, and many Jews are indeed critical of the Israeli government, and of the Anglo-American Establishment that supports the expansionist policies. If criticising Jews is antisemitic, then amongst the most antisemitic groups in the UK must be Tony Blair’s New Labour group, whose thugs hauled out Walter Wolfgang from a Labour Party conference for calling out “Nonsense” when the Foreign Secretary stated that they were bringing democracy to Iraq (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWsGZw4CVOY). He had been a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. I myself persistently refer back to the strong insinuations that I was a ‘Holocaust Denier’ by some people purporting to be 9/11 truthers, when I hadn’t even been involved in that issue. That, too, was antisemitic. OK, I’m not Jewish, but would they have known that? If they had, then they would also have known that my colleague, Rik Dalton, who had also been marginalised by the Esperanto association, and with whom I was working quite intensively, was Jewish. So either way, that was an antisemitic attack. In any case, one of them demonstrated that he himself was a Holocaust Denier by circulating that “Ian Fantom is showing his ignorance” in not knowing that there was no research document on the Holocaust following the Second World War. If he is denying the evidence, then he is denying knowledge of the event. This labelling is pernicious. It is used by the Establishment in order to denigrate those who question their authority, just as terms such as ‘paranoid’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ are used against those who become a little too inquisitive.
- 9/11: Don’t mention the Kosher Nostra, vicar told
On 9 February a vicar of the Church of England was banned by his archbishop from “writing or speaking on any theme that relates directly or indirectly to the Middle East or its historical backdrop” (http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/rev-stephen-sizer-banned-speaking-8606973). The Reverend Stephen Sizer had posted a comment on Facebook about an article which had just appeared in Wikispooks headed ‘9/11 Israel did it’, asking, “Is this anti-semitic? If so no doubt I’ll be asked to remove it. It raises so many questions.”. He was also placed under a six-month social media ban, but will hold onto his position at Christ Church in Virginia Water.
The ruling was delivered in a press conference by the new Bishop of Guildford, the Right Rev Andrew Watson, sitting in front of a ‘Common Purpose’ poster, as can be seen in the video in the above report. He refered to the Wikispooks article as “anti-Semitic”, and stated that the Council of Christians and Jews had highlighted to him that it was possible to criticise Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic and that Christians and others should feel free to do so. “However, such legitimate criticism must not be used as a cloak for anti-Semitism”, they said. OK, but he’s supposed to be representing the Christian viewpoint, yet the only complaints that I could see were coming from bodies purporting to represent Jews. Even in the Christian Today report no reference is made to complaints from Christians (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/church.of.england.to.investigate.stephen.sizer.over.9.11.israel.post/47066.htm). They report on statements made by a representative of The Board of Deputies of British Jews, and that they were planning new action against Stephen Sizer. Their vice-president, Jonathan Arkush, was quoted as saying: “I am appalled that Rev Sizer participated in a conference of antisemites in Tehran, sponsored by the Iranian government, which ranks among the most vicious persecutors of Christians and others, and is sworn to the destruction of the State of Israel. … Sizer’s attendance and active role at such a hate-filled event is irreconcilable with his position as a minister in the Church of England”. What utter tosh. It has no bearing on whether Israel could have been implicated in 9/11. The question of whether Israel/Palestine should be governed by a specifically Jewish government, or a representative government or all the people of the region, is in any case one that is often misrepresented, sometimes by mistranslation, when it is posed by Iran.
BBC religious affairs correspondent Caroline Wyatt said, accusingly, that Dr Sizer had a history of disputes with Jewish community leaders over blog postings on Israel and Zionism (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31052648). “In 2013, Dr Sizer and the Board of Deputies of British Jews reached a mediated agreement aimed at ending a long-running dispute over postings on his blog about Jews”, they wrote.
The Wikispooks article does indeed raise many questions (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it). It begins by asking “Cui bono?”, then traces the people network linked to what is known about the attacks, the preparations and the cover-ups. Overwhelmingly they are Jewish, and many are known Zionists or have Israeli citizenship, as was the case with the cabinet of President George W Bush, which was responsible for the subsequent propaganda. The Wikispooks article makes the point that many Jews died in 9/11 but only five Israeli citizens did, so they are not blaming “the Jews”, and their article is not anti-Jewish. If the network they were revealing had been Chinese, with many having Hong Kong citizenship, with connections to the Wah Ching, then no-one would be suggesting that article was racist or ‘sinophobic’. I have no doubt that the mass media would be going into mass hysteria about the Chinese menace, with NATO fueling the paranoia and the churches going along with whatever the orthodoxy was, just as ‘The Vicar of Bray’ did in the traditional English song. Or if the network had been Italian with many of them members of the Cosa Nostra, there would be no cries of racism or ‘antiromanism’ or ‘romanophobia’. But if they turn out to be Jewish, with many of them apparently members of the Kosher Nostra, then suddenly just linking to such an article becomes antisemitic. I wonder whether a Church of England vicar is allowed talk about Barnabas, or to link to the Wikipedia article on Jewish Mafias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime). And would it be antisemitic to mention The Jewish Defence League as a terrorist organisation, I wonder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Jewish). There’s an obvious link between the Zionist terrorist organisation Irgun, which blew up the King David Hotel in 1946, and the Likud Party in Israel, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, who was in close contact with some of the Neoconservatives mentioned in the Wikispooks article. So is raising these issues antisemitic? If so, then a large part of the Jewish population of New York must, too, have been antisemitic, because they hated the Jewish Mafia. According to Wikipedia, “Jewish organized crime fueled anti-Semitism and deeply concerned the Jewish community. Jewish organized crime was used by anti-semites and anti-immigration supporters as arguments to bolster their agenda. … These tough characters were still gangsters who extorted, exploited and murdered other members of the Jewish-American community for profit. They forced Jewish women into prostitution, and were generally considered a scourge within their own community. The Yiddish press and literature of the 1920s and 1930s was resolute in its condemnation of Jewish mobsters.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime). So, am I antisemitic in raising these issues? Was the Reverend Stephen Sizer antisemitic in raising the issues in the Wikispooks article? Or is the Church of England guilty of racism and Antisemitism Abuse?
The British government regarded Irgun as a terrorist organisation, and even hung some of its members. Were they antisemitic? According to Wikipedia, “The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts. In particular the Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by Britain, the 1946 Zionist Congress and the Jewish Agency. Irgun’s tactics appealed to a certain segment of the Jewish community that believed that any action taken in the cause of the creation of a Jewish state was justified, including terrorism. The Irgun was a political predecessor to Israel’s right-wing Herut (or ‘Freedom’) party, which led to today’s Likud party. Likud has led or been part of most Israeli governments since 1977.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun).
In another page, Wikipedia states: “Menachem Begin was called a terrorist and a fascist by Albert Einstein and 27 other prominent Jewish intellectuals in a letter to the New York Times which was published on December 4, 1948. Specifically condemned was the participation of the Irgun in the Deir Yassin massacre: ‘terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants – 240 men, women and children – and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem.’ The letter warns American Jews against supporting Begin’s request for funding of his political party Herut, and ends with the warning: ‘The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a ‘Leader State’ is the goal.’ ” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence).
So at what stage did it become antisemitic to mention Jews in connection with terrorism? Church of England, could you give us some answers, please?
On 31 January I wrote to the Policy Adviser on Foreign Policy Issues for the Church of England, Mr Charles Reed (https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/international-affairs.aspx), saying: “I am interested in your views on 9/11 and on the policy of the Church of England on 9/11. In particular, I am interested whether the Church of England has allocated blame for the terrorist attacks, and whether the Church of England would be opposed to further investigation of the issue, taking into consideration all evidence which is known so far.”. I didn’t get a reply. Peter Drew, as the UK representative of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, wrote in some depth to the Bishop of Guildford (http://www.globalresearch.ca/backlash-by-church-of-england-vicar-banned-from-social-media-for-endorsing-911-truth/5431964), but only got a reply saying that the Bishop had received a lot of correspondence both for and against his decision, and that he couldn’t reply individually. It’s good if he really has been swamped with complaints on this, but at least you’d expect some sort of statement rebutting those complaints. Other church leaders must be challenged on this, and if they don’t respond, we must reach the ordinary congregation members. This issue is absolutely fundamental not only to what the church stands for, but to its existance as the Established Church England, which is supposed to represent not only Christians, but all of Her Majesty’s subjects in the country.
It’s strange that Stephen Sizer was repremanded just for linking to the Wikispooks page, when in South Africa the Reverend Desmond Tutu can call for a selective boycott of Israel because of its massacre of the Palestinians in Gaza (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.610687). He wrote last year: “Over the past few weeks, more than 1.6 million people across the world have signed onto this movement by joining an Avaaz campaign calling on corporations profiting from the Israeli occupation and/or implicated in the abuse and repression of Palestinians to pull out. The campaign specifically targets Dutch pension fund ABP; Barclays Bank; security systems supplier G4S; French transport company Veolia; computer company Hewlett-Packard; and bulldozer supplier Caterpillar. Last month, 17 EU governments urged their citizens to avoid doing business in or investing in illegal Israeli settlements. … Earlier in the week, I called for the suspension of Israel from the International Union of Architects, which was meeting in South Africa”. Why are the standards different in the Anglican Church in South Africa and in England? Why does antisemitism depend on who you are?
If Stephen Sizer is guilty of antisemitism, he must also be guilty of being antichristian, because his main thesis is against Christian Zionism rather than Jewish Zionism. Indeed, this was the topic of his PhD thesis in 1996, which he adapted and published in 2004 as ‘Christian Zionism – Road Map to Armageddon?’ (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844740501). According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sizer), he claims that Christian Zionism is infused with the neoconservative political ideology and has led millions of Christians astray and helped to tip the world on its side heavy with military artillery. He was appointed Vicar of Christchurch in Virginia Water in 1997, so those who appointed him would have been aware of his PhD thesis on Christian Zionism at the time. Indeed, the then Bishop of Guildford was working with him in a follow-up to his Master’s dissertation on the negative effects that Christian pilgrimages were having on the people of Palestine (http://stephensizer.com/articles/dphilexplication.htm). So what has changed? Could it be the rising influence of Christian Zionism in the Church of England? Or could it be that they now have a new Bishop of Guildford, in the person of The Rt Rev Andrew Watson? Or could it be both?
By taking this action against Stephen Sizer, the new Bishop of Guildford has ensured that the introductory text of the Wikileaks article has reached millions of people whom it wouldn’t otherwise have reached; few would disagree with the idea that in investigating 9/11 we should ask “Cui bono?”. By silencing him, the Bishop has ensured that people like me will listen to his lecture in Seattle, ‘Christian Zionism – Road Map to Armageddon’, presented three years ago to the Bishop’s Committee on Justice and Peace in Israel/Palestine (https://vimeo.com/29738567). This is an eye-opening account of the way that Zionism was initiated by the Christians, and how the current state of affairs has come about. And now Stephen Sizer himself has been awarded an entry in Wikispooks (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Stephen_Sizer). I wonder if he’s allowed to tell anyone.
When the verdict on Stephen Sizer was announced, Jonathan Adams wrote in our Keep Talking email group: “Just so we’re clear. A CofE Vicar whose stock in trade is the Bible and its stories, most of which centre on the Holy Land and the people who lived there, has been banned from talking about..er..the Holy Land and the people who live there, at the behest it seems of the people who think they own the holy land and the people who live there. You couldn’t make this shit up”. Three hours later, BBC Newsnight published a letter from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, on “How Christianity’s Eastern Roots have been forgotten”, saying, “the history of the last 15 years or so has reinforced for many the myth that Christianity is somehow alien to the region and allied with Western interests” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-31173047). Should that surprise us?
- The Israel Lobby – and what they learned from the Esperanto Lobby
Stephen Sizer’s lecture gives some insight into the development of the Israeli Lobby in the UK, but the full extent of this remains hidden, unless you’ve seen Peter Oborne’s documentary, published on Channel 4’s Despatches, on 13 November, 2009. This documentary, ‘ The pro-Israel lobby in Britain’, sets out to answer the question: “Is there a Pro-Israel lobby in Britain, what does it do and what influence does it wield?” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E70BwA7xgU).
The full text, written by Peter Oborne and his film producer James Jones, is reproduced on the Open Democracy website, with an introduction by Peter Oborne (https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne-james-jones/pro-israel-lobby-in-britain-full-text). Peter Oborne describes a very grand lunch thrown by the Conservative Friends of Israel, in which David Cameron, as Conservative Party leader, made a speech without any mention of the big event of the year, the invasion of Gaza, with the massive destruction it caused and the 1,370 deaths that had resulted. When he pointed that out to some Tory MPs they looked at him as if he was distressingly naive, drawing his attention to the very large number of Tory donors in the audience. He then reported on the event in his weekly Daily Mail political column and immediately came under pressure from very nice people in the Conservative Friends of Israel.
In contrast to the US, the pro-Israel lobby in the UK is an almost completely unexplored topic, the documentary explains. In 2002 The New Statesman ran a cover story “A Kosher Conspiracy?”. It was a very mild piece, but a group of activists calling themselves Action Against Anti-Semitism marched into the magazine’s offices demanding it print an apology. “Since this time no national publication has attempted to investigate the pro-Israel lobby head-on”, the documentary stated.
“Making criticisms of Israel can give rise to accusations of antisemitism … media critics of Israeli foreign policy … can open themselves up to coordinated campaigns and denunciation”, they stated, adding that the presence of an Israel lobby as a factor in British public life is systematically ignored in British reporting. This sounds to me very much like George Orwell’s essay ‘The Freedom of the Press’, intended as an Introduction to ‘Animal Farm’, but which was censured out (http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go). In it, he stated: “It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”. At the time the taboo topic was criticism of The Soviet Union. Now it’s Israel.
One MP told the documentary team that the Israel lobby was “the most powerful lobby by far in parliament”, and another, Michael Mates, a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and former Northern Ireland minister, told them “There’s nothing to touch them.”. One has to wonder who our security services and our military services are working for.
“The accusation of antisemitism even touches the least likely of people”, says the documentary, “Antony Lerman, a man steeped in Jewish culture and history, who has worked for much of his career combating antisemitism, was labelled ‘a nasty anti-Semite’ … . He told us: ‘I think there are people who are deliberately manipulating the use of the term antisemitism because they do see that it’s useful in defending Israel.'”. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying since I was accused of Holocaust Denial in the Esperanto movement, and it’s why I no longer spell ‘antisemitism’ with a hyphen.
The documentary describes pressures put on politicians, and then takes this back to Conservative support for the Zionist cause at the beginning of the twentieth century, when Chaim Weizmann in 1905 recruited Balfour and Churchill to the cause. This now ties in with Stephen Spicer’s talk on early Christian Zionism. It also ties in with my own research on the then mega-famous journalist W T Stead, about whom I have talked in the Keep Talking group and various other small groups in the UK, France and Germany. Stead was for several years caught up with the imperialist Cecil Rhodes, in a secret society, whose aim he believed was to bring democracy and civilisation to the world by taking control of the world’s money supply. This would have been fatuous talk if Rhodes hadn’t had the backing of his banker, Lord Rothschild. Stead eventually objected to Rhodes’s method of extending the Empire, by setting up a false flag attack on the Boers. He was marginalised, and in 1912 died in The Titanic. I was marginalised in 2003, when I started talking about Stead in connection with the centenary of the national Esperanto association, for which Stead had been the main recruiter. I was amazed where my subsequent research eventually took me. Whilst Rhodes was pushing the “English-Speaking Idea” and the superiority of the “English-Speaking race”, Lord Rothschild was pushing the idea of Zionism and the reintroduction of the Hebrew language for Israel. So it seems that the two forms of Zionism – Christian Zionist and Jewish Zionism – had attached to them two languages to define them: English and Hebrew, both being promoted by the banker-in-chief, Lord Rothschild. Many have claimed that Lord Rothschild was Jewish. I have made no such claim. To do so would be antisemitic.
I was interested to learn that the Conservative Friends of Israel was founded in 1974. That was the year in which we made a breakthrough with the Esperanto Parliamentary Group, enabling me to send out a tongue-in-cheek press release claiming victory in the General Election. Our group was the largest grouping of any sort in Parliament. I had a budget of just £100 per year when I set up the Press and Public Relations Committee for The British Esperanto Association (Inc) in 1972, and the Esperanto Parliamentary Group was just one of our activities, which we initiated at that time. We had gone from zero to a majority in two years, and the new Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was an Esperantist. That surely could not have escaped the notice of the emerging Israel Lobby. Looking back on that, it would be surprising if they weren’t watching us very carefully, and learning how to set up an effective lobby. It’s possible, of course, that they could have been using us to test the ground. Whoever then tried to kill us off had some trouble. I was puzzled at the sudden resignation of their Chairman, Lord Davis of Leek – Harold Davis, who previously had been Harold Wilson’s peace envoy in Vietnam – as soon as he sensed dirty tricks. I realised we were under surveillance. Now that all makes sense. Esperanto is neither Hebrew nor English, and so had to be killed off. 1974 was also the year in which the President of the Universal Esperanto Association, Professor Ivo Lapenna, resigned, following a prolonged villification campaign, rather similar to that being waged now against Vladimir Putin. Harold Wilson himself resigned in 1976, following a dirty tricks campaign by the British internal security service, MI5. He had, as Prime Minister, tried to interfere with Britain’s foreign policy, by keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War and by not supporting the hegemony of English. Nowadays, if not then, no-one interferes with British foreign policy other than the Israel Lobby.
- Musicians intimidated
Another victim of the intimidating tactics of the Israel Lobby is Israeli-born jazz musician Gilad Atzmon, who now lives in London and describes himself as a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian. On 5 March he was due to perform with Orient House Ensemble at the Royal Northern College of Music, to launch their new CD, ‘The Whistleblower’. Shortly beforehand the concert was cancelled, with a statement by the RNCM: “Over the past few days the RNCM has received a significant amount of negative correspondence relating to the booking of Gilad Atzmon and the Orient House Ensemble on Thursday 5 March. After careful consideration, and to ensure the safety of all involved, the RNCM decided to withdraw the concert. This decision was taken and actioned prior to the launch of an associated petition and in no way reflects any political view of the college.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31739535). I don’t know what the “significant amount of negative correspondence” consisted of, but the key complaint was from the North West Friends of Israel, who had sent an open letter, stating, “His criticisms of Zionism, Jewish identity and Judaism generally, as well as his controversial views on Holocaust denial and Jewish history have led to allegations of anti-Semitism and racism.” (http://nwfoi.org.uk/gilad-atzmon-rcm/). That was the crux of the letter, the rest being non-specific. Here the old technique is in evidence of criticising someone for being criticised by others. I’ve had exactly the same trick played on me. When asked for a view on a rather good website I had set up for the Esperanto association, their Vice-President said he would reserve his opinion, and then when everyone else had expressed a view, criticised it for having been criticised, and for no other reason.
They continued with the same trick with: “We attach here a number of links if you require independent corroboration of his track record. For your information, you might also be interested to know that only as recently as January 2015, the Bonington Theatre in Arnold near Nottingham cancelled a concert of his following letters of complaint received from local residents”. The four links given either led nowhere or were irrelevant, like the main page of the English Wikipedia. It was bluff. But what was the safety issue the RNCM was referring to? Gilad Atzmon was interviewed by Afshin Rattansi on RT’s Going Underground (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/3/7/rts-going-underground-gilad-atzmon-gaza-mon-amour-zionist-intimidation). He said he had been told by the RNCM that they had been blitzed by complaints. He said he had no problem with security; he’d been doing gigs every night for thirty years. If the RNCM with 800 students had to give way to such intimidation, that wasn’t about Gilad Atzmon; it was about national security. In his blog, he invited people to complain by phone or email to the RNCM (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/3/3/manchester-music-school-surrenders-to-zionist-lobby-pressure). Later, he set up an online petition to the RNCM, asking them to reverse the cancellation of the concert (https://www.change.org/p/royal-northern-college-of-music-reverse-the-concert-cancellation-of-the-gilad-atzmon-the-orient-house-ensemble).
- Southampton University cancels conference following smear campaign
The University of Southampton has cancelled an international conference on ‘International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism’ (http://www.southampton.ac.uk/israelpalestinelaw/), which had been scheduled for 17-19 April, owing to pressure from the Israel lobby (http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/univ-southampton-cancels-conference-after-government-israel-lobby-pressure). “Hundreds of academics from around the world had signed an open letter urging the university not to cave in to pressure”, the article says, and, “Hundreds of people have already signed on to a new petition calling on the university to rescind a decision that ‘shows weakness in the face of external pressure and bullying” and undermines “the precious tradition of free speech itself.”
According to Jewish News, on 12 March, a petition from the Zionist Federation for the event to be scrapped had attracted more than 2,500 supporters, and two Members of Parliament had complained (http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/mps-call-to-scrap-southampton-conference-on-legitimacy-israel/). They are the local MP for Southampton North, Caroline Nokes, and ex-treasury minister Mark Hoban, who is pictured with a Policy Exchange backdrop. Policy Exchange is the thinktank of David Cameron’s Progressive Conservatives, which I wrote about in my January newsletter, and which falsified links between multiculturalism and terrorism, as well as falsifying book receipts in order to accuse Mosques of harbouring ‘terrorist literature’ in their libraries.
Then the following day Jewish News reported that Cabinet member and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles had warned Southampton University against “allowing a one-sided diatribe” (http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/pickles-to-southampton-uni-avoid-one-sided-diatribe/). Eric Pickles is the minister who wrote to 1100 Imams and Muslim community leaders in the UK, insinuating that they should be doing more to stop terrorism, as I reported, too, in my January newsletter. I also mentioned reports that Eric Pickles was a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, as are 80% of Conservative MPs. The idea that politicians should be warning academics against “allowing a one-sided diatribe” is laughable.
- Architects cancel 9/11 meeting: was it intimidation?
An even more shocking case came to light recently, when a meeting had to be cancelled at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). The meeting was to have been addressed by US Architect Richard Gage. The room had been hired by retired British architect James Thring. A group of us were planning a lecture tour across Southern England for Richard, who represents Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www1.ae911truth.org/), and had already lectured extensively in many countries about the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Centre in New York (http://rethink911.org/). His schedule was: Totnes (April 21), Bloomsbury, London (April 24), Newbury (April 25), Frome (April 26), London NW10 (April 29 & 30) with the play ‘Seven Seconds’, and Canterbury (May 1). Before visiting the UK Richard presented in Reykjavik (11 April), Copenhagen (13 April), Berlin (14 April), Delft/Amsterdam (16 April), and after the UK he is visiting Paris (2-4 May), Grenoble (5 May), Lausanne (6 May), Rome (7-10 May), Vienna (11 May) and Budapest (12 May). Towards the end of his UK tour he nipped over to Brussels to give a presention there (27 April). A live schedule has been posted so that any last-minute details can be checked (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/tEETzyunshgMATXZb6MgUHw/htmlview).
One would expect that RIBA would be intensely interested in any unexplained collapse, and that they themselves would be pressing hard for a proper inquiry. Any building collapse needs to be properly investigated. Building regulations may need to be changed. A collapse anywhere in the world will be of concern to architects anywhere. Professional institutes need to uphold professional standards. If they don’t, then how can the public have confidence in buildings designed by their members? It was believed until 2001 that steel-framed buildings cannot collapse because of fire. The temperatures reached by office fires are nowhere near high enough to melt steel. There have been spectacular cases in the past of steel-framed buildings that have been engulfed by fire, but have not collapsed. So one would have expected that the Royal Institute of British Architects would be at the forefront of the demands for a proper investigation when Building 7 of the World Trade Centre collapsed, supposedly because of fire. If this is the case, then building regulations need to be revised. If the claims being made by politicians and the mass media, including documentaries appearing on BBC television, are substatiated, then there must be a considerable fire risk arising from steel-framed buildings. Until this is sorted out, perhaps steel-framed buildings should be banned, as one London borough has already done, in favour of timber-framed buildings. Nothing could be of more extreme concern to an institute of professional architects than this issue. Yet, it seems, they are not interested.
Not only are they not interested, but they cancelled the booking for the room, thus obstructing proper consideration of this issue.
James Thring reported: “I asked for a response from the Events Manager, who was ill on Tuesday and was ‘busy’ on Wednesday and failed to reply on Thursday. However, I had a call this morning from the events secretary to say; ‘We cannot take your booking’. Asked the reasoning, she replied: ‘Conflict of interest’. Asked to define what that meant she said; ‘You will have to speak to the Events Manager.’ I asked for her name and number and she said: ‘I will ask her to ring you.’ Unexpectedly, the Events Manager, Stephanie Elrod, rang this afternoon and said: ‘Sorry, we cannot endorse the topic discussed.’ When asked what it was she could not endorse, she replied: ‘We cannot endorse one sided opinion’. I explained this is not opinion; the American architect presenting the evidence was not expressing opinions but simply setting out the facts resulting from years of investigation and discussion.’ Her response was: ‘Nevertheless, we cannot be seen to be endorsing the opinion, considering the consequences’. I asked her ‘What consequences did she envisage?’ She replied: ‘Well, I am not an expert, not an architect; I am guided by the Press Centre which thinks it is not in our best interests to put this on.’ I responded that: ‘We will have to broadcast this refusal and that may not be in the best interests of the profession.’ She baulked a little and offered to send an e-mail, detailing the reasons, which will come from the Press Office. I thanked her and asked ‘May we appeal to the President?’ She answered: ‘You may go to the President but he will simply go back to the Press Office for advice.’ I asked, since we had been held up for so long, may we expect the e-mail before the week-end? She said; ‘Probably it will be Monday now.’ Finally, I asked her if she had any personal view on the matter [given her name and that it was her decision to withdraw the venue]. After a telling hesitation she said ‘N – Not really.’ So we can wait until Monday, but basically this seems like the end of this avenue, unless you can think of any other ameliorating tactic. Interesting that the excuse has veered from wanting extra security and an attendance list, to: ‘Cannot endorse it’. It does offer us an opening to complain, to any media that will listen, that a professional body like the RIBA does not want to hear the facts or any discussion about the truth about what really happened on 9-11.”
Indeed it does. The common element here with the music college and the university is the threat to security, which suggests possible intimidation, or reason to expect intimidation. I wonder whether that presumed intimidation is from the same source. If professional architects are being intimidated into blocking proper investigation into a serious collapse of a steel-framed building, then what on earth is the point of having such a professional body? As Gilad Atzmon said: “This is about national security”.
The promised explanation the following Monday didn’t arise. Instead James Thring received a message from RIBA saying: “Dear Mr Thring, I understand you have been in contact with our Press Office this afternoon. Thank you for your booking enquiry. Unfortunately we will not be able to accommodate this event and will not be engaging in any further correspondence regarding it.” He wrote back: “Of course, it was an established booking, reserving two rooms and with Terms & Conditions received, not just an ‘enquiry’. This arrogance raises further questions, as Ms Ellrott told me last Friday that it was on Press Office advice that she had withdrawn our booking and would ask them to e-mail their reasons on Monday. Now finding the Press Office (of only 3 people) knew nothing of it, and dismissing any further correspondence, smacks of guilt at not having any cogent reasons she is prepared to stand by. I will of course reply, in particular on the lines that it is largely because of this conspiracy to silence investigation that a world-wide movement calling for answers is growing. And whereas she claimed on the phone that the meeting would ‘raise conflicts of interest’ and ‘would not be in our best interests,’ it is not in the best interests of the profession or the Institute, to be dismissing out of hand a presentation on such an important public issue. It is also somewhat irresponsible to be denying the profession the intelligence that reinforcing high-rise buildings against aircraft hits or even fires is not justified by the expert evidence, which will result in considerable waste of clients’ money and, in the long run, loss of trust. This is, therefore, a matter for the President, to whom I will address next.”
- RIBA calls for informed debate – so let’s have it
Last year, the Dezeen architectural magazine reported, RIBA withdrew its own conference motion to support Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s call for the suspension of the Israeli Association of United Architects from the International Union of Architects (UIA) (http://www.dezeen.com/2014/12/09/riba-overturns-israel-suspension-motion-international-union-architects/). The withdrawal followed criticism of the motion from some leading architects and politicians, as well as a change in presidency of RIBA.
According to the Jewish Chronicle, Israeli architects asked David Cameron to block the RIBA boycott (http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/116919/israeli-architects-ask-david-cameron-block-riba-boycott). They also reported that RIBA’s move was condemned by the British Council, which said the motion did not reflect the views of the profession. Hang on! What does the British Council know about the architectural profession? They are supposed to be a Charity that keeps out of politics. In fact, they are a front for the British government. RIBA is also accused of being antisemitic. Stephen Games, founder of the New Premises architecture think-tank, said RIBA would face calls for it to be stripped of its royal charter as a result of its actions. Mr Games wrote to RIBA president Stephen Hodder following the vote and described the institute’s actions as both “antisemitic” and a “disgrace”. Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre wrote to the IAU claiming RIBA had “allowed itself to become the victim of an extremist group of spoilers that use tactics redolent of the Nazis’ 1930s boycott campaign”. Sound familiar? We got the same sort of hysterical escalation from detractors in the truth movement, too.
The Jews for Justice for Palestinians wrote: “We are appalled at the editorial in the Jewish Chronicle headlined ‘Architects of Hate’ which says that ‘Jews’ are to be ‘banned from joining’ the IUA: ‘Be in no doubt’ it declaims ‘the Royal Institute of British Architects is now officially antisemitic. … ‘” (http://jfjfp.com/?p=57784#riba3). Of course, the RIBA motion said no such thing.
According to the Dezeen article, “The RIBA’s elected council members voted in March under the leadership of previous president Angela Brady to ask for the suspension of the IAUA, on the grounds that members were complicit in construction of controversial settlements in the West Bank”. The current president of the RIBA, Steven Hodder, “had previously revealed that the controversy had cost the RIBA £100,000 in donations and revenue from lost venue bookings at its London headquarters on Portland Place”, Dezeen reports. Could that be the “conflict of interests” that RIBA’s Events Manager was referring to in her correspondence with James Thring? If so, it would be interesting to know why she thinks there could be a connection between an architect’s analysis of the collapse of Building 7 and Israel. Steven Hodder made a statement on behalf of RIBA, which concluded: “We are strengthening our governance procedures and will put in place measures to ensure that RIBA Council is able to have informed debates with due consideration of the issues involved and within the parameters of our Charter and Charity Commission guidance”. Fine. Let’s have that informed debate. RIBA should stand by its own words and invite Richard Gage to give his presentation directly to the RIBA Council.
- 9/11: Something amazing is happening in The Netherlands
As Richard Gage began his tour in Iceland, we received a message from the Dutch co-ordinator, saying: “Dear Richard, I am extremely happy to inform you and all my fellow event coordinators and friends that something amazing is happening in The Netherlands! With still 10 days to go we can already and safely say that you will be speaking to a 1,000 seat auditorium that will be packed! On our special Fb [Facebook]-event page already 651 people have indicated that they will attend and the numbers are still growing [https://www.facebook.com/events/416880151819001/]. Recent experiences have learned that the actual attendance will even be around 1.5 times higher! There will be 4 extra 250 seat rooms with live video-screens available, so the total capacity will be 2,000 and I truly believe that even that amount of seats will not be enough. I-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e-!
“The Netherlands is but a small country, but from my humble viewpoint this is a major breakthrough. Richard, your 9 years of dedication and hard work under extremely complicated circumstances finally seem to bring you the reward you (and 9/11 Truth) so much deserve. Well, at least in this tiny spot on the globe. Though this might be an indication that other countries will follow. The world is ready! May I be one of the first to congratulate you with this beautiful achievement?
“To my fellow event coordinators: spread this message in your countries and be sure to create a Facebook-event. You might not like Fb for what it is, like I do, but it surely is a very powerful tool to get the attention of a lot of people. Good luck! Wico Valk”.
There is a page about it on the Delft University website (http://sg.tudelft.nl/event/911-its-time-to-talk-about-it/). I translated the brochure of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth into Esperanto for them, and distributed the link to the Esperantists (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7en0tuifx4sxsdp/A4%202015%20Esperanto%20Street%20Brochure%20.pdf?dl=0). The feedback was great. One guy in Berlin told me he would have gone if I’d sent the circular round a day earlier, but he did see an interview with Richard Gage on the German-language version of RT (https://free21.org/de/content/pdf-vortrag-von-richard-gage-berlin). This was in English with German dubbing, but part way through someone turned up the sound of the English, so that the two languages were equally loud, and it was impossible to follow either. Perhaps the sound technician didn’t like it.
The UK will be the last country in Europe to allow such dangerous talk, and events will continue to be sabotaged. So this sort of success in smaller countries is important. The UK Establishment is gradually being encircled.
I was the organiser for the Newbury presentation, and I hired the Council Chamber in the Town Hall for the event. The last such event I organised was a book launch with Waterstone’s bookshop for Ian Henshall’s book ‘9.11: The New Evidence’, some time before he turned against me. That attracted just 16 people, and I was concerned that in the case of Richard Gage’s talk I may end up with just 16 people in a Council Chamber with room for 60. When I realised that the agreed leaflets were going to be delayed, I printed my own, and distributed them in the town centre, and in two hustings meetings. I was surprised at the positive attitude I was now getting. Everyone knows there’s something wrong, and more than a decade after 9/11 they are prepared to entertain the idea that they may have been lied to. Most people I approached accepted the leaflet, and virtually everyone at the hustings meetings accepted one and showed interest, and many said they would try to come along. I began to wonder whether the Council Chamber would be big enough, especially since I had also placed a small advertisement in the local paper and sent out press releases. My colleague David Bowman had got the word out via social media. My other colleague, Barrie Singleton, was busy with his own election campaign, but he was helpful in facilitating activities, and eventually in collecting the money at the door. The press release didn’t appear, and in the event there were about ten spare seats. I think the event was a success in every way; now I know that I can talk quite openly about 9/11 and most people privately will be interested, even if no-one will talk publicly about it.
- Resolution calls upon the AIA to support a new WTC 7 investigation
I am in awe at the success that Richard Gage and his Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are having in the US. On 28 March I received an email from Richard Gage saying: “Should the American Institute of Architects support a new investigation into the complete collapse of WTC 7? That’s the question hundreds of AIA delegates will be voting on at this year’s National Convention in Atlanta, thanks to the 55 courageous AIA members who co-sponsored our resolution calling upon the AIA to adopt an official ‘Position Statement’ in support of a new investigation. After submitting the resolution two weeks ago, we received word earlier this week that the AIA’s Resolutions Committee had accepted it for consideration at the convention. Now begins the work of educating thousands of architects about why the AIA should support a new WTC 7 investigation.”
The full text of the resolution is reproduced on the Truth and Shadows website (https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/aia-green-lights-building-7-vote/). Their convention will take place from 14 to 16 May in Georgia. Whether or not this resolution is accepted, it will bring the issue to the attention of more than 83,000 licensed architects and associated professionals. Where will this put RIBA? And how do we get something like that going in the UK? And who on earth would want to block it, other than those with something to hide?
- The Lords Spiritual: vote responsibly but don’t question our wars
We would expect the Churches to be taking a moral lead, musicians to be ignoring political pressures, and professional bodies to be able to uphold professional standards. Clearly, this is not the case. So what difference is the General Election going to make? Absolutely none at all. Yet we are constantly being implored to use our vote. Comedian Russell Brand famously stated that he wouldn’t vote (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24648651), and that, it seems, has laid down a challenge to the authority of the Establishment. If no-one votes, then what authority does Parliament have? None at all. If Parliament is to regain that authority, it has to act on behalf of the people, and that means intervening on British foreign policy. Parliament needs above all the right to decide on war and peace, yet the decision to go to war is taken by the Prime Minister and the monarch alone. They don’t need to put that issue before Parliament, but if they do, and Parliament votes against, then the monarch may come into disrepute if she goes against Parliament’s wishes, so it’s usually best for them not to ask.
The monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, is also the head of the Church of England, and the Church of England has stepped into the election debate with a 54-page letter from their House of Bishops (https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2015/02/house-of-bishops%27-pastoral-letter-on-the-2015-general-election.aspx). That letter is generally seen to be attempting to encourage people to vote, without suggesting which party they should vote for. They say: “We do not set ourselves up as possessing superior knowledge about the state of our world or the detailed policies that would make it a better place. But, the church has an obligation to engage constructively with the political process, and Christians share responsibility with all citizens to participate in the democratic structures of our nation”. This emphasis on ‘responsibility’ is repeated in: “The election campaign is likely to entrench the apathy and cynicism with which many people approach politics today. To accept such attitudes is a counsel of despair. Unless we exercise the democratic rights that our ancestors struggled for, we will share responsibility for the failures of the political classes. It is the duty of every Christian adult to vote, even though it may have to be a vote for something less than a vision that inspires us”.
So what do people do when they’re told to vote ‘responsibly’? They tend to vote for the ‘responsible’ parties, the ones they’re used to – they don’t take risks. Indeed, the letter mentions both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, but no others. I had that experience when the editor of The British Esperantist urged members at their AGM in 2006 to vote ‘responsibly’. By that, everyone understood that he meant not to vote for Ian Fantom. Yet Ian Fantom was the only member to have carried out significant research into what was actually going on behind the scenes. The technique of urging people to vote ‘responsibly’ is the technique of the Establishment in herding the sheep.
The essence of the letter is to urge everyone to be nice to each other, and to use their vote. There is no consideration of research into why people are so cynical. Nor is there any justification of their assumption of “apathy”. Very passionate people are refusing to vote. Why? The letter includes a section headed ‘Apathy, cynicism and politics Today’, which begins: “As bishops of the Church of England, we are in touch with all kinds of communities across the country through our local churches. And we maintain close links with the elected politicians for the constituencies in our dioceses. In our experience, the great majority of politicians and candidates enter politics with a passion to improve the lives of their fellow men and women. They will disagree wildly about how to achieve this, but with few exceptions, politicians are not driven merely by cynicism or self-interest. The low esteem in which politicians are held today has many roots. But simply blaming the individuals concerned is not an adequate response”. They don’t address the simple fact that most people in the country consider them to be liars, in particular the leaders of the country who lie in order to create wars. Is this cognitive dissonance on the part of the bishops, or deception?
On the question of wars they say: “Military intervention by states such as Britain is not always wrong. But recent experiences, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, show the difficulty of treading a line between legitimate defence of human values and interventions which further destabilise regions already devastated by conflict. We have discovered how acute is the risk of generating new resentments which intensify the threat to our own way of life”. Then they say, benevelently: “The decision to commit troops to war is one of the hardest which any politician has to take and those who bear that responsibility deserve our constant prayers”. This is clearly a cover-up. Those who committed our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were not the elected members of Parliament, following reasoned debate in the Commons based on the facts of the case; the decision was made by the elected Prime Minister together with the unelected monarch, i.e. the head of the Church of England itself, based on lies.
Whilst appearing to support democracy, the Church of England is acting as an apologist for the Establishment, in deflecting attention away from the fact that Parliament has no signficant say in foreign policy. The letter is titled ‘Who is my neighbour?’. Well, our neighbours are Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries that we have raped. As for democracy, how about some in the Church of England? Dr Steven Spicer is an expert in the field on the development of Christian Zionism, and how it has led to the rape of Gaza. Why not give him a voice? Why not encourage free debate on the unanswered questions on 9/11? Why not answer enquiries regarding their views on 9/11? Why doesn’t their Synod set up a study group on 9/11 to study the facts? Why not invite Dr Richard Gage to give his presentation on Building 7 to the House of Bishops, who produced that letter (https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/general-synod/about-general-synod/list-of-members/house-of-bishops.aspx)? And how about letting the people have a say in the election of the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords (http://churchinparliament.org/about-the-lords-spiritual/), so that the Church of England can themselves participate in the democracy they so desire for others?
- MI5, MI6, now MI7
There seems to be a common theme in these interventions. It’s difficult to engage in critical analysis of government actions without sooner or later being accused of ‘conspiracy theory’, with insinuations of ‘antisemitism’ and eventually ‘Holocaust denial’. We can see from the examples from this three month period of the election campaign how these terms are being contrived to suppress those who have legitimate concerns about abuse of power. This goes right down to details of ‘political correctness’. In Spain there are general protests at draconian measures to ban the use of social media in organising protest demonstrations; this same legislation also makes it illegal to insult a police officer. So instead of staging a normal street protest, they projected holograms onto the street (http://rt.com/news/248841-hologram-protest-spain-law/).
The question of insulting a police officer is, of course, very subjective, and is easy to falsify, as we saw in London with the ‘Plebgate’ scandal, in which Cabinet member Andrew Mitchell was set up by the Police Federation. I’ve just had an experience with a Spanish moderator in the Google email group ‘uea-membroj’, for members of the Universal Esperanto Association. His name is Tonyo, and he has been mocking ‘conspiracy theories’ for a few years now, especially targeting my research findings about incongruities in the finances of my national Esperanto association. Yet he has never engaged in discussion over the contents, but resorts to insulting my work as ‘conspiracy theory’, and issuing ‘warnings’ to me about use of ‘insult words’, even though I’ve insulted no-one. That’s exactly the sort of abuse of the Spanish law that I would expect from some Spanish police officers, whether undercover or not. In fact, it’s that sort of intervention that makes proper discussion of any significant issue in the association virtually impossible. Members need to wake up to what is happening. Often it’s only necessary to describe what happens to outsiders, in order to see what insiders cannot see. It was impossible to discuss the election of the future President, for instance; it transpired that the whole issue had already been decided, and that there would only be one candidate. Any normal person can understand what’s going on there, but those too close to it will make cognitively dissonant excuses.
This sort of thing can be expected to grow rapidly with the setting up of a new operation, originally announced as ’77 Brigade’. ‘British army creates team of Facebook warriors’, announced the Daily Mail on 31 January, explaining that “Soldiers familiar with social media sought for 77th Brigade, which will be responsible for ‘non-lethal warfare’ ” (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/31/british-army-facebook-warriors-77th-brigade). So who are they targeting? Certainly not the Facebook users in the Kremlin, or the civil servants in Baghdad; this is an army division set up to target ordinary people who are carrying out acts of Though Crime. It is being set up now, near Newbury, where I live. The article states, “Soldiers with journalism skills and familiarity with social media are among those being sought”. According to Wikipedia, “In March 2013 the Ministry of Defence announced a £10 million investment to allow the Military Stabilisation Support Unit, the Defence Cultural Specialist Unit, Land Intelligence Fusion Centre and 15 Psychological Operations Group to move onto the site. … 77th Brigade will move to the site and be fully operational by April 2015” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denison_Barracks). Clearly, this is psychological operations on the Internet, including just the sort of thing described above. Ironically, their recruitment posters appeared on the 30 municipal notice boards in Newbury near my posters on the same notice boards, advertising Richard Gage’s presentation on 9/11.
They’re now calling it ‘7 Military Intelligence Battalion’. I think sooner or later we’ll be calling this new group ‘MI7’.
- Thought crime legislation
I first learned about the use of hydrogen cyanide in the Nazi’s gas chambers at school – not from the teachers, but from a classmate. My friend was the school’s guru on chemistry, and I was the school’s guru on German. We were discussing the chemical properties of hydrogen cyanide, when my friend said, “That’s what they used in the gas chambers”. I was horrified. I would have been absolutely flabbergasted if I’d then been told that if I hadn’t believed my friend, I could be thrown into jail. Yet that is the case in many European countries. I first became aware of this in 2006, when BBC Radio 4 News announced that David Irving had been imprisoned in Austria for ‘Holocaust denial’. He had been in the news for some time, depicted as a ‘Holocaust denier’, with the insinuation that he was a Nazi, but it was only when he was jailed that I thought, “That’s not right”. The state should never have the right to tell people what they do and don’t believe.
I assumed for years that that legislation had been brought in as part of the denazification programme introduced just after the Second World War, to avoid a resurgence of the Third Reich. But it wasn’t. It was brought in around the time of the end of the Cold War. One has to wonder about the motives.
I recently acquired a copy of Nick Kollerstrom’s new book, ‘Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust: Myth and Reality’ (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/159148071X). I haven’t read it yet, but merely skimmed it. My first impression is that it looks as thorough and analytical as his other books, as one would expect. One thing I am sure of is that Nick is no Nazi, as some of those attacking him in 2008 were dishonestly insinuating. His motive is to get to the truth by means of scientific investigation. My MSc tutor in Physics told me when I began my research project that the important thing wasn’t whether I get a positive or a negative result, but the quality of my research. It seems that that doesn’t apply in Sociology, where the only thing that matters is whether people like your conclusions. I’ve found two reviews, one in Inconvenient History (http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2015/volume_7/number_1/revisionism_101.php) and one in CODOH (https://shop.codoh.com/book/365/366). The Jerusalem Post shows disdain for the book, without any analysis, which is a pity, since I would like to know just what the objections may be (http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/126711/respectable-revisionists). Nick has now posted a writeup of this on his website, with links to reviews and interviews (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2015/03/02/my-new-holo-book/).
I turned straight to the appendixes, to seek the so-called ‘Holocaust legislation’. Nick has reproduced in English the legislation in Germany of 1985, with revisions in 1984 and 1985 (Yes, there are Holocaust Legislation Revisionists, too!). I see in that nothing about the statistics or the manner of death. It seems that the interpretation is solely up to the judge who tries the case – and there are no juries. Whatever the facts of the issue are, that is bad law. How are we supposed to know what we are required to believe if it is not stated in the act? I was told in about 1963 that the gas used was Hydrogen Cyanide, not Zyklon B. Which belief would land me in a German prison? And does the law require me to believe that in total six million people, including non-Jews, died in Concentration Camps, or that six million Jews died, which seems to be the current version? It seems that the official version nowadays is different from the one being put about in 1963. And are the German legislators, in ignoring the three million non-Jews, guilty of the very crime they are accusing others of? And does the equivalent law in all countries require me to believe the same things?
The French legislation, the Gayssot Act of 1990 made it an offence “to contest the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945” and it applied to the press, though, Nick reports, around twenty individuals have been prosecuted under it. I’m not sure that I even understand that wording. The European Union adopted a motion in 2008, which required all member states to criminalise some forms of ‘hate speech’. Nick writes: “The denying or trivialising of ‘crimesof genocide’ is said to be punishable, but this law does not say what these crimes are; and moreover, it is only punishable if it is likely to cause something publicly visible, i.e. incites violence”. Later, he adds: “Over the decades of its sorry existence, European legislation against Holocaust Revisionism has only ever protected the alleged hurt feelings of one specific ethnic or religious group. viz. Jews”. So the legislation is ethnically discriminatory. I suppose that whipping up hatred against those involved in investigating government crimes, by alleging them to be ‘antisemitic’ or ‘Holocaust deniers’ is not covered by such legislation, but in any case, the truth movement is not an ethnic or religious group (though they try to make out that it is), and if it were, we would not be the group that the legislation was designed to protect. So they have immunity, even when their allegations are malicious and mendacious. Those laws are themselves being used to whip up hatred against those who carry out legitimate research into the causes of war.
- The backlash – it’s coming
Former BBC journalist Alan Hart, speaking at a conference ‘Seek Speak Spread Truth’ on 23 November 2013, said that he was afraid of a backlash against the Jews, reminiscent of the Nazi period in Germany (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIeoI31JI0k). I’ve been making the point for several years that people should avoid shorthand expressions like ‘the Jews’ or even ‘the Zionists’, when what they mean is a Jewish or Zionist mafia. The nineteenth century practical Zionists of the Settlement of the Pale would have had no idea of the machinations with the Czar and the Rothschild banking dynasty; they would only have been aware of the Czar’s thugs who would come from time to time to beat them up. From my understanding, the Czar didn’t seem to have much idea either of what was going on in his own country. All the practical Zionists wanted was to live in peace. The Likudists and the NeoConservatives are a different breed altogether. Throughout history the wrong Jews have been targeted. Talk of ‘The Jews’ is dangerous. Yet it goes on.
Furthermore, such talk is all the more dangerous because of an extremist press, which will exploit such talk in order to discredit anyone who touches on key taboo topics like 9/11 and 7/7. They will be backed up by extremist politicians, such as David Cameron, who will whip up hatred against those who investigate government lies. Such whipping up of hatred is far more effective than draconian legislation to ban certain thought crimes, and the British have been the masters of that black art since the beginning of our empire days.
There is a group called ‘Iona London Forum’, which meets to discuss such topics. Some of them undoubtedly have links to the National Front and talk sympathetically about far-right groups such as the Golden Dawn in Greece. And some don’t. What matters first and foremost for me is their sincerity. Whatever their beliefs, they can be debated if these people are sincere; they cannot if they are insincere. Most ordinary Germans at the time of World War 2 were fighting for Fatherland and Freedom, and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. As my late Jewish friend Rik Dalton said, “We’re all brainwashed; I expect I am on some things”. Whatever the other considerations, the Iona London Forum does produce some good academic papers. Many, if not all, have doubts about how the genocide of the Jews in Nazi-held territories happened, and whatever their conclusions, they have every right to research that topic.
But given that situation, we can expect use of loose language, and talk of ‘the Jews’, which I have been warning against. In addition to that, we can expect any such group to be infiltrated by the secret services, just as various groups were found to be infiltrated by the secret police in London, beginning with the unmasking of undercover police officer Mark Kennedy, who was acting as an agent provocateur in an environmental protest group, and nearly succeeded in landing many of them in prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kennedy_%28police_officer%29). Why would they want to do such a thing to an environmental group that was demonstrating in favour of action on climate change, and so in support of government policy? Given that situation, we should take it for granted that such undercover officers will be active in any social pressure groups such as political groups, truth groups, peace groups, and even languge groups that aren’t promoting English. So talk of “The Jews” is pretty sure to be encouraged by agent provocateurs.
It is also to be expected that sooner or later a hysterical press will accuse them all of being Nazis, and that is exactly what happened in The Mail on Sunday on April 19 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3045115/Nazi-invasion-London-EXPOSED-World-s-Holocaust-deniers-filmed-secret-race-hate-Jews-referred-enemy.html). The article was headed, “Nazi invasion of London EXPOSED: World’s top Holocaust deniers… filmed at secret race hate rally where Jews are referred to as the ‘enemy'”, and it was inflammatory.
A recent article in The Daily Bell describes a Fifth Column in the US run by the Neoconservatives (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36265/Nelson-Hultberg-The-Neoconservatives-Tyrannys-Fifth-Column/). The Neoconservatives in Washington, London and Tel Aviv seem to be the same group as, or at least seem to have close links with, the Christian and Jewish Zionist mafia that appears to be at the heart of a Fifth Column in Britain, and probably the rest of the NATO countries, too. When tyrrany arrives through Fifth Column activities, it will arrive at all levels of society simultaneously. So if you, in your own social circles, get put down by the treasurer when you ask whether the accounts have been audited, or when you ask how much money the association has, or if you get criticised for the ‘tone’ of a legitimate question, then that could well be the tip of the iceberg. If you don’t take action within your own social circles, it may be too late when you see the same sort of thing happening at government level, where you don’t have the same sort of inside information. It’s usually a mistake just to resign; people need to speak out at all levels when they see authority being abused.
- The Bitch of Buchenwald
I have just come across a booklet of poetry in the inherited collection from my friend Rik Dalton. I worked a lot with Rik on the Esperanto case. He was a lawyer, and also Jewish, and his grandfather came from Byelostok. The booklet was titled ‘The Bitch of Buchenwald’ and was published in 1986 in the ‘Holocaust Series Chapbook 1’ (ISBN 0-89304-300-1 & 0-89304-301-X). It is Esperanto poetry in English translation, and contains an Introduction by the then President of the Esperanto Academy, William Auld. The Introduction begins: “Poetry written originally in Esperanto is a unique phenomenon. It forms a literary tradition that encompasses almost a century and all the continents of the world; it links people of the most diverse races and nations. Its language is rooted in no particular geographical locus but in the universality of human emotions and psychological experiences. This language is a native inherence of very few people but, at the same time, a creative vehicle of surprisingly many. It is a language that appeared in the world as a so-called ‘planned’ or ‘artificial’ language, and that, with the passing of time, has become a natural tongue conforming to all linguistic criteria postulated, for example by Chomsky: a language of a world-wide community which feels (besides its respective national attachments) a solidarity with its speakers in all parts of the world. That solidarity, regrettably, was the cause for the martyrdom of so many Esperanto speakers, who suffered and perished because of their Esperantism under various tyrannies, as noted, for instance, by Solzhenitsyn in his ‘Gulag Archipalago’. Thus, Esperantist culture is founded not only on idealism but also in blood”.
According to historian Ulrich Lins, author of ‘La Danĝera Lingvo’ [The Dangerous Language], Hitler and Stalin together rounded up around 30 000 people because of their involvement with Esperanto. Nowadays such persecution is more subtle. I find the attempt by Christian and Jewish Zionists to appropriate the Holocaust wholly offensive. This in itself is a form of Holocaust Denial, because many suffered other than Jews: Socialists, Communists, homosexuals, Gypsies and Esperantists. But when the Holocaust is misused to denigrate people from these groups for completely unrelated motives, such as supressing discussion on 7/7 in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I find that particularly abnoxious. Zamenhof’s descendents and relatives remaining in Byelostok were shot or carted off to Treblinka and not heard of again. Ludovik Zamenhof’s grandson bearing the same name escaped under an assumed name, and at 90 is still active in the Esperanto movement as Louis-Christophe Zaleski-Zamenhof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Christophe_Zaleski-Zamenhof). Esperantists were active in getting Jews out of Germany. So this issue is close to my heart. One would have thought that research suggesting that the number of victims was lower than had been previously thought would be good news, especially with the lack of proper documentation. But no, the whole issue has been politicised by a Fifth Column operating in ways that have been illustrated in this report. Whatever the truth may be about war propaganda of the past, we must stand up to such intimidation at all levels in society, rather than wait until we have an openly Fascist government, because then it will be too late. The worrying thing is that we’re already almost there.
Keep Talking group
Berkshire 9/11 Truth
http://berkshire911truth.blogspot.com/ (old newsletters archive)
Keep Talking administers an English-language email discussion group, ‘911keeptalking’, and monthly meetings in London. Email me for further information.