Keep Talking / Berkshire 9/11 Truth Movement Analytical Newsletter for January 2015 (2015-01-28)
Please feel free to pass on, or post, as appropriate.
* ConTROLLed opposition
* David Aaronovitch is now a conspiracy theorist
* So what did happen in the Paris outrage?
* Doubts arise over the official story
* Vigilante groups and propaganda
* How the think tanks are closing down our free speech
* Thierry Meyssan: strategy designed in Washington and Tel-Aviv
* Muslims upset by government’s ‘living apart’ insinuation
* The way to beat terrorism
* Don’t mention the war – or Chilcott
* Prospects for 2015: War, Chilcott, Diana … and more tosh
“I wasn’t me, Miss. It was ‘im. I ain’t go no knife” – “Who said anything about a knife?” – “Dunno, Miss”. That’s the sort of conversation that every five-year-old will be familiar with, as well as every parent and every teacher. Yet when the government and the mass media claim, before any facts have come out, that it was the Muslims, the public believes unconditionally everything they are told. One pro-Establishment troll, known as ‘Andreo’, even mocked my views on the recent Paris outrage before I knew them, saying (in translation): “No doubt Phantom [Fantomo] will now carefully research the matter behind the scenes, and a hidden plot will appear in every way in his newsletter. … But after the research, everyone has foreknowledge that Phantom will suggest that a false flag assault by Gladio/US/ Israel was to blame, and I blame Islam.”.
Who said anything about Gladio, the US or Israel? The first I knew of Israeli involvement in the London 7/7 outrage of was when a I got a similarly brazen message from someone purporting to be a 9/11 Truther, suggesting that if I was a ‘Holocaust denier’ that may account for my problems in the Esperanto movement. Since that was in response to the first newsletter in which I had mentioned 7/7, I immediately checked in Nick Kollerstrom’s excellent book ‘Terror on the Tube’ and found that the headquarters for the surveillance cameras was in Tel Aviv. That was a giveaway.
And of course there are distractors, too. Charles Seven is the genius who invented a computerised platform for television presentations worth trillions. It was stolen from her, and 7/7 was staged as a result. I’m not clever or patient enough to work this one out, but she is now claiming that Charlie Hebdo is also implicated, because it’s French for her name. She makes this point in just under three hours . “What’s the probability of that?”, she asks. Well, I suppose it could be quite high if her handler had foreknowledge and she’s conTROLLed opposition.
* David Aaronovitch is now a conspiracy theorist
I wish every pro-Government troll was as naïve as ‘Andreo’. We need to encourage trolls in the mainstream media to do likewise. All that matters is that they spell the name ‘Gladio’ right. We want people like David Aaronovitch of The Times to publish such rubbish, but so far, even in his excellent work of science fantasy, ‘Voodoo Histories: The role of the conspiracy theorist in shaping modern history’, there isn’t even a mention of Gladio in the index. Instead, he mocks Nick Kollerstrom for writing a book on crop circles, when, actually, that book is a mere mathematical treatise on the shapes produced, and contains no theories on how they could have been formed. I don’t know how they were formed either. Perhaps they were created by MI5 accomplices in order to provide David Aaronovitch with a few column inches of trolling. And now I hear that David Aaronovitch himself has become a conspiracy theorist. I heard him last year in a BBC Radio interview saying that he believed his own father had been under surveillance by MI5. The guy must be paranoid. Not only does he think the ‘conspiracy theorists’ are out to get him, but he thinks MI5 was out to get his father, too. His father, Sam Aaronovitch, was a leading light in the Communist Party of Great Britain, as reported in a book ‘British Writers and MI5 Surveillance, 1930-1960’ by James Smith, published in December 2012 by Cambridge University Press. So perhaps David Aaronovitch can now tell us all about how MI5 was not only surveilling the Communist Party of Great Britain, but virtually running it, too.
Come on, David Aaronovitch, tell them all about Gladio.
Gladio was a false flag operation by NATO’s secret armies. The existance of those secret armies was first acknowledged by the Italian Prime Minister in the Italian parliament, and the mainstream media of 1992 followed this up with sinister revelations. The BBC broadcast two documentary programmes on it (http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/111746/Operation_Gladio_BBC_Timewatch_1992_StateSponsored_Terrorism_in_Europe/), an academic, Daniele Ganser, published a scholarly book on it (http://www.danieleganser.ch/monografien.html), and more recently a former journalist and MEP, Richard Cottrell, wrote a book on Gladio, giving more political background and linking it with more recent events (http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/gladio-natos-dagger-heart-europe). An excellent summary has just been posted on the web by Henry Makow under the title ‘Most Terror is State-Sponsored: Gladio’ (http://henrymakow.com/2015/01/most-terror-is-state-sponsored.html).
But it doesn’t matter what the mainstream media and the shills say about it at this stage, as long as they spell the name ‘Gladio’ right and get it back out into the mainstream.
Now suppose that everything we were told by politicians and the mainstream mass media about the Paris terrorist attack was true. It would still mean that the standard of journalism throughout the West is appalling. Can none of those journalists understand that you don’t just jump to conclusions on who perpetrates a crime on the basis of no evidence. Can’t they remember when they were five-year-olds? Are only schizophrenics allowed into the journalistic profession, people who can believe two directly contrary things at the same time: that they don’t know who did it, and that it was the Muslims? That’s what George Orwell called ‘double-think’ (He’s in the book ‘British Writers and MI5 Surveillance’, too). Not knowing until you’ve studied the facts is now a thought crime.
* So what did happen in the Paris outrage?
No-one doubts that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was a professional attack, the sort of thing you might expect from a special operations force of a national military force. So if you had that level of training, would you take your identity card with you, then run out of money during the getaway, so that you have to steal from a supermarket and petrol station? How likely is it that an identity card found on the scene would be that of one of the real perpetrators? People leave identity cards if they want to be known. They leave false ones if they want to say, “It wasn’t me, it was them”. Any journalist covering this case who doesn’t look at alternatives to the official story that it’s the Muslims should be fired.
France 24 reported “Among the first police officers to reach the scene was Ahmed Merabet, who was wounded, and then – on footage shown on television worldwide – finished off as he lay on the pavement outside, with one hand up in the air. … But now those honoring Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim confronting islamists, have their own Twitter account #JeSuisAhmed.” (http://www.france24.com/en/20150111-michel-lassana-ahmed-frances-ordinary-heroes/). Did no mainstream journalist or political analyst spot the editing of the video clip? The actual shooting had been cut out.
An uncensored version of that video was published with a commentary by Storm Clouds Gathering on 10th January, which began, “I’m going to show you some footage of the Charlie Hebdo shootings which has been restricted or taken down from a number of websites. As you will see, it contains no blood, gore or graphic violence. It does however punch a major hole in the official story. … Now, if we zoom in and slow it down you’ll see that the officer isn’t actually hit by a bullet. There is a blast that hits the sidewalk just in front of him, but he is clearly not hit in the head as the corporate media is claiming. Now I’m not going to claim to know what really happened here, but we are being lied to, and lies like this mean trouble” (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/charlie-hebdo-shootings-censored-video). They then published another video reporting on the censorship when they first uploaded the full version of that shooting, ‘Charlie Hebdo – The Hidden Agenda Exposed’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0dkqK1pGqE).
John Ward of ‘hat4uk’ on 12 January listed ‘The Seven Deadly Doubts that should leave every objective observer puzzled’ (https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-attacks-not-so-much-a-false-flag-as-a-free-hand/): 1. the security cop assigned to the case, Helric Fredou, espressed concerns, then was found dead with a bullet wound in his head; 2. the missing frames from the France 24 video of cop Ahmed Merabet being shot; 3. Flak jackets on the roof; 4. Establishment of terrorist identity through an ID card left at the scene; 5. The alleged terrorists were already under surveilance; 6. No idea of the address, but fully briefed on it being weekly editorial meeting from 11am onwards; 7. Mass rally of world ‘leaders’ in three days flat. He ends by saying that the whole thing seems to have been carefully orchestrated, but that he is presenting no ‘conspiracy theory’ – just seven things that don’t make sense. “The onus is now on Them to prove me wrong – or explain how or why my research is wrong”.
A friend of mine in France wrote to me with a few more points (my translation): “As in 9/11 the guys left their ID’s in the car, but did everything to not be recognisable from their faces or fingers, … The French presidnet was on the spot in 55 minutes, when the guys were still fleeing. He went alone in some direction, unaccompanied by a guard, as if nothing could happen. The following Sunday there was a nationwide demonstration, too well prepared for it to be improvised by the French. And a lot of national Presidents came, with no visible security. Indeed, after Charlie there was a vengeful attack in a Jewish Kosher shop with fresh deaths. If it really was independent Al Qaeda cells, then they would have easily been able to kill when people were assembing in their millions”.
So who could have been behind those attacks? If it had been Muslim terrorists, then why would mainstream politicians and the media lie about it? Perhaps ‘Andreo’ is right in seeing a parallel with Operation Gladio, but I would disagree with him on one point. In Operation Gladio a typical attack would be performed on the back of a genuine outrage staged by some protest group. That would be their cover, so that the protest group would get all the blame, even though they had no idea where the lethal bombs had come from. There’s no sign of that here. It does, however, seem that the objective of those attacks was to outrage public opinion against Muslims, just as Operation Gladio had the objective of outraging public opinion against the Communists. So who would want to do that?
* Doubts arise over the official story
I’ve noticed that some politicians avoid saying that Muslims were responsible, as did Nigel Farage in a carefully worded speech to the European Parliament, which would make sense whoever he thought had been behind the attacks (http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/je_suis_charlie_european_leaders_must_take_action), as indeed he did in a previous Channel 4 interview (http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/nigel_farage_responds_to_paris_attacks). He talked about a ‘Fifth Column’ in our society, without saying what their religion was. This is in contrast to the French National Front’s MEP Marine Le Pen, who, like the overwhelming majority of British far-right MPs, such as David Cameron and Co., and all the mainstream media journalists, blame Muslims. Strangely, though, her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the former leader of the same party, says that the attacks may have been the work of Western intelligence services. A report of this appeared in The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-jeanmarie-le-pen-says-french-terror-attacks-were-work-of-western-intelligence-9985047.html). I wonder what Marine Le Pen is saying to her father, and whether it is something like: “I know, Dad, but I can’t say that”. It’s good that it’s been reported in The Independent, even if The Independent hasn’t shown independence in the way it’s reported it.
There have even been reports in The Financial Times of high-level statements that Muslims were not behind these attacks. To get to the original article I’d have to subscribe, but Tyler Durden submitted a write-up to the Zero Hedge website, headed ‘Turkish President’s Stunning Outburst: The French Are Behind The Charlie Hebdo Massacre; Mossad Blamed’ (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-13/turkish-presidents-stunning-outburst-french-are-behind-charlie-hebdo-massacre-mossad). The Turkish President stated: “The culprits are clear: French citizens undertook this massacre and Muslims were blamed for it”. The article then quotes Melih Gokcek, mayor of Ankara for the ruling AK party, as saying on Monday that “Mossad [the Israeli intelligence service] is definitely behind such incidents … it is boosting enmity towards Islam”. Mr Gokcek linked the attacks to French moves towards recognising Palestine. The article also reported that Ali Sahin, a member of Turkey’s parliament and foreign affairs spokesman for the AK party, last week set out eight reasons why he suspected the killings were staged so that “the attack will be blamed on Muslims and Islam”. The FT article also stated: “In Russia, some pro-Kremlin commentators sought to link the killings to geopolitical machinations by the US”, and quoted a headline from Komsomolskaya Pravda, one of Russia’s leading tabloids: “Did the Americans stage the terror attack in Paris?”. The commentary states that the FT is “most stunned that in Russia the events in Charlie Hebdo are being equated to the 9/11 tragedy”. British journalists have to be seen to be loyal to the Establishment, but these doubts about the official version are leaking out into the mainstream in a way that just didn’t happen after 9/11.
Two in-depth reviews appeared on the Al-Jazeerah website (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2015/January/15%20o/Charlie%20Hebdo%20Affair%20Has%20Many%20of%20the%20Characteristics%20of%20a%20False%20Flag%20Operation%20By%20Paul%20Craig%20Roberts%20and%20Alex%20James.htm). Paul Craig Roberts gives his reason for thinking that the Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation, and Alex James writes on ‘More about false flags’, giving “Indications that the Paris Attack was an inside job, involving Mossad and the French security services”. He also links to a statement by a Madame Rothschild, who wrote: “The whole event was organised in Brussels . Even Ahmed Merabet, the first French policeman purportedly shot dead, is actually not a Muslim at all; his name is Avigdor, and his brother’s name is Maloch, recently changed to Melek – all of them crypto-Jews in the service of the Israeli intelligence etc, i.e. Mossad agents.”. This, I think, needs authenticating.
Henry Makow, too links to the same statement, in an article ‘French website blames Mossad for “France’s 9/11″‘ (http://henrymakow.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo.html), in which he publishes a translated excerpt from an article ‘Charlie Hebdo – An attack sewn with invisible thread’ (http://lamatricejuive.net/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-un-attentat-cousu-de-fil-blanc/). In Russia, political analyst Leonid Ivashov, who previously held a position in the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Defence, and is now the President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems in Russia, wrote that behind the Paris attacks were not Muslims but rather different forces: Israel and the US (http://www.frognews.bg/news_83803/Leonid-Ivashov-Zad-terora-v-Parij-stoiat-SASHT-i-Izrael/). In France, President Francoise Hollande made an enigmatic statement in a television speech that was widely reported in the alternative media. He stated: “Ces fanatiques, ces illuminés, n’ont rien à voir avec la religion musulmane” [Those fanatics, those ‘ illuminés’, have nothing in common with the Islam religion]
There has been some confusion on just what ‘illuminés’ means. Some English speakers interpreted this as being the same as ‘Illuminati’, but it appears to be a more general term of denigration referring to religious zealots, though the various interpretations in the FrenchWikipedia all include the concept of conspiracy (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illumin%C3%A9s). The English term ‘Illuminati’ usually refers to a specific group set up by Adam Weishaupt to infiltrate the Freemasons, and which caused a massive scandel in the nineteenth century and was subsequently banned. However according to my Websters Dictionary, it means (with a capital) “any of various groups claiming special religious enlightenment”, and Weishaupt’s group isn’t mentioned. This is linked to ‘illuminism’, “1. belief in or claim to a personal enlightenment not accessible to mankind in general; 2 (with a capital): beliefs or claims viewed as forming doctrine or principles of Illuminati [with a capital]”. It seems that these words are gradually shifting in meaning, and that there is a time lag between popular usage and dictionary definitions. In the knowledge of this, is it likely that Francoise Hollande’s scriptwriter would be unaware of the double entendre in the use of that word in French, especially in the context of saying that it had nothing in common with Islam? Was that a gaff, or was it intentional?
* Vigilante groups and propaganda
Nick Kollerstrom produced an early but excellent analysis of the Paris attack on his website, Terror on the Tube, headed ‘ Paris Hit by State-Fabricated Terror’, but following Francoise Hollande’s speech he rewrote the introduction, retitling it ‘ French President: The Illuminati did this, Muslims did not do it.’ (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2015/01/11/paris-hit-by-state-fabricated-terror/). Whether or not we were supposed to think that, he presents an excellent analysis of the story so far.
I learned something startling from that article about London policing: There exists a parallel private police force in London, patrolling the streets, and arresting people handcuffing them and taking them to police stations. Nick links to an article in The Daily Mail headed ‘ Jewish patrol cars out in force in London amid fears of copycat attack in wake of kosher store siege in Paris’ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905047/Jewish-patrol-cars-force-London-amid-fears-copycat-attack.html#ixzz3PB0ejPY5). “The cars look very similar to police vehicles and bear the security group’s name ‘Shomrim’ – Hebrew for ‘guards’ – along the sides and back”, the article explains. The number plate in the photo seems to have been blanked out. Why? Do these cars have number plates? What are the implications of this as regards terror attacks? Are they active in Paris, too? Could that account for the street having been apparently cleared in advace of the attack on Charlie Hebdo?
I don’t know, but Gordon Duff, of Veterans Today, believes that that scene wasn’t actually filmed in Paris, but in a film set (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/01/gordon-duff-paris-false-flag-attack-not-even-filmed-in-paris-beyond-a-joke-3089502.html). He lives in Paris and is familiar with the area. That, too, might explain why there didn’t seem to be any other traffic on the road at the time.
I was amazed to hear Alex Jones dismiss the evidence of the Muslim police officer not being shot. He concentrted on the issue of how much mess an AK-47 would have made if it had hit the man’s head, and said nothing about the fact that there was no recoil, the gun wasn’t pointing in the right direction, and a puff of dust appeared on the footpath, and ignored the advise of a ballistics expert whom he had asked to comment on the issue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fvEoTy7qfc). I’m puzzled.
I’ve concentrated here not so much on the details of the attacks themselves, but on the propaganda side, because that is where the blockage lies. Many members of the public consistently say, “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories; this is a conspiracy theory; therefore I don’t believe it” – or words to that effect. This is being reinforced by pro-Establishment trolls such as our otherwise insignificant ‘Andreo’, fake journalists such as The Times’s otherwise insignificant David Aaronovitch, and puppet politicians such as David Cameron, who appears in front of the public in the role of Prime Minister. And yet, whether or not the official version is true, any member of the public, with a well trained mind of a five-year-old, should be able to see very quickly that there is something wrong. If we can break through that problem, they will then look at the details and see propaganda for what it is.
* How the think tanks are closing down our free speech
The Charlie Hebdo affair is not about free speech; it is about closing down free speech. The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave an ominous speech to the UN Security Council in September 2014, headed ‘Only a coherent, coordinated response can tackle what is a truly global and indiscriminate threat’ (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/only-a-coherent-coordinated-response-can-tackle-what-is-a-truly-global-and-indiscriminate-threat). Firstly, he stated that the UK was introducing new powers to strengthen their ability to seize passports, restrict travel and impose stronger “locational constraints” on suspects. Then he stated: “Second, and I believe crucially, we must defeat the poisonous ideology of extremism that is the root cause of this terrorist threat. Yes there are the websites and the preachers of violence and violent extremism, and of course, those must be taken down. But as the evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist of offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it.”
So what is are the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences? Well, Sadiq Khan, who was convicted by politicians and the press, but not by a court of law, of masterminding the 7/7 attacks in London, was a well-liked teacher and community worker as well as police liaison person, using his Urdu language skills in community relations work. He wasn’t known to his local Imam.
David Cameron continued: “And we know what this worldview is – the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or the 7/7 London attacks were staged; the idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy; the concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations. We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism. That means banning preachers of hate from coming to our countries. It means proscribing organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. It means stopping extremists whether violent or non-violent from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, in our universities and even sometimes in our prisons. In other words, firm, decisive action – to protect and uphold the values of our free and democratic societies”.
Part of this is a restatement of what he said in his notorious ‘Multiculturalism has failed’ speech to the Munich Security Conference in February 2011: “As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent’ extremists, and that they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence” (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130109092234/http://number10.gov.uk/news/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference/).
He was clearly refering to his notorious think tank Policy Exchange, and in particular their report ‘Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism’ of 2007-01-29 (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/living-apart-together-british-muslims-and-the-paradox-of-multiculturalism), which “explores the attitudes of Muslims in Britain today and the reasons why there has been a significant rise in Islamic fundamentalism”. Out of the twelve alleged Muslim terrorists they described, only two had been convicted for terrorism. Six died through suicide, and the fate of the other four was not stated. Obviously, in limiting his comments to those convicted of terrorism, David Cameron is talking about small numbers, but one would have to be paying attention to notice that.
The Policy Exchange report links conspiracy theories with the causes of terrorism through the pivot word ‘extremist’, without ever defining what it means. They describe a highly dubious piece of sociological research, from which they conclude that Islamic terrorism arises from a ‘cultural problem’, Muslim ignorance and belief in ‘conspiracy theories’. They even bring language into this, even though they present no evidence that young British Muslims don’t speak perfecly normal English; in fact, most of them do. OK, Muslims may be ignorant, but no more ignorant than anyone else. I studied this report at the time and gave a detailed analysis to the Keep Talking group in February 2011.
The implied correlation between non-violent extremists and the rise of Islamic terrorism is also clearly based on a report by another government think tank, Demos, ‘The power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’ of August, 2010 (http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/thepowerofunreason). This report claims to have found a correlation between ‘conspiracy theory’ groups and terrorism. They hadn’t. Their sociological research was so dubious as to be non-existent. They had merely linked the two concepts through the common word ‘extremist’ and then appeared to back this up with research that they never carried out. On the basis of this, they concluded that the government needs to intervene in ‘conspiracy theory groups’, through what they called ‘open infiltration’, by sending in government representatives to present ‘alternative information’. It’s all so Orwellian. By ‘alternative information’ they mean government information. I managed to get their authors to a Keep Talking meeting to demonstrate how this would work. They had to admit that they had done no statistical work at all, and that it wasn’t a scientific report. they presented no alternative information, but merely ridiculed trained physicists present over their analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. They had wreckers present, and demonstrated what it would be like to live in a Fascist society. The whole thing was a fraud. Kevin Boyle published a write-up ‘Demos meet 9/11 Truth’ (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=13784).
Our Keep Talking group is now the only group left that challenges the government’s accounts of 9/11 and 7/7 to hold monthly meetings in the centre of London. My colleague, Nick Kollerstrom is the author of the most detailed book to analyse the terrorist attacks of 7/7. So who could David Cameron have been referring to more than us? I invited David Cameron to address our group directly, to tell us why he wants to close us down, but I didn’t get a reply. Nick Kollerstrom tried to hand himself in to the anti-terrorist squad at Scotland Yard, as a ‘non-violent extremist’ under David Cameron’s new definition of terrorism. I accompanied him, since I had indexed his book ‘Terror on the Tube’. Nick then wrote up the whole thing on his website (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/cameron-77-truth-terrorism/) – though the speech he quotes in his article is a subsequent speech that David Cameron made to the UN General Assembly. Kevin Barrett published an article of mine on Veterans Today – as an appendix to an article of his on the topic, because I’m not a veteran of the US military – under the title ‘”Lies”, says Cameron, as he launches another war’ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/25/alt-media/), which was reprinted by The Truthseeker (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=104589) and Rinf (http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/lies-says-cameron-launches-another-war/). An excellent commentary on David Cameron’s speech to the UN Generall Assembly was provided on Infowars (http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/david-cameron-questioning-government-policy-terrorism/). There can be no doubt that they are trying to close down free speech rather than defend it.
* Thierry Meyssan: strategy designed in Washington and Tel-Aviv
I published a write-up last year on a meeting with my MP on ‘Social Cohesion’, giving the background to new Cold War against British Muslims, and how the government is trying to blame anyone but themselves, and called it ‘Chutzpah on Social Cohesion’ (http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/chutzpah-social-cohesion/).
In 2004, French investigator Thierry Meyssan published an analysis headed ‘A plan to extend US hegemony: The “war of civilizations”‘, tracing it back to a plan by Bernard Lewis, who originated in Britain and was involved in the Congress for Cultural Freedom and later emigrated to the US (http://www.voltairenet.org/article14101.html). Recently he referred back to that article in an analysis of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, headed ‘A French September 11th? Who ordered the attack against Charlie Hebdo?’ (http://www.voltairenet.org/article186441.html). He claims that the aim is to create a civil war. “The strategy of ‘the clash of civilizations'”, he says, “was designed in Tel Aviv and Washington”. It was “formulated by Bernard Lewis for the US National Security Council then popularized by Samuel Huntington … It aimed to persuade NATO member group populations of the inevitability of confrontation that preventively assumed the form of the ‘war on terrorism’. It is not in Cairo, Riyadh or Kabul that one advocates the ‘clash of civilizations’, but in Washington and Tel Aviv”.
* Muslims upset by government’s ‘living apart’ insinuation
The insinuation that somehow the Muslim communities are responsible for such terror attacks was emphasised on 19 January by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, when he sent a letter to 1100 Imamas and Muslim community leaders in the UK, insinuating that they should be doing more to stop terrorism (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396312/160115_Final_Draft_Letter_to_Mosques_PDF.pdf). In response, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said Muslims should not have to go out of their way to prove loyalty to Britain and rejected suggestions that they were somehow “inherently apart from British society”, while the Ramadhan Foundation said his comments were “patronising and factually incorrect” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2916044/Imams-root-radicals.html). Clearly, the tone of the letter was compatible with the Policy Exchange report ‘Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism’ referred to above. The approach seems to be based on this Policy Exchange report, making the assumption that such terrorist attacks occur because Muslims are radicalised in our society, when there is no evidence to support that other than a mendacious piece of pseudoscientific clap-trap.The MCB sent a reply to Eric Pickles (http://www.mcb.org.uk/lettertossclg/), saying, “We take the point that your letter was written in good faith”, yet they must be aware that Eric Pickles is associated with The Conservative Friends of Israel, as is 80% of the Conservative Party, including the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary Theresa May (http://www2.cfoi.co.uk/). Press TV lists several high profile members of the Conservative Friends of Israel, including Eric Pickles (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/12/375041/zionist-lobby-takes-uk-hostage/). Clearly, government actions cannot be taken as being unbiased, and are following a preset plan by whoever is funding Policy Exchange. Anyone who objects, or even questions these things, is likely to be branded as antisemitic, which is exactly what David Cameron did in his notorious speech to the UN Security Council.
This whipping up of paranoid hysteria in anticipation of some further outrage against the Jews is what Gilad Atzmon, in his book ‘The Wandering Who?’, called ‘pre-traumatic stress disorder’ (as distinct to the more normal ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’, PTSD). He has just written a piece on his website, ‘ Theresa May Performs Pre-Traumatic Stress’ (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/1/19/theresa-may-performs-the-pre-traumatic-stress). I think the biggest enemy of the Jews is other Jews, just as the biggest enemy of the Brits is other Brits.
* The way to beat terrorism
A typical Muslim view was put very articulately by Medhi Hassan of The Huffington Post on the BBC’s television programme ‘Question Time’, chaired by David Dimbleby. He said: “The way to beat terrorism is to refuse to be terrorised, and not give them the publicity they want. Just in the context of free speech in France, we hear a lot about France in the last few days being the champion of liberty and free speech and this is what I talked to you earlier about – some of the double standards, it’s just not true. In 2005 – erm, David wants some facts – in 2005 a court in France banned a fashion company from using a picture of the Last Supper because there was a gratuitous insult to peoples’ most innermost beliefs. Sarkozy has been running around the media in the last few days. He took rappers to court for insulting the French Republic when he was an Interior Minister. You know, everyone has their own lines. People draw them in different places, and then pretend to be champions of free speech, and everyone else doesn’t believe in free speech”.
* Don’t mention the war – or Chilcott
The government’s ‘Commemoration’ of the outbreak of the First World War was a propaganda campaign aimed at justifying Britain’s decision to go to war against the Kaiser, and they were using it to justify the current wars that Britain is involved in. But it had the opposite effect. It made many people question why we went to war, who otherwise wouldn’t even have been thinking about it. I felt disgusted at the way they were using the deaths of millions of people to justify what they are doing today. I have just received a newsletter from ‘No Glory in War’, which was set up to combat this propaganda campaign. They themselves were surprised at the amount of support they were receiving. They provide a review of the year’s campaigning, and, in short, it has been a disaster for the governement’s propaganda effort. I can’t find the newsletter on any web page, but I’m sure they’ll send you a copy if you ask them (http://www.noglory.org/).
In particular, they castigate former BBC Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman for “sneering to the granddaughter of a WW1 conscientious objector that her grandfather was a ‘crank’ and ‘just being awkward’.”. I went to a talk in Hungerford in which he launched his book ‘Great Britain’s Great War’. He said at the beginning that he wasn’t an expert on what happened before the war; if we wanted to know about that we should ask Max Hastings, a military historian and journalist who had been writing in support of the government’s case. So after the talk I told him that I had refrained from asking a question, because my main interest was in the thirteen years before the outbreak of war. He put on a deep inquisitive frown. So I said that the Kaiser had warned the British government of an attempt by US banker J P Morgan to buy up the world’s merchant shipping, and that that posed a danger to the peace of the world. He was a friend of Britain, I said. “It wasn’t going to last”, he said, “He was building up a hugh navy. He was a bloody bastard”. I said I’d been doing a bit of research and … Jeremy Paxman interrupted me, sat back in his chair, put his hands behind his head and said firmly and accusingly, “Oh, I see! So you know more than I do about it, do you?” The self-contradiction was so obvious that I didn’t say a further word; I just gave him a knowing look and moved on. I had been impressed by Jeremy Paxman for 25 years, but now, in just four seconds, he had ruined all that. How could a guy like him have been tied up in such an obvious government propaganda campaign to justify starting a world war? Had he been a government stooge for 25 years on Newsnight, I wonder.
One thing that no-one seems to have spotted is that the Commemoration was going so badly for the government that it would have been suicidal for them to have published the findings of the Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq War of 2003 (http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/). This is so overdue that it has become a joke; the inquiry was launched on 30 July 2009, the eve of the 95th anniversary of the outbreak of WW1. If their report had been published in 2014 the government would have been forced to admit that the British government is capable of initiating wars. Their Commemoration would have lain in tatters, and their current wars would have been undermined. Instead, the year ended with a blaze of publicity about torture by the US military, and I don’t think anyone was in any doubt that the many redactions were there to cover up British complicity in torture. Thierry Meyssan writes: “The Congressional report on torture confirms that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attacks of September 11” (http://www.voltairenet.org/article186204.html). So they didn’t need Chilcott to get that message across.
* Prospects for 2015: War, Chilcott, Diana … and more tosh
I gave a talk in Germany on the period leading to WW1, showing how all this had started, with a secret society formed by Cecil Rhodes and Lord Rothschild to promote the ‘English Speaking Idea’ by gaining a monopoly of the world’s money supply. I felt the cause of the First World War was a risky topic to talk about in Germany, because of the British saying, “Don’t mention the war”. In fact, they were quite interested, and some agreed with Rudolf Steiner, who said, “A single sentence and the war in the West would not have taken place”. There’s a video on the Storm Clouds Gathering site, titled ‘The Road to World War 3’, which explains how this developed after the Second World War onwards (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA). So what are the prospects for 2015? Not very good, unless we succeed in intervening, according to a new video by Storm Clouds Gathering, ‘ 2015 – The Dangers Ahead’
I think the Chilcott Report will be published some time after the election, despite an online petition that’s just appeared, demanding its immediate release (http://releasechilcot.com/). After I’d signed that, the Chilcott Commission announced that it would not be publishing its report before the General Election. It’s still worth signing, though, to show public outrage. When it is published, the report will undoubtedly show that they can’t entirely whitewash what happened, which is the purpose of an government inquiry rather than a judicial one. They will probably divert attention with another panic attack.
There’s also another crisis waiting to happen. The Queen will be 89 this year. Contrary to popular belief, she cannot go on for ever. Sooner or later there will be a constitutional crisis over her successor, because Prince Charles is not universally loved, and some have been suggesting that PrinceWilliam should inherit the throne. The main reason for this is lingering suspicions over the death of Diana. A play is now running at the Charing Cross Theatre in London, called ‘Truth Lies Diana” (http://www.charingcrosstheatre.co.uk/show/4/Truth+Lies+Diana). This is based on meticulous work by researcher and author John Morgan in Australia. At least, it’s gained some attention in the mainstream media. There was a two-page spread on 15 January in The Daily Mail’s ‘Femail’ section, and the text is more sympathetic than the headline, which ran ‘ So is there ANY truth in the tawdry new play about Diana?’ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2910698/West-End-backed-James-Hewitt-stirring-theories-Princess-Diana-s-death.html). Late on the same day, the Daily Mail’s columnist Quentin Letts published an attack on the play on the paper’s website: ‘A conspiracy to bore us rigid: Truth, Lies, Diana is self-serving tosh (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2912482/A-conspiracy-bore-rigid-Truth-Lies-Diana-self-serving-tosh.html). That must be a compliment, coming from the Daily Mail, which, in common with the rest of the mainstream media, put out masses of tosh every day.
Unfortunately for the government, 2015 is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, the nearest thing that Britain has for a constitution. People are now talking about their rights, and the constant erosion of the rights they once had, under the pretext of security in the War on Terror. Even the BBC’s favourite historian, David Starkey – with whom I disagree on practically every occasion he appears on television – has now spoken out on the erosion of our civil liberties, in an excellent programme on the Magna Carta on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05139m4/david-starkeys-magna-carta). The Magna Carta was signed by King John when the barrons forced him to sign it at Runymede. Perhaps we need a new Magna Carta. Perhaps the barrons should summon the Queen to Runymede and force her to sign a declaration that never again will she take the country to war, as she did in 2001, without the explicit consent of Parliament.
Keep talking!
Regards,
Ian.
Keep Talking group
ian@fantom.org.uk
ian@keeptalking.org
Berkshire 9/11 Truth
http://berkshire911truth.blogspot.com/ (newsletters archive)
Keep Talking administers an English-language email discussion group, ‘911keeptalking’, and monthly meetings in London. Email me for further information.
.
