This site is a back-up for the main site at frombehindenemylines.org.uk
When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne was quite the regular feature at the Bilderberg Group gatherings – and never a peep was heard out of the British corporate-media about how the inevitable meetings with foreign politicians – also present – were not disclosed as per the Ministerial Code. The perennial excuse came courtesy of the universal understanding (that corporate-media wanted to impress upon its imbecilic consumership) that Osborne was merely partaking in “informal discussions” – recognise that phrase, Bilderberg watchers? Said meetings never actually happened, therefore Osborne didn’t have to account for himself. Well, what difference now with Priti Patel and her Israeli government friends, whether it be at the hospital that treats al-Qaeda fighters in the Golan Heights, or on the Thames-side terrace at the Houses of Parliament, or in whatever venue served as a place to chat in New York? The answer should be none, except the British Establishment clearly wants to throw her under the bus. Her meetings were not “set up or reported in a way which accorded with proper procedures”.
Make no mistake, Westminster politics – for all its ability to cast spells of awesome and terrifying illusion – is a storm in a tea cup that doesn’t yet appreciate the scale of the mightier tempest that is rising to sweep into London off of scorched provincial streets. However, sometimes we do need to look at the lie of the leaves – or the planets amongst the signs – so as to learn how the Establishment brews the climate under which the body politic feverishy swelters, and to know which characters in particular are doing the cauldron stirring by which our, and countless daily lives suffer.
The first thing to notice is that what is being portrayed in some quarters as a crisis for the Conservative party in office was started with a coordinated attack through the BBC and the Guardian. Naturally, this presents itself as a left versus right contest – but it isn’t that, and this site never deals in that deception. Basically, the whole palaver is an operation to create favourable conditions in Britain for the purposes of the Establishment. The BBC journalist who appears to be credited for breaking the Priti Patel “scandal” is James Landale. However, his article on the BBC website cites a complementary Guardian story that refers back to his. Both were published on the 3rd November, and they informed this author of a joined-up Establishment operation. Let us notice that James Landale was at Eton. He was also at The Times as Assistant Foreign Editor. He is currently directly contributing to the financial impoverishment of millions of victims of the TV Tax fraud in his role as Diplomatic Correspondent for the BBC. In this author’s book, if he isn’t actually British intelligence, then he is as good as (might just well as be). His initial reportage was clearly designed to work on the well-established right/left divisions over Israel that would trigger the political auto-responses of most of his, and the BBC’s, audience. Additionally, The Times looked to supply fodder to those with a more advanced notion of the world by actually mentioning the consequence of Patel’s suggested aid to Israel in terms of solace to “al-Qaeda militants” in Syria. And so, on a basic level, the coverage of Patel’s misadventure was going to create a perception of Tory government incompetence, with people imagining associated nefariousness as they please.
We have been told that neither the Prime Minister’s Office or the Foreign Office knew in the first instance about Patel’s meetings, but we should suspect that this was not in fact the case. Patel herself, at least as she was quoted in the first Guardian article, appeared adamant that the Foreign Office had some prior warning (see how this introduces doubt about the honesty of any Government denials?). Indeed, this was a trap whose only victim would be Priti Patel. It was sprung with a revelation from the Jewish Chronicle which claimed that Number 10 Downing Street had known about Patel’s clandestine dalliances.
This sent the Westminster bubble into a greater lather – which is evidently what the Establishment requires at this time. The objective is to create the perception of a British government in turmoil. If the reader is sufficiently detached from the insistence by corporate-media and Westminster upon the version of reality that they assert, he or she is able to see that this entire issue is a minor flap that shouldn’t cause the least bit of political movement, let alone fill the sails of the State. It is, what we call in the arena of real intrigue, a psychological operation. What is being presented as instability in the Tory party in office is being driven by pure mechanism of theatre. Notions about behaviour that were long ago installed in the British public are being appealed to; certain politicians are acting and reacting as expected – in defence or on the attack; the media snaps at ankles from the ringside (the referee never sees it when it climbs in to thwack Joe Public over the back with a folded-up deck chair). The Idiocracy is animated, and the people pulling the strings will create a sense of disruption. Disruption is great for causing intense feelings of uncertainty. Uncertainty inspires a reaching for a radical solution – see the adoption of the socialist state in Britain in 1945. In this day and age, the Establishment wants to generate a rejection of Brexit.
But of course, there was another player. Ironically, one story after another in the corporate-media regarding the diplomatic misdeeds of Priti Patel showed tweets – many of them – made at the time of the meetings by various Israeli politicians; their content clearly demonstrating that there had been an encounter with the British MP. The Israelis weren’t hiding anything. Indeed, one has to speculate at the role of Lord Polack, the honorary director of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Arguably he was directing her around the mine field – straight into the mines. The author gets the feeling that he might have been viewed by Patel as accompaniment that negated the need for any of the official kind. He could very well have been set up like Patel was. If he was part of the sting, however, then understand he would have been equally guilty as a Baron of the Realm as he would have being an apparent agent for Israel.
Israel is Britain and the USA’s Outreamer – which is the name of the land conquered in the Lavant by the Crusading European powers. As the usage of the old name suggests, Israel is an independent entity, but the relationship between it and the US and the UK is defined by the mutual purpose of globalist policy makers common to all countries. Israel, and thus the British Establishment, is not happy with the outcome of the Syrian conflict. A war in Lebanon is brewing. So, when the likes of the Guardian, in an article that the author was able to find, asks what was in this Patel business for Israel?, the answer is nothing to do with influencing British politics. Israel is in the DNA of British politics in the first instance as a Masonic concept. This is what anti-Israelis, lots of them unconsciously of the Luciferian “left”, don’t understand. Israel wants what the British Establishment wants – acceptance of the radical solution. The war on Hezbollah, and perhaps Iran, is going to be unprecedented.
The jury has come back in at FBEL, and the decision is that the shooting at Sutherland Springs, Texas, November 5th, 2017, isn’t right. The author has now seen two versions† of how Ryland Ward was discovered at, or extracted from the scene of the crime. Call it old fashioned if you want, but the author thinks that an actual fact only has one version. Then there is the story, offered by survivors (via CNN), about how the gunman stalked up and down the aisle of the church hunting for hidden prey between the pews. Never had so much depended on not making a noise to attract unwanted attention since Anne Frank had the Nazis prowling about on the other side of the walls. But, ladies and gentlemen, consider the tiny size of the church. Now, look at the image on the right (click on it to enlarge). The fluorescent green dots are physical markers, and are supposed to indicate where bullets were fired into the church’s front door by the shooter. For whose benefit does the reader really think that these day-glo spots have been attached in this way? We are quite ready to stand corrected if anyone wants to tell us that this method is something to do with modern crime scene investigation, but it looks more like a show for stupid people. When a bullet hits wood, it doesn’t always just leave a nice round dent as if a worm munched it out – it tends to splinter the surrounding material. Is there anything actually in this picture that shows that the door was hit by gunfire?
As is usually the case, this evidence is far from clinching. The author was more interested in the way that he found himself having a big problem with the backstory of the shooter, Devin Kelley. Something kept nagging: how was it that he could have been serving in the US Air Force, and at the same time, be confined in a facility for the mentally ill? If the reader doesn’t know, this is referring to the period in 2012 that Kelley spent as a patient at Peak Behavioral Health Services (PBHS) at Santa Teresa, New Mexico. We should note that during this sojourn at the “asylum”, Kelley decided that he’d had enough, and he wandered into the nearest town for to get a bus out of there. This has been portrayed in the corporate-media as the dangerous fugitive at large, Clint Eastwood breaking out of Alcatraz wouldn’t have been such a villain. Kelley was soon brought back to custody by police – who were offered no resistance. So, let the fact register that Kelley couldn’t have been imprisoned at this facility for the emotionally unwell and psychologically disturbed. Or put it another way, he couldn’t have been guarded.
Now we have to reconcile that the following point of fact: while at the mental health facility, Kelley was supposedly awaiting trial for an apparently long-running case of “domestic violence” against his wife and stepson. This idea was the cause of much head-scratching at this end of the internet because if you proceed to the website of PBHS, you will discover what it is that this company does for troubled servicemen. In particular, and by gauging the one thing about Kelley’s condition that PBHS, citing concerns for patient confidentiality, has allowed into the public domain (that he was considered a danger to himself and others), we can find what the alleged Sutherland shooter might have been at the facility for: “crisis stabilization”. Here is what the site says about this service:
This track is designed for those service members who are in need of short-term crisis stabilization who are in immediate danger of harming themselves or someone else. Our goal is to return them to duty quickly with the coping skills necessary to lead and promote a healthy life that reinforces positive relationships and independence.
This course of treatment seems to be all about preventing a descent into self-destruction, but if at this time Kelley was battering his wife and baby stepson, wasn’t he already way past this consideration? Which brings us to this: if Kelley was awaiting trial for various instances of assault and battery, why was he not in the lock-up on the Air Force base?
It makes the author wonder if Kelley’s history is actually true, and if it hasn’t been invented, or tweaked, to suit newly emerged requirements. After all, it is a fact acknowledged by all that the FBI did not receive any information that made Kelley a villain on their books – which would have rendered him unable to purchase firearms. We don’t know, as a matter of fact, why the USAF thought fit to put Kelley in a mental hospital. Could it have had anything to do with the ill-feeling he bore towards his commanding officers? In some quarters of the internet, it is actually implied that he was in the care of mental health practitioners precisely because he tried to sneak weapons on to his base with which to attack superiors. Is it fake news, or is it just untouched by corporate-media. If it is even remotely true, what was it all about?
We keep hearing about Kelley’s bad conduct discharge; his rather tattered military service record – but has anyone actually seen it? From what the author can gather, there is one source of Kelley’s historic circumstances, and that is retired Air Force Colonel Don Christensen. He was the chief prosecutor of the USAF, but his career ended in September 2012. Kelley was convicted in the following November. Of course, there must have been overlap because the process against Kelley would surely have been lengthy, but one has to ask – how much interest does the Chief Prosecutor of the whole USAF, who was also very much involved in a high profile sexual assault case that same year leading up to his retirement, have in the cases of grunts who can’t leave the aggressiveness at work? Consider also where this Christensen fellow is delivering his information. All the mentions in corporate-media that the author has found regarding specifics of Kelley’s domestic violence during his service career refer to Christensen talking to the New York Times (this appears to be the source). Additionally, there was an appearance on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show.
The author is quite happy to stand corrected in all this – God forbid he doesn’t want to be misunderstood as making excuses for the worst kind of cretinous fellow – but he is also not going to blindly believe what the corporate-media and high ranking ex-US military personnel tell the world either. All of a sudden, are the New York Times and CNN bastions of truth? All of a sudden, are the people who finally won a war – in a manner of speaking – when they killed woman and children at Waco (yes, the US military was involved) even somehow remotely honourable? If someone can deny that these parties aren’t scientifically peddling the exact kind of information needed to be disseminated in order to achieve a psychological outcome in their audiences, then the author will concede that everything that emanates from them must be the gospel truth. But actually, isn’t it just possible that, after all, what we have got ourselves here is a case of a man who was wound up by his military service precisely in order to enter civilian-street and appear capable of committing mass murder, or to be party (knowing or, more likely, unknowing) to the mere presentation of such an event for political ends. But we won’t ever focus on that menace if we’re always looking at the disinformation that comes from the very people who create the missions for and the required psychological disturbances in their operatives. Although the patsies will come and go, and the faces of the culprits will be forever changing, the menace will never cease.
† Here they are:
Ward ran out of the house barefoot, got in his car and sped to the church, Leslie and Michael behind him. They saw Ryland, 5, outside as first responders began the hell of assessing the human toll.
At least 26 were killed in this small town of just more than 600 people, and dozens more were wounded. One was Ryland. Michael carried his nephew out of the church that morning, just minutes after the shooting stopped.
There hadn’t been a plan for an FBEL article on the shooting at the First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas – but the reluctant author noticed that the official narrative had a big problem straight off the bat. Devin Kelley had been banned from owning firearms. He had no legal access to the means by which he had supposedly committed his crime.
This was awkward, and so early on too; it was common knowledge by bed time on Sunday – British bed time, that is. It would need some explaining, especially if the atrocity was going to be a spring board for the usual clamour for gun control. The US Air Force duly produced the goods. On Monday, it was announced that Kelley hadn’t been registered on a federal database whereby he would have been prohibited from purchasing four weapons in four years. The sanction had come about “following his 2012 domestic violence conviction”, and was related to his subsequently being dishonourably discharged from the service – but, it appears that the US Air Force had just… forgotten… whatever it was that they were supposed to do in terms of notifying the civilian authorities. All very convenient.
But it wasn’t just that that roused the author’s curiosity. There is a video out there on the internet (that the reader is just going to have to find on his or her own) in which a local woman is talking to an anchor-person for an organisation called Blazing Press News. In the course of the discourse, this woman happens to name the shooter, and she didn’t say “Devin Kelley”. The source of this information was identified by the news channel with one name only (it’s not going to be mentioned here) – which, given that she had freely announced her place of work as being in that small village of Sutherland Springs, could only serve to make her anonymous in the wider world; although, presumably, anyone in the community could identify who she was. And yet, she gave the name of a certain individual as the perpetrator of a particularly heinous crime. She claimed that this man had attacked his own family first, before going to the church to shoot more people.
It’s all very odd. Basically, on the surface of things as we are told they exist, this woman just decided to air a slanderous piece of town gossip, on an (out of nowhere) media outlet that was apparently doing live rolling news coverage, about someone who would also know who she was – and presumably wouldn’t take kindly to the things being said. Why on Earth would she do that?
Now, we’re not going to join in with the defamation to name this individual ourselves, but we do need to discuss this aberration. Even before the author started to search for this named individual on the internet, it occurred that he might find that the supposed victims amongst this man’s family would appear in the list of people who had been killed or injured as part of the church congregation – and indeed, this did turn out to be the case. (This has a significance, but it’s preferable not to discuss it).
It is imperative to point out that also on the internet are vigorous denials that this named individual had anything to do with any act of violence against anybody. We should accept this information on its face value. However, this doesn’t mean we should stop digging, either. The aim is not to further injure any maligned innocent; it is to find evidence of any greater, wider crime; to find the real story. And so, when investigating the chorus of denial, the author came across one piece that was extremely puzzling in particular. It mentioned that the individual had indeed been accused of being the shooter (we’re going to swap names out for letters; X being the individual, Y being a relative of X):
In the first hours after the shooting Sunday, some media erroneously reported X was the shooter. Y said his [relative] wasn’t angry about the mistake, he was too worried about his family to care.
However, it didn’t mention that in fact this individual had been accused of murdering his own family. Surely he would care about that?
The article in question was executed as if it was for a lifestyle magazine; which made it appear strange considering the grief would still have been red-raw for the people who constituted the subject matter. It certainly seems to have been written just after the evening of the Sunday on which the incident occurred – because it describes events taking place at that time. It was apparently written by someone who had gained access into the home of a relative of the individual (the “Y” of the above quote) – a photographer even took shots of this relative in his grief (to qualify: with his hand over his face obscuring both his features and actually, his emotions). It meant the worst kind of imposition and intrusion to produce – and yet, this strange piece of writing was produced and published within 24 hours of a personal disastor for the people it studied. What could possibly be the meaning of such bizarre timing for a human-interest angled “Hello!”-style piece of journalism related to this incident?
Well, at one point, it does give the accused individual (X) an alibi:
Y’s house is just a few blocks from the church… Z, his wife, was setting up a yard sale when she heard the first shots Sunday morning.
“Bam bam bam bam!” the shots came so fast, Z said, it sounded like something from a machine gun. Word sped fast in the small town — there was a shooter and he was inside the church.
She ran inside and woke a napping Y. His [relative] X, whose family often attends services there, wasn’t answering his phone so the two hopped in the car and sped to his house to check they were safe.
“He was pissed at me,” Y said. His [relative] didn’t think it could be true — not in their small town. He thought Y must be wrong, he had to be mistaken. X works the night shift and had stayed home that morning, but his wife and children were at the church. “I said, ‘I’m not lying to you, X, they’re all shot.”
It’s such an incredibly weird thing to say: “they’re all shot”. How could X’s relative possibly know at that stage exactly what had happened in the church?
One can’t even try to account for how peculiar all of this is. And we shouldn’t try, because we might impute diabolical wrongdoing against an innocent man, and we certainly don’t want to do that.
As for the incident as a whole, it is giving off a stench that is all too familiar. There is another video on the internet taken by what is presumably a woman on the scene. She captures a much-too sterile environment; first responders ambling about; a good deal of loitering by the church entrance; in short, no sense of urgency on display from any quarter. She reports that she has been there for 10 minutes, with the incident having happened about 50 before her arrival, and she hadn’t seen any victims coming or being taken out of the church. Incredibly, she reports that the neighbours she had spoken to had not, in all the intervening time since the incident had occurred, seen any victims either.
This is the second part of an analysis of H G Wells’ “The Rights of Man” (1940) – the first part being here.
If one didn’t know about it already, one discovers that the likes of H.G. Wells were agitating for a socialist state to be instituted after the Second World War just as soon as the conflict started. “What are we fighting for?” demanded Wells in “The Rights of Man” – as did he and others elsewhere, apparently, because there seemed to be a concerted movement. Wells suggested that it should be for the New World Order – yes indeed. And why would this be a surprise. In his 1933 Luciferian manifesto, “The Shape of Things to Come”, he “predicted” a war that would start over German grievance about land gifted to a newly recreated Poland. Post 9/11, and thanks to the work of Milton William Cooper, who exposed the globalist Masonic western government and its heritage, we can classify Wells’ work of “prediction” as a masterpiece of psychological conditioning – expectation management – based on insider knowledge of a scheme in pursuit of globalist goals.
It is no wonder that in 1945, as soon as the possibility arose, the British voted for a Labour government – which duly nationalised various industries and services; its jewel in the crown the immediately insufficient National Health Service; no wonder because the likes of Wells had spent the war years filling heads with the notion that although Britons may be fighting Nazis on the physical battlegrounds, they were actually winning a collectivised utopian World Pax. There was a big problem, though, for the fight was against one of the two great models† of socialism in the world – the corporate-government system of Germany. And so Wells constructs an idea that the Nazis did not represent proper collectivism; it was the “outrages upon human dignity” that rendered them slightly “above the level of an exceptionally spiteful ape” – as if his version of socialism would ever result in any different outcome. A particular fault of the Nazis was the “concentration camps and the refugees”; very early references to atrocities against the Jews. Wells reports that in his discussions with Tommy in the Ranks, Joe Public, and whoever else he talked to, it was that the Germans were “too bad” which made Britons understand that they faced a gruelling, unremitting fight to force unconditional surrender. A “lynching spirit” had been stirred up – “the young Germany of Hitler, wearing its thick boots (that have stamped in the faces of Jewish women)” was going to be on the receiving end of a different type of British opponent as it had faced in the first outing: “the bayoneting this time will be done in a different spirit”.
And so, the holocaust – although it would have been impossible to yet understand what was going on in Germany in those terms – would nevertheless very early on provide the inspiration for fighting for a collective against a collective. This is incredibly significant. We used to be told that the British didn’t know very much about the persecution of the Jew at the start of the war. Nowadays, we more commonly see stuff like this (source):
[communication intercepts show] that the British knew that Jews were being targeted for atrocities as early as September 1941 — more than a year before Britain or the United States publicly acknowledged the plight of the European Jews.
Even before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Polish resistance and Jewish groups had been telling Britain and its allies of atrocities against civilians in occupied Poland.
We don’t want to get too sidetracked by this, but there is something important to be imbibed from the detail of this issue. Wells clearly indicates that when he and others were loudly demanding “what are we fighting for?”, and while he couldn’t extract a public official statement of “War Aims” from British Government, the word on the street was about avenging the boot in the face of the Jewish woman – in 1940. In 1940, how are the British people hearing about Nazi atrocities? Could it possibly be on the end of those stories coming out of Poland? Now the author would like the reader to consider lessons learnt from Syria, and to think of the White Helmets in particular; the organisation that fronted as providers of humanitarian aid, but that – as much evidence suggests – was basically a foreign intelligence outfit that staged false flags to provoke intervention by the US military. Think of the lad in Coventry who called himself the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, whose stated aim was “to document alleged human rights abuses in Syria” (as Wikipedia puts it), and from whence he might have got his anti-Assad intelligence – which was then relayed as fact to the public via propagandising state controlled media.
If Britons really wanted to know why they were fighting a war with Germany in 1940, the worst thing they could have done was become interested in Wells’ provocateuring for the New World Order with letters in the Times, and his “The Rights of Man” and other agitprop produced by either him or any of his confederates. Wells had written about the war in 1933, and specifically about why it was necessary: to cause terrible chaos out of which a socialist world state could emerge. Moreover, from our post-9/11 perspective, we may suspect, and find evidence, that the real truth about the question of why the war was being fought was this: Germany had been humiliated in 1918, and then certain powerful people in the USA and Britain, who would prosper from war, engineered a government that would try to rectify that situation militarily.
Wells’ position in the light of what we do know about a contrivance to bring about a World War Two is repugnant. From “The Rights of Man” we know that while he thought that war needed to be waged against the Nazis and not the Germans per se, he still thought that the German people deserved a lesson for what he portrayed as their responsibility for bringing the war about:
There are, I say, many excuses for the Germans, Versailles and the strangulation after 1919-20, etc, etc, – we all know how sound their excuses are, we concede them almost excessively, we over-do it; none the less they have been made excuses for abominable behaviour – and I am convinced that vigorous bombing and bombarding, town-wrecking and the like, would be an entirely wholesome and chastening experience for the German ‘soul’…
Germans have to see and feel for themselves as recipients, the heroic blonde mothers and that heroic blond little boy, the Nazi-kicker of tomorrow, have to feel in their own skins what sort of war they have made and applauded in Poland.
May the author suggest that Wells shows us what a spiteful Luciferian looks like when he can’t get his own way, or when the danger he wants for others, so as to advance his agenda, instead starts to threaten him. Malevolent and cowardly – despicable and ignoble. An animal, not a god. Wells cannot help but admit that environmental factors engineered by the victorious powers in 1918 were a major cause of the Second World War – he can’t help but admit it because it was the truth. And yet according to him average Germans should have their towns bombed out from beneath them. And in fact, it’s not just the average Ger-man who needs to suffer; Wells specifically wishes death on women and children.
Wells’ hypocrisy regarding this idea of innocents paying for the war in Poland gives off a particularly rancid stink even after 70 years. In “The Shape of Things to Come”, he wrote of war between Poland and Germany as being a conduit for progression into the socialist modernity. In Well’s imagination, these two countries slugged it out for years – while Blighty, with its fat ration-guzzling ruling class – sat safely on the sidelines selling arms to both warring parties. The author suggests that Wells was not happy about the Germany of reality – the Germany which did what it wasn’t supposed to do, and blitzkrieged itself into a position whereby it could wrap up the mould-breaking transformative European conflagration well before it had created very much chaos – if any – from which a new world order had to emerge. In fact, the author thinks that there wasn’t one member amongst the Masonic World State planners of the governing classes of Britain who would have been happy with Germany’s successes in 1939 and 1940. The realisation must have dawned upon them, as Hitler took a day trip to a completely undamaged City of Light, that Britain would have to be in the war in more than just name in order to do some town-wrecking; to set Europe into disarray. And let’s dig down deeper into the hateful desire to see women and children killed, and look at what the act would mean from a Masonic perspective: the author suggests that when Wells talks about children dying for the restitution of a Germany that would be fit to join his World State, he is plainly talking of the sacrifice necessary for the purpose – a sacrifice which the sanctimonious British would have to perform. The RAF started bombing Germany in March, 1940.
Ironically, it has been a vehement opponent of the British devastation of Germany by Lancaster and Wellington, Bishop Bell of Chichester, who has recently had his name blackened with a posthumous and apparently unsubstantiated allegation of child molestation. For more detail of the defence of Bell, the reader should look up Peter Hitchens’ coverage (even the most dangerous of gatekeepers are sometimes good for something); the author only has this to say: the cave-in by the present Cathedral administration without even trying the case against Bell makes the “unpersoning” of the Bishop look like a scheme towards some greater agenda. Bell’s relatively low key memorial monument has been at risk of being removed from the Cathedral – which would be the height of his disgrace. The author thinks that it is proof of Wells’ social engineering success that modern Britons don’t think it fitting that his bones aren’t dug up for the crime of agitating for the actual murder of thousands of children.
† The other was the Soviet Union. In “The Rights of Man” Wells appears to be disappointed that it had given up being a champion of international collectivism when Molotov declared that the USSR had no interest in interfering with the internal ideologies of other nations. This was probably convenient, because then Wells could complain about the “mental and moral deterioration of the Soviet government”. The problem for the Russians was that they had arrived at collectivism along a culturally inferior route: “The collectivism that is rolling down on us from the East knows nothing of the tradition of personal rights. There have been no Magna Cartas east of the Rhine”. It’s not that Wells was confused, dear reader, and didn’t understand that Magna Carta doesn’t feature in the heritage of any shade of socialist state, it was that he was a Luciferian, and for such a man, routine deception is a means to the ends, which justifies the means, and many a promise can be made, for the advancement of one’s own purpose, that is never meant to be kept.
As a follow up to the previous FBEL article on the grand deception that is the globalist apparatchik, Jeremy Corbyn, this article will be the first in a two part series on the one-time Fabian Society member, H G Wells’ “The Rights of Man” (1940). We are going to start with looking at some of the clauses, or the separate pronouncements, that together constitute a “declaration of rights” document, and in a second article we are going to examine the conversational part of the book which discusses and frames the clauses, and which actually makes up the major part of the work. It should be pointed out that the “rights” clauses are the creation of a group that these days might be called a think-tank, and Wells, as he himself explains, is the editor rather than the author.
This article can also be counted as being part of an overall ongoing re-evaluation of the works of the anti-competition Victorian ruling class that conceived the project to return the masses to an equivalent of the monument-building slaves of ancient days – as per the dictates of their Masonic perspective. Any other outcome for humanity would be intolerable; the profane masses must be ruled by Hermetic technocrats who (think they) are achieving godhood. And if we but look closely and see the dead hand that controls western government in the 21st century, we can detect the reality of a control structure that has tentacles in all aspects of the body politic to the point of being able to wage psychological warfare on Britons as if they are have been conquered by force of arms: that it smacks of the occult society – secretive, and ruthlessly effective at keeping itself secret. Additionally, when we consider the shape of the political environment we live in, we can see the desired Luciferian “utopia” is very near completion, and we can detect signalling in mass culture which is intended to indicate who has been organising its manifestation (see “Interstellar”).
The back cover of the Penguin Special (2015) edition of Wells’ “The Rights of Man” spouts the following to establish the works’ significance:
The fearlessly progressive ideas… [Wells] set out were instrumental in the creation of the UNs Declaration of Human Rights, the EU’s European Convention on Human Rights and the UK’s Human Rights Act .
If the reader is aware of it, he will also notice that Theodore Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights” looks awfully familiar to Wells’ production. Little wonder, for Wells’ work was intended to be used as a tool of worldwide agitation for the creation of a “new world order” – yes, Wells used this phrase in 1940. When we know Wells’ Bill of Rights for what it is, these “sleeve notes” are telling us that socialism has been institutionalised in Britain. There will be no revocation either while people continue to vote for the LibLabCon; the Tories’ proposed UK Bill of Rights appears to be intended as some subsidiary of the ECHR. That things have got so bad in the country of Common Law is thanks to the realisation of Wells’ “rights” – as we shall see – so that government can make good drones for the socialist beehive; people are not aware of their real individual rights. As we go through these clauses, the reader needs to remember that “rights” which would mean a person drawing on welfare are not rights at all. Welfare inevitably means taxation, which means the infringement of the real individual right to one’s own property and capital.
The first clause tells us the extent of the world welfare state envisioned by Wells et al:
Every man without distinction of race or colour is entitled to the nourishment, covering, medical care and attention needed to realise his full possibilities of physical and mental development and to keep him in a state of health from his birth to death.
It is clear that welfare covers everything that a man could ask a government for, from the cradle to the grave, because the recipient of the entitlement gets it without discrimination – he is “every man”. He could be jobless, and therefore contributing nothing himself, but it would still be his right to enjoy the things mentioned in the clause. Indeed, Wells suggests that a man in the new world order, if he wants to, wouldn’t need to do anything in return for his entitlement. But by his other writings we know that Wells’ was aware of the impracticalities of Malthusian “useless eating”, and from his “Declaration of Rights” itself, also clearly understands that a welfare state relies on taxation, and so underneath the soundbytes, we find that the socialist Bill of Rights denies the life of leisure that it appears to promise‡. No surprise, as casually disposed-of deception is at the heart of socialism. We’ll discuss this some more as we deal with the second clause:
[Every man] is entitled to sufficient education to make him a useful and interested citizen…
This very first line gives us a clue about the real nature of entitlement to welfare. The citizen is educated so that he is “interested” – meaning that he doesn’t become disillusioned with the system. This means that the system wants to have “every man” fully invested in it. The purpose for which will become clear. The clause goes on…
…that… [every man] should have easy access to information upon all matters of common knowledge throughout his life and enjoy the utmost freedom of discussion.
At first glance this looks great – it seems to suggest free speech. But look again. The subject matter of unlimited discussion is restricted to that which is “common knowledge”. Obviously, the government would control this because of a lack of competition in the system (which has yet to be discussed, but for the moment, the reader should trust that it truly would be the case). No competition in terms of cultural leadership would mean that “common knowledge” would only work to further the interests of the system. Indeed, that this idea appears in a clause which talks about education is precisely to do with the fact that “common knowledge” would be the continued propagandising that an individual would receive after school and throughout his adult life (we should recognise that this has been instituted in 2017 UK from its cultural environment). Education is for making a man useful to and invested in the system.
Now, in further pursuit of the answer to why every man should be fully invested in the system, we skip to clause (5)
That… [every man] may engage freely in any lawful occupation, earning such pay as the need for his work and the increment it makes to the common welfare may justify. That he is entitled to paid employment and to a free choice whenever there is any variety of employment open to him. He may suggest employment for himself and have his claim publicly considered.
Notice the choice of words, for it is deliberate. A man earns pay when his produce is owned by another – or, when he is in the employ of another party. When a man produces his own goods to sell, he is not paid, but instead has a turnover – expenses versus income from sales. Indeed, the later overt use of the word “employment” makes it clear that in the socialist “utopia”, every man is working for someone else. So there is a problem, because if every man is earning pay, who, then does that leave to offer employment? Well, it is the government, of course – and it is imperative to understand that when we’re talking about governmental control of the means of production – which we are – then there is absolutely no difference between pure government, and several corporations incorporated into government (which is how the present UK government is constituted). It is only the names given to the types of socialism that differs: one is communism, the other is fascism. Above all else, here we see why the State would be interested in wanting people to be healthy from cradle to the grave, and to remain engaged and useful – to be a good human resource; to serve the collective underneath the government.
Please notice that in this clause about employment in return for pay, there is nothing about a right to withhold labour as a means to obtain a better rate. This would be perfectly acceptable under a scheme of real individual rights, but in the socialist “utopia” it must qualify as being disillusioned with the regime. We must come to this conclusion because of how, in principle, there should be no such thing as industrial dissatisfaction in the socialist “utopia” because of how it is arranged so that anyone can leave a job and subsist on welfare – or demand another job. It would follow that anyone who thought that they needed to strike for a pay rise would run the risk of slipping into a new classification of “criminal” that the socialist “utopia” by necessity must invent in order to maintain the illusion of its infallibility: the dissident. We’ve hinted at this sort of person already in this article: the man disillusioned with the system; the man who reacts against his conditioning – or “education” – that is supposed to make him useful. We’ll return to this person momentarily.
Notice that there are two considerations for how much pay an employed individual is to receive: 1) the demand for the work being done, and 2) how much tax (which is what is meant by “increment”) that must be produced by the employment to support the collective. In the social “utopia”, only the government employs – so that it can rake back to pay for the State. Where does the wealth come from so that it can be distributed for the people who are specifically told that the socialist “utopia” is their great hope? We need to consider another related clause in order to proceed:
(7) That… [every man] shall have the right to buy or sell without any discriminatory restrictions anything which may be lawfully bought or sold, in such quantities and with such reservations as are compatible with the common welfare.
This clause† is redundant. It is just dressing to lure the unsuspecting in to a trap. It looks like it is talking about individuals with turnover, but that cannot be the case, since everyone gets paid as an employee. There is also a huge self-contradiction regarding the claim that there would be no restrictions on trade – except those that the State would place on them to enforce compatibility for the common welfare. And the State would undoubtedly discriminate, because what is good for government is for it to face no competition. So, the clause is a complete deception. The only thing it can possibly be talking about is how people cannot be prevented from buying from State-owned shops where management is nothing to do with ownership, but is there to facilitate the restocking of State-supplied products (as we shall see, the State monopolises natural resources and their production into saleable items).
And so, with no economic competition, and with government in full control of production, it would be able to execute a centrally planned economy where it decided what the people wanted to buy. Now, historically, such things have failed because people don’t want the same thing as government wants for them. However, with the ability to control cultural consumption – “common knowledge” – government would be free to direct demand according to a political agenda – and this is what it does in our current time with the drive towards “sustainability” (Agenda 21) and the propaganda regarding climate change, or with the big lie that the NHS is the best medical care system in the world. The bottom line is that true demand is a disruptive factor in centrally controlled economies unless it is manufactured by aligning public taste with political agenda. In this case, in no sense of the word would people be free. To add insult to injury, the State would deem a product that was in demand to be rich pickings in terms of tax, and so, there won’t be a benefit in terms of net pay – especially for people who work in less valued roles within the process of producing particularly in-demand goods or services. On the other hand, more valued servants of the State in positions integral to the workings of the system would be permitted a high gap between income and tax to encourage a belief in the success of the system – to foster personal investment in it so that they don’t become disillusioned. The bitter truth of the matter is that the socialist state can only survive if it creates the sort of “have and have-not” economics that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn are always rebuking to foment and manipulate their political base.
This brings us to this:
(6) That… [every man] may move freely about the world at his own expense. That his private house or apartment or reasonably limited garden enclosure is his castle, which may be entered only with his consent, but that he shall have the right to come and go over any kind of country, moorland, mountain, farm, great garden or what not, where his presence will not be destructive of some special use, dangerous to himself nor seriously inconvenient to his fellow-citizens.
Because the segue demands it, let’s deal with this first: it is eminently evident that it must be the upper echelon – those who are “bribed” to support the system – who would get to travel around the world. They could afford it – “every man” would not be able to. Pure deception. The second thing to talk about is how this clause is absolutely the Agenda 21 that has been rolled out globally at the end of the 20th century, where the great outdoors is State-owned; notice there is nothing about “he shall have the right to come and go where his presence is not objected to by private landowners”. Furthermore, citizens have to live in restricted living spaces with little or no capacity to produce their own natural resources. This means that natural resources all belong to the government. Farms are State owned. It is a reiteration of the reality of the centrally planned economy in the socialist “utopia”. And it makes the author wonder if, through a study of the plan for and implementation for the socialised state, we haven’t discovered the real reason that agriculture has been subsidised these many long years (one in five of the biggest recipients of EU subsidies are reportedly billionaires). The general aim must be to help keep land in the hands of a relative few, who are beholden to government, and who don’t then have to sell piecemeal to individuals who could afford it (although big construction companies are sold swathes of land to create more restricted living spaces).
Now we finally return to the topic of what happens to those who don’t remain interested in and committed to the system; those who would react against their conditioning for making them useful – in short, any who would show the socialist “utopia” as flawed:
That a man unless he is duly certified as mentally deficient shall not be imprisoned for a longer period than three weeks without being charged with a definite offence against the law, nor for more than three months without a public trial. At the end of the latter period, if he has not been tried and sentenced by due process of law, he shall be released.
Forget all the pretence of being concerned for habeas corpus, for it doesn’t apply for the real criminals in the socialist “utopia”. Justice only applies to those who haven’t been declared mentally deficient by the State; obviously it is imperative to deny a day in court for political criminals in order to save the image of government infallibility.
This brings us to this clause:
That… [every man] and his personal property lawfully acquired are entitled to police and legal protection from private violence, deprivation, compulsion and intimidation.
There are two things to notice here. Firstly, the private person and his property is only in need of protection from private crime. The government can never commit crime against the person or his property, that is to say, when government causes injury against those things, it isn’t classified as criminality. The legal system is not there to protect a private individual from crime by the government. Secondly, the emphasis here isn’t on a householder protecting his own person or property (which is the fundamental stuff of individual liberty) – instead it is on abdicating that right and handing it to the police and the legal system. When you abdicate to the government a right to protect you, you give it an excuse to identify you as its property. In this clause, abdication has been assumed, and Wells is insisting on the government protecting its own assets. In the socialist “utopia”, there is no such thing as a private individual after all. And one is not guaranteed safety no more than one is guaranteed health in a national health service, for the contract leaves one open to not being protected because police might have to prioritise to 1) deal with “crime” against government (committed by dissidents who, for various reasons, become disruptive figures to the socialist “utopia”) – or political crime, and 2) deal with crime against those more valuable to the State. This is pretty much where we are at in Britain today, are we not?
‡ The late-20th century socialist State actually found a way for the welfare client to be a resource. Whole service industries, paid for by tax payers, are built around administrating welfare recipients.
† Wells claimed that this clause was aimed at preventing profiteering by forced scarcity – storing up goods to reduce supply, and artificially create demand and therefore increase the price. However, this can only be done by an individual or company with a monopoly, or who is conspiring with others to achieve an effective one. But when the government owns everything exclusively, who else can create forced scarcity?
This site has long been detailing – predicting – how the Tories would deceive about Brexit to produce a mother of all fudges (search in the box at the top of the page for “Fake Brexit”). Labour too will have a big part to play – in fact, the Tories are relying on it. As such, one of the most dangerous men in Britain in relation to its survival as an independent nation state, and indeed anything else related to the protection of individual liberty, is Jeremy Corbyn. There is a very sizeable element of the British electorate that can comprehend the EU as a component of global corporate-government – and they object to it. These people see the evils of corporate-government in any case, with or without reference to the EU, and in recent years they have increasingly become detached from the traditional two-party politics which has been the bulwark of Establishment control for decades. Corbyn has been stationed as Labour leader to frighten some of these voters back to the Tories, and also to funnel other support back into the Labour party. And, we must add, he is ably assisted by a plethora of cheerleading British alternative media – who thus suggest they are shilling for the Establishment, or are very badly mistaken. Either way, they are worthless as leadership. In this article we are going to look at how the origins of socialism, which Corbyn openly advocates, are in the Mystery School for ancient technocrats, and how the Labour party was cut from the same cloth as the Nazi party via a connection with Helena Blavatsky. Ultimately, we will observe that Corbyn is an inevitable agent of the New World Order. We also note which side of the fundamental conflict for the human future his supporters are really on, despite whatever else they profess to be.
The British Government has cottoned on to a movement that becomes visible when one reads most of the alternative media in Britain or in North America. In this journalism, capitalism† is clearly a dirty word. It is seen as the source of all the world’s ills. Enter Jeremy Corbyn; the following is taken from his speech to the Fabian Society in January 2017:
The people who run Britain have been taking our country for a ride. They’ve stitched up our political system to protect the powerful…
The truth is the system simply doesn’t work for the vast majority of people. Labour under my leadership stands for a complete break with this rigged system.
We will hand back wealth and control to people and communities.
We’ll look at Corbyn’s utterances in more detail in another article, but for the time being note that he can’t stop at just returning wealth and control to people; the collectivised unit has to have its share too, meaning that in fact anything “returned” to individuals is meaningless (this will register to the reader as a fact in due course). Obviously, the headline issue that stands out in this extract is the need to deal with corporate-government, which is characterised, in the circles Corbyn’s message appeals to, as a consequence of capitalism. The answer, says Corbyn, is socialism. His support in the “alternative” faction of the body politics would seem to agree, given the disdain there for capitalism. But the big problem and the inconvenient truth for all of these people is the plain fact that ours is not a capitalist system. We are already socialised. We have been slowly and surely socialised for over a hundred years. And yet the solution, apparently, is more of the same.
The real solution to the monopolism that Corbyn appears to set himself against is capitalism. Socialism is the ultimate in monopolism: ownership, or control, by the state. Capitalism involves the diametric opposite: it means competition. Some readers may recognise Ayn Rand in the following: There are only two economic rights, and they are not a right to a council house and a welfare cheque. The two economic rights of man are a right to own property, and the right to free trade – involving the concept of an individual being able to own his produce, or his capital: that which he can trade or invest without any interference from any other party looking to earn off the transaction. Moreover, these economic rights reflect the idea that property is an extension of one’s own person (property is made by the individual, or obtained through the trade of other property).
When a government, whose sole purpose is to protect the rights of man, taxes an individual and makes it compulsory on the pain of imprisonment, then it commits an infringement of the very rights it is supposed to protect. A man has a right to his capital as an extension of his person. Taxes were historically levied by a class that ruled through force to further the interests of that rule. Things haven’t changed even though on the surface, these days, taxes, are to pay for the collectivised welfare state as well as the stuff that connects to that which was historically subsidised like military or the administration of government. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is the socialist mantra which perfectly illustrates the conflict with capitalism. The idea is that in a collectivised system, enough will be produced to satisfy the needs of those who don’t (this is flawed, but it’s subject for a fuller discussion at another time).
Let’s look at this the other way around. If taxes are necessary to sustain a welfare state, then it follows that a welfare state provides a pretext for violating individual rights. When individuals don’t have rights – whether they have had them taken away, or they abdicate them – then they become held a hostage to fortune, and to whatever is deemed to be “good for society”, or for the common good. What the common good equates to is pronounced by the rulers of society. They are now above the moral code that existed by necessity between individuals for exchange of capital; who would knowingly trade with a crook? – and this gets to the bottom of who would be motivated to rule collectivised society: those who could not prosper honestly. What is “good”, then, becomes infringing upon the rights of individuals so that they cannot prosper and they cannot threaten as serious competition. The welfare state, and socialism, is for shoring up the rule of criminals.
We were about to ask, what is the driving force? – and we already partly answered the question: criminality. Certainly, this explains ancient potentates – we’ll get to them momentarily. The ailing Victorians who instituted British and American socialism could not compete with a buoyant middle class. Seeing superiority where there is none (in order to rationalise moral, intellectual or physical inferiority as quite the opposite) has to come from a fantasy – and it’s always been the way. The technocrats of ancient civilisations taught religion to the masses to justify their dominance. It was the duty of mankind to continue to beautify the universe as a reflection of the godhood that permeated man and made him a creator and administrator:
The Earth is kept in order
by means of humanity’s knowledge
and application of the arts and sciences
for Atum willed that the universe
should not be complete
until man had played his part
…It is man’s function to complete the work of Atum
…There are some whose name will live on
through the memorials
of their mighty handiwork
but the names of the many
will fade into darkness
…Most are led and driven by the gods
which govern earthly life
using our bodies
of the instruments of destiny.
The Hermitica (“lost ancient Egyptian knowledge – rediscovered by the Greeks”).
In ancient Babylon all this translated into organising the population to build a huge temple (the tower), as it did in Egypt (the great pyramids), as it did in the British Isles (stone henges), but these endeavours are really about constructing a sense of awesomeness about the ruling class. Religion for the masses taught subservience to the political scheme whereby this sort of thing was achieved. Normal people were controlled by the movements of the planets and constellations such that their destiny was already programmed and they were bound to be collectivised. But there was a class of a few great men who could break free of the cosmic puppet show; their destiny was to direct the beautification effort while it was the duty of the masses to bend their backs and do the work. On top of this, the political scheme on earth mirrored the cosmic one, and if the masses rebelled, the universe would also similarly become unpredictable and chaotic. Religion as taught to the masses was a scam. As for the ruling class, it believed in something “real”.
Luciferianism: the obtaining of knowledge such that the recipient will eventually achieve godhood. In the Hermetic accent, man was able to evolve into oneness with the god in the universe, and is able to do this through his fifth element – that part of him that is free of the influence of the zodiac (as covered to fuller extent in advertising material for the game Mighty Hunters, see here).
The knowledge was largely useless as real science, but prehistoric science it was nevertheless, and hidden from the profane. The author is still not clear about how much the initiated at various levels of the Mystery School religion believed that they would physically become gods, or whether that process was always understood as being part and parcel of ruling the masses, but at the heart of the religion was the central deception: in the end there was no secret to becoming a deity except that the entire system was for creating a control structure for power over men. The method survived through the Masonic brotherhoods, and it is the one that the Government of the west employs. Like their ancient predecessors, the modern pharaohs still rely on “magic”, or psychological manipulation and downright deviousness, to rule.
In Britain, the Labour party has been a necessary tool for “magic” for a century. Indeed, we could say it has been a Popular Front movement since its inception – meaning, it has taken on the clothes of other political parties and movements to further the socialist agenda of the Victorian ruling classes that founded it (via the Fabian Society – which has as its emblem a wolf in sheep’s clothing). After decloaking in the 1970s when the British ruling class mistakenly thought that the country was demoralised enough for its purpose, it had to adopt new incarnations. First, under Blair, it pretended to be for the middle classes, and now under Corbyn it pretends to be against corporate-government.
Which brings us back to Corbyn, and a comment he made in the same speech that was referred to at the top of this article – but just before that, a small diversion. When one does a search for the Fabian Society, such prominent names present themselves: George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, and Annie Besant. These names do well enough to tell you all you need to know about the Fabians. Wells’ Luciferian manifesto has been studied here at FBEL (see here), and Shaw will receive the same attention when the author gets around to it. Besant‡ was at one time the President of the Theosophical Society, which has survived into current times, and whose website announces that the society “is a worldwide body whose primary object is Universal Brotherhood” – for “brotherhood” always read Masonry. The society was founded by Helena Blavatsky, who was the subject of a lecture by prolific Masonic writer, Manly P Hall. He talks about Blavatsky and what she claimed as a mystical acquisition of knowledge in terms of Masonic mythology: a lost ancient “formula which explains his own existence”. They are both talking about the evolution into godhood. Of course, Blavatsky was the inventor of the Aryan race rubbish; Luciferianism is racist at its heart (as discussed previously at FBEL).
Here is Corbyn’s quote:
The Fabians were famous for their belief that there should be a “slow, gradual transition and expansion of socialism”. I would suggest that today’s demands and challenges require us to go a little bit faster!
What he is referring to in this extract is the “magic”; the tool of Luciferians. British socialists achieved their goals by stealth and deception because no one would have accepted the small incremental changes if they had been proposed in one fell swoop. But at this stage Corbyn wants a rush towards the laying of the cap stone, and of course he does. The challenges he talks about are a people waking up; he should know since he was set up as a gatekeeper for it.
† Capitalism gets confused for Crony Capitalism, or corporate-government (or fascism). Corporations merge with government to own and control means of production. Legislation is produced to disadvantage competition, create and maintain monopolies. Serendipitously, Jon Rappaport has also just published an article along the same lines as this one, and writes
Don’t get caught in the word game which confuses Communism, Socialism, the Corporate State, Fascism, and Crony Capitalism.
When you put all these terms through the wash, they come out looking the same. They mean power at the top, disguised to appear as popular movements.
Read it here.
‡ Besant was a 33rd Degree Co-Freemason (wiki page); she founded the Order of Universal Co-Freemasonry in Great Britain and the British Dependencies.
Bill Cooper talks about Besant (and Blavatsky’s “The Secret Doctrine”) in this episode of Hour of the Time (citing sources):
According to the official narrative, Charleston Hartfield was a victim of the shooting spree at the Route 91 Harvest music concert of 1st October in Las Vegas. He was one of 58 that died – and each death represents a trail of devastation that has ripped through a family that doesn’t deserve, in any way, shape or form, what has happened to them. The last thing that anyone wants to do is intrude and trample on any particular grief by singling out individuals and writing articles about them, but the author finds himself somewhat concerned about the case of Mr Hartfield, who is a figure of public interest not only by dint of being a Las Vegas police officer (killed at what is widely understood to be a much more extensive attack – a false flag – across Las Vegas than the authorities say it is), but also because he was a published author.
At one time in the US military – an Iraq war veteran – Hartfield had been in the Las Vegas force for 11 years. He died while he was off duty and enjoying leisure time. It is indeed ironic that while his jobs had been, by varying degrees, fairly dangerous, and he had thus far survived in them, he was killed while he was enjoying doing what other normal people do. He was one of 58 out of 22,000 – or in other words he was one of the tiny 0.26% of the crowd that got shot and killed – and he was an off duty cop.
In the last weekend of September, he and his wife, Veronica, were making a trip to the three-day country music festival held in the Vegas Village at the foot of the Mandalay Bay hotel. It was something that the couple had done at least once before since the festival’s debut in 2014. Well, this is what we have been told. We do know for sure that he and his wife were at the Route 91 Harvest arena for at least one of the 2017 nights because he posted a photograph to Instagram, and this photo was of the two of them with the stage and the Mandalay Bay in the background. We know this selfie was from the Saturday show because Hartfield had written a caption: “Post Sam Hunt”. Sam Hunt had been the artist that headlined that night. Reinforcing the idea that the concert had finished – i.e. the headliner had brought the night to an end – by the time the photo was taken was the detail in it which showed an empty standing area behind the couple, and detritus left behind by concert-goers on the floor. The reader can see this photo by following this link which leads to an Instagram viewer/mirror site. It appears that Hartfield’s own Instagram page is now unavailable (but the author did see it before it went down).
The following is a fact: the photo of Charleston and Veronica Hartfield at the Route 91 Harvest concert on Instagram was taken at the end of the Saturday night show. There was no attack on the concert on the Saturday night.
So why does the corporate-media produce the following material?
Not long before the bullets came raining down, Las Vegas police officer Charleston Hartfield posted a string of photos on Instagram and Facebook. One showed a banner from the Route 91 Harvest Festival, the country music show he attended every year. Another photo showed a deep-fried Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, and another showed him with his wife at the festival — their silly selfie faces glowing beneath the neon lights of the Vegas Strip behind them.
Just to be clear, the “silly selfie” being referred to is the one taken on the Saturday night. The piece clearly suggests that it was produced on the Sunday night. In fact, on the same page as this piece is a caption, under a cropped version of the image in question, which reads as follows: “Charleston Hartfield posted this photo to his Instagram account on Sunday.”
Hartfield, 34, was off-duty when the shooting started at the Route 91 Harvest Festival country music concert, but department officials said he died trying to help others escape.
Photos from his Instagram and Facebook feeds show him and his wife, Veronica, pulling funny faces in selfies just hours before chaos broke out.
The above extract is even clearer in its suggestion that the photo was taken during the Sunday show. Well, it is the Daily Mail.
Everything else that the author could find is of the following form, with no specifics given and relying on interpretation. An example:
Hartfield posted an image of the Route 91 country music festival on his Facebook page Sunday evening, hours before a gunman shot into the concert crowd, killing at least 59 people.
Photos from the weekend show him enjoying a deep-fried Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup and taking selfies with his high school sweetheart, their faces lit from the neon lights of the Vegas Strip.
But when the first spray of bullets rained down on the festival from the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino Sunday night, Hartfield “immediately took action to save lives,” said Clark County Undersheriff Kevin McMahill
Are these two extracts referring to the image that was taken on the Saturday night? They clearly would like readers to infer that a picture of the couple at the concert was taken on the Sunday night, a few meagre hours before the attack started.
When the author sees stuff like this, then it is like a red rag to a bull. Why is it that sections of the corporate-media are implying that a picture of Hartfeld and his wife from the Saturday night concert was taken shortly before his death? The answer is that those sections of the corporate-media are trying to elicit the strongest possible emotional reaction from its audience. Why does it do that? The answer is that the reportage of the deaths incurred during the incident in Las Vegas is crucial psychological manipulation that is meant to further the agenda that the perpetrators set out to achieve.
At an even more crucial level, what we have is the corporate-media using false evidence to inform us that Hartfield was present at the place and the time that we are told he died. Are we supposed to shrug it off? Are we to ignore it? If such information was offered to detectives in a murder case it would surely arouse suspicion of complicity. The red rag flaps violently.
And so let us notice that Hartfield was a cop who had written a book entitled “Memoirs of a Public Servant”. It was a book, apparently (because the author hasn’t read it) about his experience on the force. Notice the title and how he describes himself; obviously he had a constitutionally correct idea about what it was to be a police officer. Additionally, consider how the very fact that he wrote a book tells us that he was a thoughtful man – perhaps a man who would ask questions in order to fully understand his world? And he happened to be one of the 0.26% who died.
Now consider the following brief account of how Hartfield was killed:
When the first spray of bullets rained down on the festival from the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino Sunday night, Hartfield “immediately took action to save lives,” said Clark County Undersheriff Kevin McMahill at a press conference on Tuesday.
Moving fast and with authority, he worked to escort people safely out the packed venue as the barrage of bullets continued to fall around them. He looked around to assess the grounds and to the sky to help other officers locate the shooter before more lives could be taken.
Then, a bullet found its next target: Hartfield. No one would argue he didn’t die in the line of duty.
The extract is the best that the author could find in a brief search of corporate-media. Additionally, this is from the National Law Enforcement Officers memorial fund (link):
Officer Hartfield attempted to assist some of the casualties of the shooting when he was fatally struck by gunfire.
We should notice that the two accounts only agree if Hartfield was escorting wounded people out of the venue. But the author is not buying it either way. Married men, please imagine a situation where you are with your wife, and she is in imminent danger and at risk of being killed. Do you concern yourself with escorting complete strangers, wounded or otherwise, out of the venue and harm’s way? Do you stand around scanning the distant skyline, or the nearby foreground to see where the assailant is coming from so that you can assist police? Or do you focus on getting your wife as far away as possible from jeopardy? If a man takes care of his wife like this, then he is hero enough. But of course, it always suits Government to portray the dead as heroes for the common good, rather than for performing the eminently more important task of protecting one’s own family (to Government, this is still victimhood). In fact it always suits the Government to portray the dead as heroes – even if they are just so many victims – for the common good: i.e. that which Government wants to achieve, which as far as we can see (apart from gun control) is inculcating normalcy bias as a reaction to terror. It must be true, for what benefit is there for Government, using as little detail and as much pomp as possible expressly to obscure the truth, in portraying a victim as a hero? The answer is that people feel better about the victim having been killed.
It remains to be seen if the specifics of Charleston Hartfield’s death will ever be revealed. The author doubts it.
And lo, after 5 days, he did rise again, appearing unto the sheeple on the Ellen DeGeneres show, to allay their growing fears about malicious government and corrupt police. For a man who supposedly didn’t want media attention, according to MGM, and hence cancelled his appearances on news channels, Campos couldn’t have turned up in a more controversial, but predictable setting than an agenda-pushing, social engineering light entertainment show. If the fictional “Ow my balls” (from “Idiocracy”) was real, he would have been resurrected on that, because his little one-time-only disclosure about his experience on floor 32 of the Mandalay Bay hotel was all about keeping the stupid people on the reservation.
DeGeneres, interestingly, wore a jumper with epaulettes and pips on them, and with pips on her sleeves – perhaps this attire was for the purpose of psychology; a reminder of context for old Jesus. In any case, she was most helpful – so many leading questions that, if her show had been a trial, there would have been shouts of “objection” left, right and centre. At one point, out came a big map of the 32nd floor so that there was no room for any doubt in the audience’s pitifully propagandised minds that Campos had been there. Additionally, if they didn’t know before that they had to feel sorry for Campos (instead of casting a critical eye upon him), a Mandalay Bay maintenance man (supposedly also nearly a victim of Paddock’s rampage) was on hand with helpful cues; Campos got so many pats on the back that he started to look like someone being handled; someone tapped at the right time to prompt a briefed response.
Because it was an appearance in the powder-puff court of public opinion – one that Campos will presumably never have to duplicate for real – nothing was really divulged that could elucidate matters for a civilian looking for truth. We were told that Campos came through stairwell doors and heard drilling: DeGeneres’ offers this: “they were gun shots but you thought it was just drilling sounds”. Campos replies: “At first I thought it was just drilling sounds.” So, the shooter was firing already before Campos got shot? Unfortunately, we aren’t told where Campos’ intervention fits in relation to the start and cessation of the supposed attack on the Route 91 Harvest concert from room 135, 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay. The least we can say is that, once again, and despite a brief diversion of the official narrative, it matches a scenario described in a citation that Campos received from the SPFPA (Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America).
He approached a hotel suite where a gunman was firing automatic weapons into a crowded concert…
That “brief diversion” abovementioned was the first revision of the official narrative – which had Paddock shooting the security guard a full 6 minutes before the start of the assault on the streets. Obviously, Campos’ own account doesn’t support that. A second revision informed us that Campos was shot simultaneously with the commencement of the attack – this could be feasible according to Campos’ interview on DeGeneres. But this story could also fit the original timeline where he was shot at the end of “Paddock’s” rampage. In previous articles on this subject at FBEL it was reasoned that this opening floater had to be dropped like it weighed a ton because it very likely would have meant having to explain why police were on the 31st floor of the hotel without the hotel being aware of a crisis. While we’re about it, let’s have a quick word about this team in relation to Campos: he stated in his “interview” that he was on floor 31 before he was compelled to go to the next storey up. It’s a fair question to ask: was he on 31 at the same time as the police vanguard?
Campos went on to explain that he thinks that the sound of the stairwell doors slamming shut caught the attention of the shooter in room 135. Naturally, we wonder what happened to the do-it-yourself surveillance gear that had previously been stationed on a room service trolley (or did the author just dream that). Thereafter, when Campos was walking down the corridor away from the scene of the crime, he was shot at – miraculously only being hit in the leg by bullets that, miraculously, came through a door that doesn’t look remotely as if it was damaged in that way in a photograph of it. DeGeneres helped us remember the official line: he was shooting through the door? Campos’ answer was intriguing: “from behind the door – I didn’t know how he was shooting… if he shot out”. As far as the author is concerned, Campos let slip that the something else that happened in that corridor on that night, as discussed in the previous FBEL article, did indeed happen.
Whatever that “happening” was will remain a mystery. But we have the following leads (please refer to the previous article for how we came by them – link above). 1) A two-man police team that was on the scene relatively early, despite seemingly admitting that it wasn’t tactically useful; i.e. wasn’t capable of taking any shooter on. 2) The seeming denial of access to floor 32 for a strike team that appeared “out of the loop”. 3) A possible alternative position – outside of the hotel on “basement building” rooftops – from whence a gunman fired down on the Las Vegas Boulevard. 4) Shots seemingly fired in the corridor from outside “Paddock’s” suite.
If we are to follow what this data may be suggesting, we could propose that the room 135 was a decoy in which a “suicided” patsy was placed in order to be discovered – whereupon he would be presumed to be the killer. Having proposed this scenario, one would then have to explain how it could be achieved – and the clarification would have to remain in parameters suggested by the clues detailed in the above paragraph. A solution according to that criteria could be as follows: the patsy’s room, and indeed the entire floor, was guarded until such time the rest of the floor could be cleared of hotel guests by other teams who had knowledge of the operation. The guarding continued until such time the room was dressed as desired, and until it could be assaulted in the usual way by an (unsuspecting?) team of the sort that normally carries out such operations. The guarding, of course, is intended to make sure that the set up is not stumbled upon by anyone who wasn’t privy to it. Of course, this is where innocents might get hurt if they did happen to come along and see something that they shouldn’t.
If airing the above hypothesis seems unreasonable given the very little we are allowed to know, then the retort must be that, actually, getting to the bottom of crisis events, false flags, like the one in Vegas is becoming urgently and increasingly imperative. And we must work with whatever knowledge we are allowed to have. Don’t forget this: at 10.18pm, according to our reckoning – and so three minutes after Paddock is meant to have ceased firing – an officer using the call sign 765 was still having a problem with gunfire down at street level: “be advised, we are taking fire from a very high floor we believe it’s possibly coming from the Mandalay Bay”. We did our best to ignore this in the last article, but it won’t go away. There was a fish-in-a-barrel shoot going on down on the streets, and it was executed by multiple gunmen who were, according to several witnesses, herding people into killing zones, and it was executed by men who weren’t stationed inside the Mandalay Bay – and still, with this DeGeneres travesty, there is absolutely no acknowledgement of this from officialdom. Campos didn’t do anything to stop any mass murder, but DeGeneres hosted him on her show (presumably by order of her string-pullers) to “celebrate” him, and to present him and the “maintenance guy” with prizes of tickets to football games so that some of the fabricated heroism could rub off on the troubled NFL. It’s insulting to the people who died, and to the injured, and to their families; in fact it’s insulting to anyone with a brain in their head. Enough is enough, already.
Some more on the Las Vegas false flag and subsequent cover up – both so shabbily executed that Hollywood had to sacrifice a pervert. In the previous article on the subject at FBEL there was some discussion of how police teams interacted inside the Mandalay Bay hotel – and this didn’t have justice done to it. That the author hadn’t listened to the police scanner audio enough times was reflected in the piece – it wasn’t anywhere near as tight enough as it should have been in terms of pinpointing the individuals – most identifiable by call signs. The exchanges between police in the Mandalay Bay hotel are extremely important evidence, and this article is going to be concerned with refining our understanding of what is happening on the police scanner audio. The version that the author is using can be found here.
The official narrative tells us that Stephen Paddock’s shooting rampage started at 10:05pm, and ended at 10:15pm. It also provides a time for when the police entered Paddock’s room: 11.20pm. This dramatic moment happens to have been captured on the police scanner recording: “breach, breach, breach” – and then an explosion (it would be interesting to know if the sound effect of doors being blasted open is to be expected, or if this is for public consumption on this occasion). The breaching of Paddock’s room occurs in the seventy second minute of the audio. This gives us a time for when the audio begins, and times for landmark events described in it – such as when police first arrive on the 31st floor: 10:15pm. This team reports that it can hear gunfire one floor above. So far, so good for the official narrative.
However, at 8m 39s into the audio – or 10:17pm – officer 765 reports “we’re taking gunfire, it’s going right over our heads”. Furthermore, at 8m 51s, officer 166 reports a shooting at Gate 4 of the festival arena – automatic gunfire is clearly audible in the background. That would mean shots being fired at approaching 10:18pm. Obviously, this is problematic – and it is not all. Officer 765 is still having a problem at 13m 12s into the audio: “be advised, we are taking fire from a very high floor we believe it’s possibly coming from the Mandalay Bay”. This would mean shots being fired from the Mandalay Bay hotel at 10:22pm. At 30m 02s into the audio, officer 790 radios the following: “We’ve been pinned down at Mandalay Bay road and the Boulevard for about 15 minutes. Not heard any shots for probably 10 to 15”. And so, the last time this officer would have heard gunfire would have been between 10:24pm and 10:29pm.
How do we account for this apparent duration of gunfire from the Mandalay Bay hotel which is double the one supposed by the official narrative? We could say that we are misinterpreting some of the police accounts; for instance, let’s reinterpret the report by officer 765, and imagine that he’s referring to very recent past events as if they were still present – sometimes people do behave like this. But there is still a problem, because we can hear gunfire with our own ears at 10:18pm. One thing is for sure; it means that the time of the breaching of Paddock’s door in the official narrative cannot be correct.
A fix comes by sliding the timeline so that as many of the reports of gunfire on the police scanner occur within the 10 minute window of the official narrative. If we say that officer 166’s report at 8m 51s occurred at 10:14pm, it would make the very first reference to shots fired (at 0.25 in the audio) occur at 10:05pm. This would place the appearance of the first team on the 31st floor at 10:11pm. In fact, this is not far off the official narrative which states that that happened at 10:12pm. There remains, of course, the inconvenience of officer 765’s report of gunfire – if we choose to interpret it as describing a contemporaneous incident – and from the words that are used, there is no reason not to. It remains a problem for the official narrative.
What especially struck the author as odd on his first examination of the police scanner was the way that a team of police suddenly appeared on the 31st floor of the Mandalay Bay. Now, we can explore the feasibility of it. For the exercise we need to focus on a team around an officer using the call sign 159FC. At 3min 57s into the audio 159FC opens his mic. and says “we have a rifle deployed. We’re in front of the Mandalay Bay. We’re trying to see where the shots are coming from. If anyone can advise if they’re coming from Mandalay.” Having listened carefully, the author believes that it is this same team that reports being on the 31st floor at 6min 21s into the audio. At 11min 22, the same voice (using call sign 159) answers a request from another unit in the building – officer 592 (more from him soon) – to confirm that he is headed to floor 32, or is on it, to “make contact with the suspect”. So, we’re probably dealing with the same guy in the three cases, and with that being the case, we’re dealing with the idea that this police officer has, in 2 minutes and 24 seconds, established that the shooting is from the Mandalay Bay, and also reached the 31st floor. Is that feasible? Don’t forget, the taxi driver of the famous footage that she shot herself, is outside the entrance of the Mandalay Bay at 10:13pm where people are milling about as if the hotel isn’t aware that it has a situation (although we don’t know if this is true). However, if we are understanding correctly, at this simultaneous point in time, this team is already in the hotel and even breathing down the neck of the target.
The next question that begs answering is why is there only two officers in this team that attains the 32nd floor so early on? We know that this team was constituted in the way it was from this statement: “Ok. If he’s still firing, we’ll stand by and wait; there’s only two of us” (11min 32s). It will become clear to the reader that no other team is similarly shorthanded. Officer 592, who will serve as the first of our comparisons, at 11min, 12s says: “I have a team of four”. Please also notice that this two man team announced that, on reaching floor 32, it wouldn’t tackle the shooter if the firing was still ongoing. Why did it advance on its own if it was of no tactical use? What was it doing? Later on, when joined by other teams, 159FC reports that he is taking part in the evacuation of the 32nd floor (this is still before anyone enters Paddock’s room). Consider the account of one hotel guest who encountered this operation:
I could hear the police making their way up the hallway and they were basically breaking down the doors – opening the doors aggressively. Six or seven SWAT guys came in and just made sure that I wasn’t a bad person – that I was doing what I was supposed to be doing. They ushered us out and told us to run as far and as fast as we could to get away.
Is the manner of entering the rooms anything to do with the risk of encountering an armed suspect? Or are police confident that they won’t find another threat to them and are just scaring the “civilians”? Either way, if police won’t barge into rooms unless mob handed, what was this two-man team hoping to achieve on its own to stop the attack on the Route 91 Harvest?
Maybe it had another mission. At 15min 36s into the audio, the officer we believe is 159FC announces “I’m in the stairwell on the 32nd floor… I’m on the 32nd floor. The room is going to be 135”. According to our calculations, this is 10:20pm. At some point prior to this moment, the exact location of the target has been divulged to this team. According to the official narrative, it will have had contact with the security guard, Jesus Campos – or indeed other hotel staff if Campos had raised the alarm. We should perhaps suspect that this bee-lining to 135, floor 32 is the reason why the Las Vegas police changed the story so that knowledge of the location of Paddock could be seen to have been available as early as possible. Imagine the scenario where Campos gets shot at 10:15pm; in that case we could probably say with more certainty that team 159FC were on floor 31 without the hotel being aware of a crisis. However, if we have cause to disbelieve the police because of this story change – and we do – then we should be suspicious, and in that case we might say this of 159FC: if it knew the floor to head to – and did that without the hotel even understanding it had an emergency (which we don’t actually know is true) – then perhaps it also knew which room was the target? Moreover, if it knew the target, then perhaps it went to it understanding that a two man team was sufficient for what it intended to do? There are a lot of “ifs”.
The reader might have been wondering where the other SWAT team members in the hotel patron’s account came from. Officer 159FC was later joined by two other teams. The first was the one around officer 182FC. This was a four man team, and suddenly appears to be on the 32nd floor at 18min 20s. It is the first to mention that “we have a security officer also shot in the leg on the 32nd floor; he’s standing by near the elevator”. From this team we also get to hear about how “Campos” received an injury “he shot down the hallway and hit a security guard”. Obviously, we are meant to assume that “he” refers to Paddock. This team also thinks that there is another suspect on the 29th floor so that there are in fact “two shooters with automatic weapons” in the hotel. At 27min 9s, we hear of another new team: officer 677V is on the 29th floor. Is this team clearing this second “shooter” up, or conducting evacuations? We should ask, because all of a sudden – 6 minutes later, in fact – 677V are on the 32nd floor, and clearing the “west wing”.
The combination of a wounded security guard and a possible fleeing “perpetrator” on floor 29 – because there was no shooters nest there – is intriguing. If the reader looks at the image of the double doors to Paddock’s room, one of which is off its hinges and leant up horizontally against the inside of the doorway, he will see what looks like bullet holes in it. There appears to a margin on the side of the door that is against the floor as we look at it in this picture, suggesting that this would be the side of the door that was hidden behind the frame; i.e. that it was the side that was hinged. That would mean that the bullets were shot at the door from the corridor, and not from within the room. We do have evidence from the audio of a gunfire battle in the corridor from the audio – the statement from 182FC about “[shooting] down the hallway”. Are we seeing and hearing evidence of a target for the police that was actually moving around the hotel – a target that needed to be chased down and eliminated, but a target that the public couldn’t ever know of? How is Jesus Campos really related to this – especially as he has now disappeared, and to many appears photoshopped into images of his attendance at an award ceremony for his bravery?
Listening to the police scanner, behaviour of the other teams featured here, in contrast with that of the 592 team is very striking. It can’t help but be noticed. The 592 team are always concerned with not running into their colleagues and having an accident. While this team itself is very visible on the scanner, it always seems to be out of the loop in relation to the other teams who were at the sharp end of the action. At one stage it radios to ask if there is a team evacuating the 32nd floor. It doesn’t know the call sign of 677V, and is worried about running into it on the 29th. Let’s cover this in a fuller way: 592 arrived on 29, having decided to go straight there “based on the intel” (looking for the perpetrator that had been reported), but then it skips that floor because of the presence of this other team. Why does it do that if, later, two and a half teams (195FC, 677V and 182FC) can all evacuate floor 32 together? Notice that 677V, makes a beeline for the 32nd floor, while 592 systematically clears floors 30 and 31 when it finishes on the 29th.
And then, to cap it all, 592 wasn’t allowed to go up to the 32nd floor – at least that’s certainly the impression one could get from hearing the scanner:
592 (talking to 159FC) We’ve got one more room on 31 to clear and then we’re going to come up the stairwell. I’ll let you know… so we don’t have a blue on blue.
159FC: Ok copy that. We have a bunch of team up here so we are ready.
592: Floor 31 is clear, moving up to floor 32 with the other team.
592: Unit on floor 32, 592, we’re coming up to you, do you copy?
592: Inaudible – “do you copy?” – inaudible.
677V: 592 repeat last, 677 victor.
592: Just to let you know we’re making an entry on floor 32…
677V: You need to be careful of booby traps – are you coming up the stairwell or you coming up the elevator.
592: We’re in the stairwell…
677V: Standby… are you with the squad guy?
677V: Stand by right there. There’s a squad officer on in his way down to the stairwell. Wait for him.
677V: 592, 677 victor.
592: Go ahead.
677V: Are you with the squad officer in the 300 stairwell?
592: Yes, that’s affirmative… [inaudible] on 31 and moving towards 135 down here.
677V: Copy, We have the hallway and we’re holding it, you have to let me know when you move.
592: Copy we should be a floor below you. Do you need more resources up with you, or you good?
677V: Negative. we have the hallway contained the room with the shots were fired from. It is contained right now. If you can avoid coming through those doors please do.
592: Copy, if you have it we will not come up through there. Confirming, you do have a rifle with you, though, correct?
677V: Copy, I have multiple rifles and plenty of officers. Just hold that stairwell and we’ll wait on the zebra team for the plan.
Doesn’t that look like someone doesn’t want 592 to get on the 32nd floor? The reader should make his own mind up. Of course, the “zebra team” (call sign Zebra 20) is allowed on to the hallowed ground because it is the team that announces the breach of the room, and eventually it announces that there is a “suspect down”. This is a fact that makes the CBS story about an ad hoc SWAT team totally bogus. The officers who took part in that effort to shore up the official narrative were aiding in the retailing of a fantasy. However, those officers also could very well have been on floor 32, and the author thinks he recognises a voice. And so, are they even remotely trustworthy?
The fact that the security guard, Jesus Campos, has now disappeared, and in doing so has avoided questions from both real and pretend journalists (the latter being the corporate type) suggests that there is a story that someone doesn’t want told – or even dug into. The author believes there is a big clue to this real story hinted at in the police scanner (and has been less subtle than that in this interpretation). Something else happened with regards the gunfire that wounded Campos. The Las Vegas police actually changed the story about him – and if it was bogus in the first place, then why should we imagine that it is not bogus in the second? This cannot be reiterated enough: if one detail of a narrative has to be changed to counter the risk of discovery in a lie, then how can we be sure that the story in its original form wasn’t already accordingly altered?
The author thinks that the room was a decoy for another location in the Mandalay Bay vicinity from whence an anonymous gunman, as part of a much large military-style operation, principally fired on police who were trying to access the Route 91 Harvest festival from the Las Vegas Boulevard, and it was dressed with a suicided patsy (discounting the gun running theory – which is probably disruption). The author’s notion is based on evidence of the taxi driver video whereby the gunfire is very loud – as if it is literally on top of her position – and has a very close echo before she moves around the north tower to the porch of the hotel (as explained in the first article hereabouts on Las Vegas). It is based on the behaviour of certain police as caught on police scanner (which serves to aid the formation of an opinion, rather than as conclusive evidence). It is based on the actual lie about Jesus Campos, and the evident lie about gunfire being shot out of Paddock’s room to cover up whatever did happen that meant weapons were discharged in the corridor of floor 32.
The Las Vegas police are doubling down with their official lone shooter narrative, including an interview with the “ad hoc SWAT team” who “stormed” Paddock’s room – ignore the part where events have to be shuffled up and down the time line to fit the purpose, and ignore the fact that communications caught on police scanner tell a different story. Any questions will be deemed disrespectful, and discredited as “conspiracy theories” – as the Independent does here. That being said, the emergence of the Weinstein hoo-ha is probably telling us that the US Government wants to go to the post-mortem phase of the Las Vegas incident without anyone watching. The case file will be consigned to the cabinet with a pretend fit of coughing so that no one hears it being shoved unceremoniously into the folder marked “F” for “false flag”, and also for “failure”. In the meantime, that the identity of a patsy is out in the public consciousness will serve as closure for a lot of people (heck, in Britain a cardboard cut out is enough to overcome the critical thinking abilities of the BBC-consuming sheeple – see Parsons Green).
And that will be an end to it. It won’t matter that there is a White House petition demanding a proper investigation. It won’t matter that audio analysis by Natural News has detected a second shooter at some point on the circumference of a circle ringing the festival area, at a radius of 250 yards. It won’t matter that a retired military surgeon has volunteered an opinion that there isn’t enough trauma in injuries sustained by the surviving victims to support the official narrative. It won’t matter that a number of eye witnesses have spoken about multiple shooters on the ground – one of them, Rocky Palermo, unhappy that authorities are ignoring his testimony (see here and here). It won’t matter that these reports are reinforced by police communications picked up on dispatch scanner (this version covers the entire incident).
And yet, the very fact that all this good data is seen to be discounted by the Establishment provides seriously bad optics for the authorities, and so more people will undoubtedly suspect a cover-up, and then they will suspect nefariousness. This is why a lot of discrediting junk always has to be mixed in with the gold. For instance, there will be claims, without any evidence whatsoever, that Jews did it, or that Muslims working in the Mandalay Bay hotel did it, or it was ISIS, or Antifa, or there will be the usual auto-hoaxers – those who claim that nobody died straight of the bat. The same crowd like to call all of the victims “crisis actors”, and the author suspects this is to marginalise very important witness testimony. Some people on YouTube are saying that “Corrine”, the girl who swears blind that there were shooters on the ground (see the previous article at FBEL), is an actor and has been on an American TV show. The author investigated, and found that, yes, they are talking about someone who does look very similar to her – although the witness speaks in a very different way. When the author was a boy this would have been put down as a case of “spitting image”. In the olden days (the 70s) it was understood that two people, wholly unconnected, could resemble each other. This is lost on the YouTube generation, and a large part of its “truth” movement – which also claimed that Stephen Paddock was Gene Rosen. To investigate Las Vegas, or any other crisis incident, in a credible fashion, one has to deal with what is evident, and deal with it on face value. Everything else is disruption, and it should be excluded.
So, let’s have another look at that footage of the Las Vegas incident which did most to undermine the official narrative, the taxi driver video (see the previous article for a link) – and let’s do it in conjunction with the police scanner communications – link mentioned above. From this evidence the author has developed a notion that a gunman might have been situated on the roof of the buildings at the foot of the hotel. These buildings might have something to do with the Mandalay Bay parking garages, and if the reader consults a map, the most distinctive of these is a seven or eight sided structure that affords a vantage point over the Las Vegas Boulevard. The taxi driver was beneath this building in her first position, where gunfire sounded as if it was right on top of her. A gun position outside of the hotel would answer the puzzle of how Paddock could secrete such a serious armoury into a security-conscious casino hotel – he didn’t.
The police radio actually serves to reinforce a concept of “Paddock” as a decoy. It reveals that a team of police was suddenly† on the 31st floor while the shooting was still on-going. They arrived on the 32nd floor to report “he’s still firing”‡ (11m 33s). Not long after this, another police officer on the streets was still reporting that he was taking fire from the Mandalay Bay hotel – it could have been the same one who earlier described how officers were “pinned down” on Las Vegas Boulevard by the gunfire. Note – police officers described themselves as being pinned down long after they stopped hearing gunfire; presumably they assumed they were still potential targets while they hadn’t heard that the threat had been dealt with. From the very start, and as the situation went on, other officers continued to relay reports of multiple shooters in the festival grounds, and so we are faced with the distinct possibility that the Mandalay Bay shooter was not targeting concert goers per se, but providing covering fire so that co-conspirators on the ground could avoid being terminated by police – and then make their escape. Meanwhile, other officers were reporting real casualties with gunshot wounds; thus it would have seemed to be imperative that the perpetrator at the Mandalay Bay was taken out. Indeed, one officer is heard demanding it, and asking if his colleagues if they hadn’t yet got “eyes on” the perpetrator. Well, they had. And all the while they sat outside his room, the situation on the ground could not be stabilised.
The Mandalay Hotel as the general source of shooting was identified early on. A bit later a police officer reported that there was a strobe light (but no muzzle flashes) located somewhere on the face of the building, and this might have confused officers trying to locate the source of the gunfire exactly, just as it did people watching YouTube videos. Some officers appeared to think that the gunfire was coming from a floor half way up the hotel. It makes one wonder how the police who reached the 31st knew they had to go all that way up – more of that in a moment. Significantly, an officer from this team, who radioed in from the stairwell of the 32nd floor (pretty much as soon as he arrived on the floor), already knew the room number. There could be a problem with this in terms of the official story – but that is so unstable that we’ll have to wait for it to settle to see exactly how the police scanner account contradicts it. The radio exchanges suggest that a man who shot a hotel security guard cannot necessarily be identified as being connected to Paddock’s suite – for as a police officer reports: “he shot down the hallway and shot a security guard”. After the wake of the official narrative, we are left to assume the culprit was Paddock – but here’s the news: he appears to be shooting outside his suite. The official story claims that Paddock shot this security fellow through the door of his room; that’s how Paddock is attributed as being the assailant. That is how the police were supposed to have known the room number. As mentioned above, the official story actually changed recently – it now has Paddock shooting the security guard before he lets rip on the festival ground concert goers, whereas before he shot the guard after his killing spree. This alteration is perhaps needed to explain how the first responders knew to go all the way up to the 31st floor. Well, it’s pretty confusing. We’ll need to review this in a day or two to see what sense it makes – and what it means.
Of great interest to the author was the point in the recording where another team that had arrived on the 31st floor was set to join the team who had first reached the 32nd floor. Essentially, these newcomers were told not to ascend to the next floor, and that they’d all await the arrival of the “zebra team for the plan” (48:16). Additionally, the radio exchange between these two teams reveals that the one on the 32nd floor was well manned (“multiple rifles and plenty of officers”). And yet now the corporate-media appears to be telling us that an ad hoc team of 4 policemen stormed Paddock’s room. It’s completely suspicious. Being a cynical devil’s advocate, the author would suggest that Room 135 on the 32nd floor wasn’t the source of the firing, and having been dressed to look like it contained a suicide, it was guarded throughout the incident – by a team who magically first appear on scanner already on the 31st floor – so that real police couldn’t clear it out in an operation to lock down the hotel.
At about 10:13pm – and this is nearing the end of the attack on the festival ground (official time 10:15pm) – the taxi driver was alongside the entrance to the Mandalay Bay hotel (it can be extrapolated from the time on her in-car clock), and the hotel doesn’t appear to be locked down. People are milling about at the entrance. There is no sign of police, and the taxi driver makes a remark about that. It’s a though the hotel doesn’t know it has a gun man on the 32nd floor – which is strange because we should assume that at this time the “31st Floor” team were already on site. The taxi driver is astonished and tells people from her open window that there are “shots fired”. If one synchronises this footage with other films, the tail-end volleys of gun fire that occur out of the Mandalay Bay hotel area at this time seems to knock over a lot of people (or makes them drop for cover) who for some reason are still standing near the stage under its bright light. The arena space has otherwise emptied out. It is very hard to understand what is going on here. Why did those people present themselves as a target like they did?
Leaving the hotel complex, the first police the taxi driver encounters are parked up on the corner of Las Vegas Boulevard and St Giles’ Street – and they do look like they are hunkered down using their car for shelter; pinned down. Continuing down St Giles’, after picking up some members of the crowd, she encounters a lot of police on the intersection with Reno Avenue – and this is where police had called in reports of shooting victims. Significantly, the Catholic Shrine is located in this vicinity, and it could be a candidate for the position of the second shooter as calculated by Natural News and Mike Adams. Indeed, at one point in the police recordings, an officer tries to summarise what is going on by splitting the incident into two points of focus, or into two crime scenes: the Mandalay Hotel, and the Giles Street and Reno intersection.
But this is not all. As told in their radio conversations, police also started to get reports of a shooter at the front desk of the New York New York hotel and casino. This is much further down the strip. Shots were fired in the casino, and several people were shot. The active shooter was then seen making his way to the Excalibur hotel and casino. Hot on the heels of this was a report of an active shooter at the Tropicana hotel. The police first attending this location wondered if it was a diversion so that their resources were stretched. However paramedics that arrived later reportedly came under fire – and a “strike team” was called. The Tropicana is supposed to be the place from whence some interesting footage emerged of a group of outlandish goons (and a woman whose gun is too big for her) patrolling through the casino pointing weapons at people and ordering them to put their hands up (see the image above). Later on, the police scanner records law enforcement on the ground at New York New York and Tropicana contradict the earlier reports – there were no shootings. At the same time new reports came in of more shootings at Cesar’s (Palace?), the Bellagio and Paris, Las Vegas. Now, the Bellagio hotel and casino already made a name for itself in this incident because of how a woman posted a video to the internet showing patrons in the lobby after the hotel had been locked down. Clearly, something had happened. Apparently, according to the woman’s report, shots had been fired at the front doors (see Jon Rappoport’s written report about this too). Importantly, the woman makes a point of mentioning that the police had pretty much officially declared that nothing had happened – and that was on the night. Clearly, this indicates a cover up; can we assume that incidents at New York New York and Tropicana were similarly treated?
Having heard the police communications, the author is somewhat reminded of the Borough Market incident earlier in 2017. In this event, the perpetrators who were (pretend) gunned down at the end of the night’s disruptions weren’t necessary the same people who had run riot through what should have been, for resturant and pub patrons, a normal night on the town. The climax where the “terrorists” were killed was undoubtedly staged in streets devoid of people – indicating that the police had isolated and cleared the area, and so the theatre was taking place much later than the official time of death. The terror in the Borough Market incident really arose from the police charging into business premises, screaming at them and turfing the punters into the streets; you can read about it all here and here. And this terror was a smokescreen for something else, because there were police actions that night in places where the supposed perpetrators could not have had time to get to according to the official story. What this something else could have been is a mystery, but people were arrested, and there was even a report of a gun battle. If we are to understand if the same play book was being used in Las Vegas – although the terror in itself was obviously intended to be used to grab guns – it would help to know what happened at the other hotels and casinos. Unfortunately, there is little chance of that happening when there is a complete news blackout regarding these peripheral incidents. They didn’t happen, because Stephen Paddock couldn’t have had anything to do with them.
† There appears to be no record in the radio exchanges of this team arriving at the Mandalay Bay hotel.
‡ After a closer listen, it has been discovered that the officer says this: “if he’s still firing we’ll stand by and wait”.