Death of a public servant; as told by the untrustworthy, highly dubious, & known liars

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.


…or this:

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.

Jesus has risen; Route 91 Harvest barrel shoot victims mocked

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.

Las Vegas: police scanner evidence examined; timeline problems & other matters

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?

592: Negative.

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.

Las Vegas: hushed-up peripheral events – and a Mandalay Bay sleight of hand?

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”.

Everyone knows: multiple shooters at Vegas, official narrative a big criminal lie

The biggest clue that attests to the identity of the perpetrator of the 1st October Las Vegas mass shooting is not what you think it is. There is excellent video footage that captures raw evidence, and that provides analysis – and some of it on its own verges on definite proof of a false flag attack; all to be discussed shortly. However, none of it constitutes the biggest give away to those of us who have been looking at this sort of thing for a while.

The corporate-media†, and thus therefore the wider western shadowy Globalist government, has lost control of the narrative of the story of the Las Vegas shooting, and it is probably due to one piece of amateur “war zone” filming – citizen journalism if you will – more than any other piece of internet sleuthing. That there is a terrible crisis in terms of maintaining public credulity regarding the yarn that is being spun is why you might have seen the Guardian publish an article entitled “Las Vegas survivors furious as YouTube promotes clips calling shooting a hoax”. It is why the New York Times has published an article headlined with this disapproving mother-hen clucking: “No, There Was Not More Than One Gunman in the Las Vegas Shooting”.

The people who are trying to create a universal international Hermetic/Luciferian order where the masses are enslaved by self-anointed supreme beings (a system otherwise known as socialism), have to disarm the American public first in order to have the remotest hope of achieving it. They need to engineer a process of mental change whereby retaining personal firearms would be viewed as being reprehensible and consequently everyone would give them up. This would the synthesis of the Hegelian method that is obviously being deployed. The thesis: everyone can own a gun, is joined with the antithesis: everyone must feel ashamed by this. And so there must be mass killings in order to engender a tension about owning guns which can be solved by relinquishing them. Notice, it isn’t about making gun owners feel threatened – if they did that, then it would be “cold dead hands” territory.

Of course, mass killings, left to their own devices, would not come along very often – it’s the same for any crisis that needs to be exploited. That’s why they need to be induced. Engineering such an operation naturally takes time, money, and the risk of incriminating the entire political infrastructure that by necessity must criminally collude together to bring the activity to fruition. Therefore, the official narrative that hides real guilt cannot be allowed to escape. If it begins to do so, then the sheep dogs are let loose to persuade anyone in the corporate news consuming herd who was likely to be convinced by a conspiracy theory that such people get called “tin foil hat wearers”, and it’s not nice to be disliked in that way nor to be ostracised by the trendy metropolitan mainstream. The big problem is, however, when the corporate-media has to address conspiracy theories then it is tantamount to admission of guilt. In fact, when the corporate-media has to address conspiracy theories in the way that it has around the Las Vegas shooting, then we should start wondering if a tipping point, where too much of the public just doesn’t believe the horse crap any more, can’t be very far away.

It is safe to say that the narrative explaining the happenings at Las Vegas is all over the field, and the desperation to shepherd it back into a pen was signified by the production of Eric Paddock, the supposed shooter’s brother, to insist “of course Steve did this by himself”. The author doesn’t believe that it is necessary to explain to the reader how preposterous this is. What could Eric Paddock possibly know that the “stumped” Las Vegas investigating authorities couldn’t?

The source of all the trouble is very likely the Taxi Driver footage. The location – here – where the author viewed it first is now partially censored by a YouTube age appropriateness restriction, and so a sign-in is required. However, it can also be seen here albeit embedded in a presentation (and if necessary it will be uploaded to the FBEL Youtube space – keep an eye at the foot of this page). The important stuff in this video is all in the first moments. A taxi driver is parked up on an approach to the porch of the Mandalay Bay, and gunfire can be heard. There are four patterns. There is a “on-the-spot” pattern of gunfire that is the loudest to be heard – denoting its source is in the immediate vicinity. Pattern number two is a rattling noise mixed in with the first one; it could be a close echo, which would indicate that the weapon is being discharged very near at hand. Then there is a distant noise that closely resembles the first pattern – so this is an echo from a surface further away. The fourth pattern also sounds distant, but it doesn’t correspond to an initial burst from the “on-the-spot” pattern. Indeed, when she hears it, the taxi driver comments on how it sounds as if gunfire is now coming from a different location. It can be heard at the 45 seconds mark in the video. It must be its own source of noise – indicating a second shooter. When the taxi driver moves off up to the porch of the hotel, she evidently leaves pattern one behind her – all the echoes disappear, and the volume is significantly reduced [see Update 16/10/2017]. However, she has now moved directly underneath the position in the hotel from whence Paddock is supposed to be shooting. And this presents a problem because in her previous position she had been slightly further away from this location. To explain: the approach to the Mandalay Bay porch comes off of Mandalay Bay Road, and bends round the arm of the hotel where Paddock was roomed. She had been positioned just below this bend. (Some illustrative diagrams might be added here by and by, but in the meantime have a look at the pictures helpfully collated together on a site called the Templeton Times – they will be helpful in the meantime).  In both of the positions she takes up around the hotel, she only has more or less the same amount of fresh air between her and the supposed source of the gunfire. That the volume diminishes suggests that she might have actually put solid brick between herself and the shooter when she moved – suggesting that the shooter was outside of the hotel, on the ground very near her first position – as suggested by the close echo that can be discerned in the footage.

The silhouetted figure is the suspect (in shooting crouch?). The figure in the grey on the left does look to drop at the appearance of the light burst. What is going on?

Does this suggest that gunfire wasn’t coming from Paddock’s location after all? Some on the internet believe they have film evidence that shows that it wasn’t. In one particular video, by Youtube user “GodBlessHipHop”, we are shown that the light that should be emitted by the gun in the form of muzzle flashes just doesn’t appear in the windows where Paddock is supposed to be. The same video carries the explosive interview with concert-goer “Corrine” who says “they started shooting… they kept shooting… it was definitely someone on the ground… they herded the crowd… they kept coming… they even came into the… parking lot and shot people there too.” Some guys on the internet think they have found an example of who “they” are; for instance, a video by Youtube user Josh Wimbish that its creator says shows a man dressed as some kind of security official firing on the crowd. The viewer of the film is told that there are muzzle flashes caused by this security official supposedly firing repeatedly, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. There is one bright moment of illumination – this could be a torch, but it could also be the discharge from a hand gun. In fact, someone in front of this security character does seem to fall down like a sack of potatoes. It is certainly true to say that this security official does behave strangely, because he retreats looking back over his shoulder at the place where he has just been (shooting?). It doesn’t feel like he is, for instance, looking for the injured to treat.

The author’s first reaction to these images was that it can’t show an assassin in the crowd because the people around him aren’t reacting in a reasonable way – fleeing from him. In fact, the jury is still very far from coming in to announce a verdict. However, we should recognise that if this character has let off a single shot under the cover of the noise of a volley of automatic gun fire, then maybe he could get away with it in those circumstances. And if what we are seeing in this video is a shooter, then what might be being revealed is some part of the method of the attack where individuals are in the crowd – as “Corrine” described – taking pot shots to create the killed and injured. There is a lot of information whereby a fuller picture could be speculated on, but there isn’t enough at this stage to keep it correct and concise, and so it won’t be done. On the other hand, enough data is in to show that the official narrative is in tatters. One wonders if public awareness of this is so keen and strong that this will be the false flag that finally sinks the ship, or breaks the camel’s back. More pointedly, are there enough concert goer victims amongst this woken number who won’t accept the lone wolf lie to form an angry crowd so that too many difficult questions get asked, and too many inconvenient truths are spoken? “Corrine” in her interview said of the shooters “I hope they get ‘em”. For once, instead of allowing sidetracking into prayers and learnt helplessness by government-organised weeping, kumby-yah and yoghurt-knitting,  let there be a commonly held and resolutely, precisely targetted sense of grievance, and let the desire for properly-served justice be the  consequence of a false flag attack.

Update 9/10/2017

Some more on the movement of the taxi driver. On the right is a section of an image from Templeton Times (why reinvent the wheel?). The start of the film sees the taxi sitting on the slip road up to the porch approximately under the “en” of the Templeton Times annotation.

Now consider the audio graphical representation from the video, below. The violent waveform between 0 and 5 seconds is the “on-the-spot” gunfire pattern. It is followed immediately with a gentler, but still pronounced amplitude, and this is the echo. At 45 seconds is the distant pattern. Graphically it is represented as not registering much above the background noise – the orange line marks where it commences. This is not an echo – it is its own source of sound.

The taxi driver then moves around the bend to come to a halt at the actual porch of the Mandalay Bay hotel. Consider the graphical representation of the audio, below. The first burst of high amplitude sound is the “on-the-spot” gunfire pattern. Again it is followed by an echo, and then at 1 minute and 12 seconds, another burst of “on-the-spot”, primary gunfire – which becomes compressed as the driver proceeds through the small pagoda-like tunnel. By 1 minute and 40 seconds, she is sitting at the taxi rank below the porch of the hotel. The amplitude of the waveform that occurs after that time is clearly greatly reduced – and by the experience of travelling with the taxi driver, we know that we are still hearing the “on-the-spot” gunfire, but at a distinctly lower volume because of the change in the position of the car. However, if you consult the street map in the image, this position is still directly underneath where Paddock was suppposedly shooting from.

Update 16/10/2017

The diminishing of the gunfire sound could be accounted for by the fact that the driver wound her window up! This video spots it – but also proposes that the roof of these “basement” buildings is where a shooter could have been located (it also points out that the rooftops stretch a good distance at the back of the hotel, and give access to a car park from which a timely escape can be made). The very volume and the clatter of the gun, and the close echo remain the strongest evidence that the shooter was literally on top of this taxi.



† To this broad church of controlled media we must now include supposed alternative media that over again demonstrates that it is aligned, and a particular word must be had on the conduct of Infowars. Already shod of the last vestiges of its credibility in the eyes of many other alternative media producers, it has been pushing the official narrative while offering a very limited hangout to retain support for people looking for real answers (who can then, presumably, be targetted to buy snakeoil). On top of this, there has been a persistent effort to associate the “lone wolf” with either ISIS or Antifa. These stories seem to be predicated upon the claims of unnamed intelligence sources, or whatever tittle-tattle that is coming out of a camp that might benefit politically if the blame for the incident was laid where they want it. Moreover, ISIS is definitely a US Government project, as Antifa is suspected to be amongst certain commentators and observers. While attributing the Las Vegas incident to these groups would appear absurd, and right-minded people would dismiss the claimed connections – especially as no real evidence is offered – it clearly furthers an identifiable Government agenda of rousing division for civil disruption – or even war – and is clearly agitprop for that purpose.

English Civil War, American Revolution, Catalonian Independence, Brexit

As the reader probably knows, there have been two very high profile independence referenda recently; in Iraq, the one largely in the territory now identified as “Kurdish”, but that has historically been conquered by one empire or another so that no indigenous people could call it their nation, and in Spain, the one in Catalonia, a region that is identifiable with a particular folk, whereby a historically separate political entity wants to secede from a union to become its own independent state. Both resulted in a very high number of votes for the project proposed: above 90%. In a recent FBEL article, the former was called dubious – which is what those against the Catalonian vote are saying about it to discredit it. But there is no comparison. Unlike the Kurdish referendum, we know of the Catalonian version through some pretty detailed breakdowns – see this wiki page for instance.

Other than a turnout figure, detail on the Kurdish vote is hard to be found – even in sympathetic British corporate-media. And note; that the British corporate-media produces items titled “This is why the West should support Kurdish independence” (link) and on the other hand “Does [Catalonia] want to leave Spain?” (link) gives us a big clue about how each case fits into the agenda of those bringing about Luciferian global technocracy (the reader will also find the usual socialism-advocating decoy British alternative media is against the Catalonian vote). On the same side is Brexit pantomime villain, Guy Verhofstadt, he of the EU/UK Article 50 negotiation charade, who had this to say of the Catalan adventure:

The result was already known before it begun. What do you call this? Manipulation, deception.

Or, as the Express paraphrases: “Catalan vote was fixed”. And why would that be, the reader might ask? Because it didn’t produce the correct result, which is always the source of Euro-technocratic discontent? Or because it was observably dodgy just like the Kurdish plebiscite? The answer has to be A, does it not? The Catalan vote can’t be dismissed as cockamamie with such a thing as a Kurdish independence referendum existing in the world, with a process and result that both the EU and the UK take seriously as if it were authentic. And they do take it seriously. This is a statement from the British Foreign Secretary:

With our international allies, we proposed an alternative plan which would have seen negotiations take place between the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to address all issues of dispute. This alternative would have given the opportunity for the aspirations of the Kurdish people to be met. It is regrettable that a part of the Kurdish leadership rejected the proposal.

Does the reader see? Boris Johnson is here saying that inter-governmental negotiations would have been an alternative to the referendum. That’s taking the referendum seriously – which is to be expected, because the Kurdish situation is going to be used in British geo-political shenanigans.

The author cannot find a statement from the same source addressing the Catalonian referendum, and couldn’t find one on the Foreign Office’s website either. The British Government doesn’t scratch an itch that it doesn’t want inflamed. Accordingly, the following did appear in tweet form (indicative of the way the UK Government would like to diminish the significance of the event):

The referendum is a matter for the Spanish government and people.

We want to see Spanish law and the Spanish constitution respected and the rule of law upheld.

Spain is a close ally and good friend, whose strength and unity matters to us.

This brings us to a third referendum: the one that conceived Brexit in 2016. The UK Government’s main concern about the Catalonian referendum and its aspiration for independence is all to do with the example given to Britons in the context of Brexit. This is why the corporate-media is full of stories pouring doubt on the ability of Catalonia to thrive, or stating that somehow Catalans don’t really want independence after all.

Right at the heart of the issue is the right to self defence: to act wholly without reference to any other party in order to protect and guard one’s person and property. The principle applies equally to an individual, his family etc, as it does to a like-minded community – a country at the larger end of the scale (or a province in an empire, or a partner in a political union). The right to self-defence is non-negotiable.

It doesn’t matter if a minority within a country demands its rights and acts upon them. This is, after all, the only counter-measure to two wolves voting to eat the sheep – the mistakenly much valued model that is known as democracy. The Catalonian independence vote has been called a mockery of democracy. Of course it is. The sheep is acting to defend itself from the wolves. Opponents of Catalonian independence say it violates the Spanish constitution, and thus it is illegal, and thus it is wrong and even shameful. While acting in self-defence might be illegal, it’s never wrong, and definitely never anything to be ashamed of. Criticism of a totalitarian government would be illegal, but it isn’t wrong. In fact, it would be a duty. Everything really comes down to the distinction between the wheat and the chaff. Some people know rights are natural, others think that government bestows them. The latter would absolutely deny the former every time to retain the security of their slave mentality, and their obedience to a system designed to enrich a governing class at their expense. This is why there shouldn’t be too many tears if they are collateral when those who would act on their right to self-defence ever do so.

The Britons who voted to remain in the EU are a large minority, and it has been said that because of this their will should somehow be reflected in the outcome of the referendum on British independence. It is talk, of course, for the purpose of promoting the non-Brexit that the UK Government is currently wheedling for. But the real trick that the UK Government and the EU plays on Britons is asserting that compromise is necessary and inevitable. Britons who want independence should not be fooled. There is only only option that those who want independence can allow for the minority who would Remain: that is their right to defend their self-identification as EU chaff. They would not fare well restricted to this narrow choice – fighting for freedom is inherently more motivational than fighting to deny it – and that’s why they demand compromise – as do their mouthpieces: “there is a fear that some hardliners in Britain don’t really want to negotiate” – thus once spoke Guy Verhofstadt. The EU, and the traitorous UK Government, won’t get what they desire if Britons who want independence don’t compromise.

The lesson to be learnt is in the Catalonian experience. With the Catalonian referendum being illegal, surely the Spanish government would have been better off allowing it to go ahead, and then declaring it null and void? Couldn’t the Spanish Government have decreed that, while Catalans may have expressed a desire at the ballot box, and although this was all well and good, the voters’ involvement in the process was a result of being misled by the Catalonian Government and so the act of voting had no effect in real terms? Why did the Spanish Government deploy police to physically prevent the casting of votes? Why summon 700 mayors to court so as to intimidate them into not holding the referendum in their towns. Why seize ballot papers and voting material ahead of the referendum?

The answer is because the acting in the right to self-defence has priority in law over legalities – as such, the action must be prevented. The Catalonian Government was within its lawful rights to organise a referendum, and the Catalonian people were within their lawful rights to participate in it, and the Catalonian Government is within its lawful rights to declare independence. No legality on Earth, let alone in Spain, can prevent it. Only force. The Catalonians are clearly going to provoke the Spanish Government into resorting to that one measure – and thus make the Spanish Government lose. Fighting for freedom is inherently more motivational than fighting to deny it.

And so the Catalonians serve as an example to the British who want independence, and show them what they must do: declare independence, act in their right to self-defence – until your oppressor loses. Despite all the phony Article 50 negotiation theatre, Britain leaves the EU when the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed (as has been demonstrated on this site before).

When that happens, Britons who want independence must insist upon the reality of the situation. The Article 50 negotiations are for the purpose of creating tendrils and shackles that keep the UK along parallel developmental lines with the EU; for creating a disguised master-servant relationship to benefit the EU while tricking Britons into thinking they are experiencing independence. Keeping to the theme already established, the Article 50 negotiations are about abiding with EU legislation to create further legalities that bind the UK to the EU, while disguising the true nature of the country: that it is independent – and thus in fact reducing it back to dependency. The Article 50 negotiations are a con – as they would be if Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. They are an elaborate fraud to maintain the illusion of the false legal fiction layer between the people and their rights, so that they would be denied. The last thing in the world the UK Government wants is for this to be understood, and for the British who would defend themselves to invoke the law.

After the ISIS psyop, the Syrian-Kurdish “homeland”; plus the threat of real terrorists on UK streets

There is a fat, multi-year long trail in alternative media output that all adds up to show how the Islamist and other opposition in Syria are ultimately created and controlled by the military industrial contingent of US corporate-government (and allies). Amongst the Islamist factions are ISIS – an entity entirely invented by the West to provide a pretext for orthodox military intervention. Another Islamist group, al-Nusra (literally al-Qaeda) are openly tolerated by the US, and in the West portrayed as an unfortunate, but yet somehow legitimate contingent of the US’s anti-Assad “Free Syrian Army”. Russian bombing of these characters used to elicit protests from the US – as naturally it would. The truth was that from the very start of the invasion of Syria, America’s mercenaries had two hats, and wore a tidy one for Western consumption as the FSA as heroes, while the work-a-day headgear was that of demented assassin paid to cause chaos. Some observers say, and the author agrees, that there never was a moderate element to the force that the US injected into Syria.

As the conflict nears its end, so it appears that it is harder to conceal the dirty little secret – see for instance the recent Al-Nusra attack in a “de-escalation zone” to nab a party of Russian military police. Russian forces amassed in response to rout the attackers; moreover, the Russians, via Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, declared to the world that the incident had been instigated by the CIA, and to the author’s knowledge the US hasn’t bothered to deny it. But this is small change. The Russians have also now provided what is perhaps the best proof yet of US collusion with ISIS: aerial photography of a special forces forward operating base (or something like it) in ISIS-held territory with evidently no fear of let or hindrance. Furthermore, the Russians have noted (and let it be known they had) that in this particular part of Syria – a narrow band along the Euphrates running past Deir ez Zeir and between Syrian Government forces (SAA) and the FSA replacement, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – there is a notable lack of hostility between the SDF and ISIS. This is highly convenient for the SDF who are thus rendered able to rush to occupy oil wells in ISIS territory ahead of government forces.

Events that followed these Russian observations only reinforced the impression that, effectively, ISIS is the SDF, and ISIS is also US special forces. Of course, such information should be of especial interest to the population of the UK who are told that, as they become increasingly frequent, whenever there is a “terror attack” that it has been perpetrated by ISIS. And this is why, hot on the heels of yet another incident that stinks to high heaven (Parsons Green looks like the ultimate state terror hoax – even the patsy might not really exist) any news that comes out of Syria that would smash the mass delusion installed around the “terror” phenomenon is suppressed.

We don’t have to go much further than this very site to find a small portion of that very large alternative media library documenting the invasion of Syria. In 2015 an article appeared at FBEL in which the author proposed that ISIS wasn’t even a credible military force, but was only something that appeared to be one. ISIS was a psyop. At the time there had been what has become touted as being a game-changing victory when an ISIS siege of Kobani was broken by its Kurdish defenders. General Qassem Soleimani of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said something that he has recently declared again: that ISIS was facing imminent defeat. It appears to the author that ISIS’s survival in the Syrian theatre has been engineered for certain convenience – and it may yet continue to be.

The model for US intervention was predicted at FBEL back then in 2015 – using the Kurds as cover for US air support (that is in Syria illegally, never forget) that would ultimately target Syrian Government forces. Indeed, there have been instances when the US has attacked the SAA, but generally the strategy apparently became unfeasible thanks to the Russians creating their own de facto no-fly zones. The ability to do this – at least as far as the author is concerned – and make the US, UK and other illegal air forces in Syria virtually redundant must lend itself to the same apparent Russian capacity to knock NATO hardware out of the sky if it’s a cruise missile, and render it dead in the water if it’s a cruise missile firing vessel (as a recent FBEL article discusses). One feels that under normal circumstances, if the US had ever been gifted with an opportunity to have an open aerial shooting match with the Russians then they would have taken it on the assumption that the Russians, understanding themselves to be outgunned and vulnerable, would have backed down and left the skies open to the Americans. Hence one feels that normal circumstances don’t apply.

Also suffering from Russian ownership of the air was the US plan to have its “rebels” pour into territory previously occupied by ISIS – like hot metal into lost-wax mould. In actual fact, this is largely what has happened to an extent in the east where this strategy is really going to play out going forward under the guise of a Kurdish territorial entity, but we can be sure that the SAA, having been rampant under Russian-controlled skies, have had much more success than the Americans would have liked. Undoubtedly, the performance of the SAA has been the primary factor in making the mask that hides US-SDF-ISIS collusion slip, as the revival of Syrian government fortunes had to be contended with in a race for territory.

The big implication from all the data is that the SDF clearly isn’t all that it seems, and this is important in the context of what clearly appears to be a ruse to carve Syrian territory out as part of a supposed Greater Kurdistan. The author believes that we are going to find out that Kurdish independence is nothing to do with a national homeland, but cover for creating a US launching pad from which to further destabilise Syria and conduct war upon it (with Iran to follow).

When one rereads the FBEL article on ISIS as a psyop abovementioned, one finds reference to 2012 reports in which witnesses attest to the FSA leadership being comprised of Iraqis. Evidently these were al-Qaeda – from across the border, and the infamous Anbar Province. The reader might also notice the detail in the article about the lifting of the siege of Kobani. It was actually achieved by Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga fighters that joined the fight against ISIS in Syria after the Turks let them cross their territory. Now, we are told that the SDF leadership is largely Kurdish: “mostly composed of, and militarily led by, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a mostly Kurdish militia” – although Wikipedia then goes on to state that as much as 60% of the personnel are Arabs. If you follow the Wiki link for the YPG, you discover that this is the group who fought at Kobani, and it is supposed to be comprised of fighters from within Syrian borders. And yet we can’t help but notice that the “YPG” magically start to go on an offensive after Kobani, and after previously only being able to guard Syrian-Kurdish areas. Can we assume that this fighting force’s ranks were engorged by Iraqis so that it was then capable of mounting offensive operations? Therefore what right would this group have in carving out a piece of Syria as part of a Kurdish state? Now consider the 60% Arab contingent of the SDF. The fact that there is an Arab component in the SDF suggests that it’s not really just about a Kurdish homeland – although the author senses from his reading around the subject that the SDF Arabs are worried about being betrayed. As far as these people being Syrian – when one starts looking into these groups one finds out where the FSA has melted away to – into the SDF – and any insistence that SDF Arab leadership comes from Syria should be taken with a pinch of salt. Reports such as the one that goes under the title “SDF to Arab villagers: Join us or leave” speak for themselves. That Syrian Arabs are being pressed into the SDF probably suggests that their leadership does not come from amongst them.

So much for the real nature of the SDF and its role in the war: a fake Syrian-Kurdish liberation movement fighting a fake Islamist threat – with an “oppressive” Syrian regime in Damascus that the Islamists and “moderates” are in actuality both aimed at. As stated above, clearly the plan is to fool Western electorates into supporting a future adventure in which orthodox national forces – those that tax dollars pay for – are used to defend a Kurdish homeland in Syria that isn’t really one. It’s an American plan, undoubtedly, and it would be saleable to an emotional American and general Western public that likes its corporate-media and gate-keeping big alternative media†. We already have Infowars, which might as well broadcast out of the Pentagon or Langley, selling the idea of Turkey committing genocide against the “Kurds” alongside the Cult of Trump and the usual snakeoil. The story is about reaction to what looks like a completely bogus referendum held in Iraqi-Kurd territory (and parts of Iraq currently occupied by “Kurdish forces”) where a dubiously high number of people have voted “Yes”.

The question of ultimate leadership of the SDF is the one we need to pursue in order confirm all our suspicions. Frankly, the data points to the Americans. We already knew about cases where they have been caught airlifting ISIS personnel out of tricky situations (see here and here) to spare both them and the SDF. Famously there was the large scale extraction from Mosul so that ISIS could move to the defence of Palmyra, and there has been a similar movement from Raqqa – which can be interpreted as an effort to deal with the SAA’s liberation of Deir ez Zeir. Here is an account of yet another example – this time an escape from Manbij. All of this strongly suggests who it is that is organising the battlefield so that ISIS is managed precisely to be a token against the SDF, and an obstacle against the SAA.

In another development that illustrates the level of inter-operability amongst all of the US ground troops, proxy or otherwise, the Russians, who along with the Syrians, are now bumped up right against the Euphrates in the vicinity of Dei res Zeir and were able to get aerial reconnaissance imagery of ISIS territory thereabouts. This revealed the apparent collusion mentioned at the top of this article – the reader can read about it in full by following this link. After this incident a Russian general was killed by mortar fire out of ISIS territory – which is the story that the Russians told the world. But analysts think it was too lucky a shot not to have been based on intelligence or equipment that ISIS couldn’t have had (moreover, there is understanding that a US statement regarding upgraded monitoring of Russian troops was tantamount to an admission). Russia apparently responded by bombing what it called ISIS targets, but strangely the SDF complained that it was on the receiving end of this assault. The Russians denied this, and at the same time made a pointed comment that they had not registered “any engagements between SDF militants and IS terrorists rearward… that specifically relates to the area of hydrocarbon fields in the province, where the militants fiercely resist the advancing Syrian troops.” The implication is that the SDF has left off fighting ISIS so that ISIS can fight the Syrians. But that’s not even the half of it: if Russia hits ISIS, but the SDF makes the noise out of pain, then the SDF is ISIS.

Now consider the following, which is a May 2016 bulletin from the invaluable

Reports confirm that US special operation forces are participating in the clashes against the ISIS terrorist groups, de-facto, spearheading the Kurdish forces. They wear  YPG/YPJ patches, in an alleged attempt to hide the fact of their presense (sic).

Please go and see the images. Are these people taking orders off of a Saddam-era Iraqi al-Qaeda officer? Not a chance. A UK audience in the midst of the times it finds itself in should be interested in this because their own version of psychopathic “soldier” are never ever far away from the American one. In August 2016 reports appeared in corporate-media of SAS at Al Tanaf base. This was the place that the SAA rendered redundant by establishing other contact with the Iraqi border, and so the SAS and US special forces based there were evacuated.

The Mirror story linked to above also tells of the SAS in Iraq, so – as we can well imagine – they weren’t just confined to one place in the entire war zone back then, and we can be sure that they aren’t now. Are they in the vicinity of Deir es Zeir amongst the SDF? Probably. And the Establishment can’t help but give the game away regarding their leadership role, as evidenced by an Express article: “British special forces and spy agencies are being sent to Syria to form elite squads to smash the evil Islamic State”. This surely translates into leading the mercenaries that can be recruited – or victims that can be press ganged. Of course, for a long time the real alternative media has been recording the fact of British intelligence agencies and the SAS being involved in creating opposition forces.

The big concern that British people should have is that these enablers of terrorists and invading forces in Syria (they conspired with the RN and RAF to murder civilians in Libya too) are on the streets of their country. In latest accounts, SAS are disguised as street sweepers or homeless – armed, of course. To what extent the particular modus operandi is real, we should probably fear the worst and suspect that there really are undercover war criminals patrolling the streets of Britain; put there using the same methodology that sees them in Syria: the fake war on terror. As in Syria, in Britain they are on the streets to “guard against ISIS” –- a phony instrument of state craft that the US/UK government directly operates. Therefore they are on the streets as an enemy force pointed at the British people – making the Syrians and Russians our allies. Britons should hope that their allies do all the fighting that needs to be done.


† The usual suspects give this more traction today at Breitbart: “Bolton: U.S. Should Support Independence for Kurds, ‘State of Iraq as We Have Known It Doesn’t Exist Anymore’”. The Iraqi state would not agree – but what matters its sovereignty? Lots of the commenters under the article don’t seem to remotely understand the issue and its ramifications – thus proving the point made in this article that, already gullible, and also caught up in the Cult of Trump as it is, a good deal of the American public will buy the baloney.

Parsons Green suspect is literally a cardboard cutout

At the time of writing there is still no image in the public domain which informs as to the real identity of the Parsons Green “bombing” suspect, Ahmed Hassan. There is no image garnered off a Facebook page, nor even any mugshot released officially by police by which the gullible British public can be conditioned to recognise and hate the face of the enemy – which is usually what happens quite quickly is these cases (we’ll get on to Yahyah Farrouk by and by). Instead the corporate-media has been using a court drawing that features a figure that wouldn’t be out of place illustrating a Roald Dahl book. Accordingly, at this point in time, as far as the public are concerned, we can say that the Parsons Green suspect is a cartoon character – and a rather clownish one at that. Moreover, he is a literal cardboard cutout figure not unlike the sort that pops up on a shooting range to act as a target – in this case to catch the blame for what looks mightily like something much bigger than the work of a solitary schmuck. As the reader might know, it is the role of a cardboard cutout to fill a void – a space – so there is something instead to see – something to attribute activity to where none can possible happen (it is a cardboard cutout). And the really handy thing about a cardboard cutout is that the person it portrays doesn’t even have to actually exist in reality. It just has to stand up and appear to be an animated creature.

Fascinatingly, the drawing of Ahmed Hassan somewhat reminds of some images of a fellow mischief maker, a certain Damon Smith, who got in trouble in 2016 for taking a “bomb” on to a tube train (follow this link). We’ll be comparing the cases of Ahmed and Smith – noticing that neither were up before the judge on a terrorism charge – although the prosecutor in the more recent case accused Ahmed of “express…[ing] hatred for the UK government and society” (so we’ll wait and see where that approach leads to). This would be the assertion of a certain Mr Ingham – let’s see more of what he is reported to have said at the opening hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court:

Outlining the case,…[Ingham] said: ‘Extensive CCTV coverage was identified by the police, spanning a period in the hours before and after an explosive device went off on the District line train at Parsons Green underground station at 8.20 on the 15th of September last week.

‘And they show the suspect carrying the device, consistent with being the IED, in a bag from his home address to the train, onto which it was placed before he got off, leaving it behind to explode.

‘Items were then found in searches at his home address consistent with him having constructed that device at that address.’

He continued: ‘Police obtained and recovered CCTV, it must be said, surprisingly quickly, leading to images of the suspect to be circulated amongst police staff in a matter of hours, resulting in his arrest.

‘They identified the suspect carrying the large bag in the hours before the explosion at 8.20, towards Sunbury-on-Thames station, and then on an overground train to Wimbledon.

‘And then on to Wimbledon underground station, before getting on the District line.’

Mr Ingham said: ‘The explosion created a fireball which injured 30 people. Including a lady with more serious burns.

‘Chemical analysis has identified the high explosive TATP. That is an improvised – in other words, home made – explosive.

‘In this case there were many hundreds of grams of TATP in the device. There had been a partial explosion at the scene.’

The items recovered included several hundreds of grams of TATP, an electronic timer, and several containers, the court heard.

Mr Ingham continued: ‘The device also contained metal shrapnel, including knives, screws and other items.

‘The device appears in fact not to have functioned as intended. That’s probably down to an incorrect construction. Initial examinations of digital devices show the suspect had purchased all the key ingredients for manufacturing TATP from internet sources, including Amazon.’


There are a number of important details to take from this report before we go on to consider the charges brought against Ahmed Hussan. Firstly, the accusation seems to be that the “bomb” originated at the foster home at which Ahmed was living. Secondly, the element of the “bomb” that made it an “explosive device” was the compound TATP – with no other chemical component of the bomb being mentioned (for the time being – the way the charge is worded leaves this open). Should we also assume from Ingham’s remarks that CCTV exists that clearly show Ahmed’s features? It appears to have led directly to an arrest. It has to be said that in cases that are universally announced, on corporate-media rolling news as being terror, moments after they happen, there is always this magic CCTV that proves guilt – and yet the public is not allowed to see it. Instead the police release nothing quite so damning, and in this case we only have an image of a chubby character in grey sweats with his head incredibly well wrapped up in some purple material (is it a hood or a balaclava?) so that identification is impossible.

Now we come to an analysis of the two charges levelled at Ahmed. Of these perhaps the easiest to deal with must be this one:

That he “maliciously caused by triacetone triperoxide (TATP) or other explosive substance and explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property, contrary to section 2 Explosive Substances Act 1883.”

In the trial of the 21/7 London bombers a similar indictment was dropped† – and this is significant. In the previous FBEL article (here) on this subject, it was theorised that if the “bomb” consisted solely of TATP, and was constructed like at least one device involved in the 21/7 plot (with a detonator made from fairylights and TATP), then it could not possibly be true that an ignition detonation could have caused the reported “fireball” that we are told indicated the occurence of a partial explosion at Parsons Green . TATP does not produce heat or light. Even ahead of that consideration, an observer using critical thinking should wonder at the chances of TATP being prepared well enough to become an explosive when it has – as the remarks by Ingham seem to suggest – been cooked at the home of MBE-winning pensioner foster parents. There is clearly scope for a defence team to challenge the veracity of a “fireball” story, and question as to it ever really happening. And then, of course, there is contrast with precedent: consider how there were, in the execution of the 21/7 plot, essentially only minor “blow offs” which the “leader”, Muktar Said Ibrahim, insisted were nothing but smoke-creating effects in a hoax to raise awareness of British aggression in Iraq.

The same defence of not being in earnest was used by Damon Smith – and so this is why, perhaps, he had to plead guilty to a charge of perpetrating a bomb hoax. Smith’s “bomb” didn’t go off at all – and apparently there was no opportunity for anyone to claim that it did. Presumably this is why he was also charged with possession of an explosive substance with intent. He was found guilty, but it appears the case rested entirely on the say-so of an “expert” who deemed his “bomb” capable of being explosive. There is a great mistake in the layman to suppose that just because an expert decrees a fact in court, it doesn’t actually always make it anything more than an opinion. If a judge allows it, and if a defence team can be bothered – or has the skill – an expert can be challenged. Indeed, there seems to be a great controversy on the topic of whether or not homemade “bombs” as used in typical British terror plots are even capable of exploding to any degree whereby they are worthy of being called a bomb.

Observers of this trial should expect this same controversy to be a factor in the consideration of the second charge against Ahmed (although it probably won’t). This second charge is:

That he “attempted to murder persons travelling on a District Line Train from Wimbledon”.

A similar charge stuck in the case of the 21/7 “plotters”, who were found guilty of a conspiracy to “murder other persons”, despite their “bombs” demonstrably being incapable of hurting anyone. Guilt, it appears, came from what the court decided was the intention of the accused. But consider this: if one tries to kill another person with a rubber duck, and fails because the tool for murder is clearly not equal to the task, then what does the attempt amount to – what does the intent amount to? The anwer is nothing. On the other hand, if we imagine that a rubber duck is a credible instrument to commit murder so that we can make the intent meaningful, are we not just sharing in the fantasy of the perpetrator? Shouldn’t a judge, and a court, be of sound mind so that he and it can come to good decisions and uphold the law, rather than be as delusional as the suspect and open up the way to chaos? What good is he as a judge, then, in the latter case? What good is a justice system if it reaffirms the mistaken beliefs of fantasists – and turns them into social and legal facts – rather than assert reality?  If it does not insist on truth, then it is worse than no good, it is downright dangerous.

Yes, the British Establishment is getting itself into all sorts of trouble – there will be so many twists and turns and contortions that one day it will just not be able to support itself. Yet another pustular boil on the rancid flesh of the dying British Establishment is indicator and symptom of ever worsening health. We could tell things were going septic when Yahyah Farrouk, demonised as being quite literally the “face of terror” in the corporate-media, was released without charge (the author hopes Farrouk can sue). Now it seems the Establishment must rely on a cartoon character – a cardboard cutout – to fulfil the vacated role of stigmatised Muslim for purposes of inculcating fear. How appropriate.


† All info about 21/7 plot gleaned from Nick Kollerstrom’s book “Terror on the Tube”.

Parsons Green terror theatre: using redeployed Mid-East battlefield assets?

All the evidence suggests that the incident at Parsons Green on 15/9/17 was a drill that went live (and became a hoax when it was pronounced to be a terror attack), but suffered from the fact that the “crime scene” wasn’t isolated from the public so that images of reality could be sneaked out into wider circulation: in short, the Establishment lost control of the narrative. As such, a damp squib out of a bucket looks a pretty feeble excuse to have the military and armed police patrolling the streets; hence, the author suggests, the hasty reversal of the terror alert status from critical to severe. That being said, none of the failure stopped the corporate-media running with the script – what had been prepared as incontestable fiction (as per usual) turned into bloody minded gaslighting in spite of reality; the corporate-media doesn’t care about its integrity because it never suffers for the lack of it. Some internet researchers have noted that certain people with demonstrable connections to crisis planning and indeed possibly acting have featured in the corporate-media’s attempt to build a fantasy, and say that this in itself shows that the incident was crisis theatre. Let’s just say that it is circumstantial evidence: lots of people in the crisis staging and related industries work in London and need to commute of a morning. The real key to comprehending the incident for what it is is seeing how the corporate-media and government’s narrative cannot measure according to the gauge of what we can see and inspect with our own eyes, nor to what we must conclude when we apply our own critical thinking about that evidence.

Take for example how we are still told in the corporate-media that a “bomb exploded” on a train at Parsons Green station. This is patently not true. A bomb did not explode, and the images collected by a vigilant citizen provide the evidence to support that statement. The reader can see footage taken of what must have been the recent aftermath by following the link.† In fact, there is no evidence in the images to tell us that the white builder’s bucket and its contents constitute a bomb at all. However, the authorities claim that it does, and by doing so have to concede that it is a bomb that has not exploded by dint of the fact that it remains very much in the pristine condition it was in when it was placed on the train; the government, the Metropolitan Police and the corporate-media cannot have it both ways. And yet they all try to by modifying the storyline to tell of a partial explosion – by which we must presume them to mean a detonator that failed to ignite the rest of the bomb.

The corporate-media, in its accounts, insist that a fireball “ripped” through the carriage, and this caused a few incidents of casualty by burning. However, the corporate-media also hints at TATP being the explosive used (because TATP fulfils the role of explosive most likely to be concocted by an amateur in the public imagination). But, if we apply some background knowledge to this information, we understand that TATP as a detonator could not cause a fireball. Let’s go at this in steps:

TATP is very hard to make, despite what the corporate-media tell you. It has to be refined to become explosive – and it looks very much as if one needs to have certain laboratory-grade equipment to do this. It needs refrigeration thereafter to keep it from evaporating (perhaps we are meant to believe that the insulated Lidl bag was somehow meant to keep the substance in the bucket stable). These real requirements for producing and storing TATP should perhaps rule it out as being number one choice of explosive material for wannabe backstreet bomb makers. It is extremely volatile and if budding amateurs were really whipping it up all the time to use in terror plots we should perhaps hear about more killed in premature explosions. In the real 7/7 London terror story, as pieced together by Nick Kollerstrom, the idea that TATP was used had to be faded out into a fudge, such was its improbability.

And yet, still, the corporate-media hints at TATP being used at Parsons Green, although the Mirror, amongst others, goes ahead and makes an outright claim:

The deadly homemade device, which was filled with explosive TATP, was probably put together using items from high street shops

Now we’ll let a BBC analyst take us through the next step of appreciation:

The Parsons Green device is also understood to have had some kind of timer and the fairy lights are apparent from the pictures.

Some of them have what looks like a white plug at the end which could be wax.

This approach has been previously used to seal bulbs after they have been modified to be part of a bomb. Zahid Hussain, a Birmingham man convicted in May of trying to make a crude device, did exactly this.

Other intelligence tells us that Zahid Hussain used fairy lights as a detonator. Now consider the following, which is a MailOnline story that was written at the time of the trial of the July 21, 2005 London terror plotters. It states how the filament in a bulb exposed to TATP can supposedly work as a detonator:

The TATP was put in a cardboard tube together with a torch bulb which had a hole in it to allow some of the TATP to come into contact with the filament. The bulb was then connected via 80cm long wires, hidden inside the bombers’ clothing, to a battery and two snap connectors, which would act as the trigger switch when pressed together.

By completing a circuit, the bulb would light up, ignite the TATP and trigger and detonate the chemical mixture in the plastic tubs.

In actual fact, the author has seen it claimed that the Parsons Green bomb also had other types of explosive for the main body (see the diagram from a Telegraph article below, and click to enlarge), but the point is that in the public imagination of home made bomb building, the Government has established that TATP is used by terrorists in light bulb detonators.

The images of the Parsons Green bomb (some of which perhaps we weren’t supposed to have†) suggest that this is the way that it too was contrived. And yet TATP does not produce heat or light when it explodes – so if we believe the story of the “ball of flame” partial explosion, then TATP probably wasn’t incorporated into the detonator. As the Establishment’s story develops, please look out for the corporate-media and the government not getting its story straight about what the bomb was made of. If we don’t believe the ball of flame story – and the author doesn’t – then we might take an educated guess that there was nothing about the “bucket bomb” that would enable it to explode at all. And so also look out for the corporate-media and the government trying to sell you a highly unlikely tale about the genesis of the “bomb”. The suspect supposedly lives in the foster home of an MBE-winning foster family – where one can’t imagine a bomb factory being facilitated.

The second element of danger for potential victims at the incident was that which came in a supposed stampede that happened, so we are told, when passengers rushed off the train and towards a single exit at the station. And yet there is footage on the internet (linked to above) showing quite a crowd of passengers milling about on the platform next to the train while it still holds the bucket bomb. One passenger makes a remark about a bag being on fire. None of this resembles the supposed panic that we have been told about.

In another video on Youtube, a witness by the name of Emma Stevie makes interesting comments that reinforce the notion that the incident was a pretence: that the bomb was merely a prop, and any uproar and alarm was caused by people pretending that it had gone off. “The loudest scariest screams” says Stevie, were coming from an adjacent carriage. She also told of “loud men shouting run”. So here what she appears to be describing are agents directing the operation – loud men – setting off the panic. The carriage doesn’t have to be full of crisis actors to create the situation Stevie describes – it just needs people on the ground to inject the belief that there is something to be distressed about (and our extensive study of false flags at this site shows that this is a usual feature). Emma Stevie also says that “we didn’t hear an explosion”. This is because there wasn’t one. The crush that Emma Stevie speaks of may well have happened in some very first instance – as any occasional provincial visitor to London can attest to, Londoners apparently like to be abused on a daily basis by train operators who obviously think they are cattle.

There is no surprise that the police have not released CCTV of the suspect delivering the “bomb” on the train. What we have had, though, are the preposterous images of a man with his head wrapped up carrying a Lidl bag allegedly outside and nearby the property of the foster parents in Sunbury on Thames. Going by previous false flags and hoaxes, there is every chance that this footage was concocted after the event – there would be every opportunity to stage the scene when the street containing the foster family’s home was sealed off, and neighbours were evacuated by police over the weekend. This in itself was a development of the police state that we should all be very concerned with (notice that some, who should be concerned, are proving themselves frauds and calling for more police powers).

We also note that the two suspects that have thus far been arrested are supposed to be refugees from Syria and Iraq – that they are linked with the Sunbury foster home suggests that they came to country as “children”. Not so long ago, of course, there was a big scandal related to grown men taking advantage of a scheme to allow unaccompanied refugee children to enter the UK. It wasn’t long before stories were emerging that “two-thirds” of these kind of immigrants were actually adults. The author identified the whole operation for what it probably really was: the disguised movement of battlefield assets belonging to the US/UK intelligence agencies’. The author conjectures that we aren’t being shown an image of the 18 year old suspect who was apparently arrested trying to flee to Calais because of how he might look much older than his stated age. Of course, the fact that these are Muslim immigrants are coming from lands where ISIS is some kind of mighty military force in the imagination of corporate-media consumers is being played upon by the usual suspects – Breitbart news – assumedly to whip up the race war that the British Establishment apparently longs for. Naturally, there is very little reference – anywhere in big media, alternative or corporate – to how it is usually the case that the terrorists who are labelled such when they come to the UK have in previous lives been operating on behalf of the US and UK when they were in Syria or Iraq.


† There is still image of the bucket available on the internet that shows something different to the moving image linked to in this article. The latter shows the Lidl bag on fire.

We can then suppose that the still image was taken before the film footage, and we must ask ourselves if there is anything in that still image which would set alight to the plastic bag that the bucket sits in? If we can’t answer that question, we have to conclude that the bag was seperately and manually lit on fire.

Please note, the Telegraph has been naughty in creating the image for its illustration (see half way up the page) because it has left out a number of illuminated fairylights which might inform the viewer that the orange glow at the top of the bucket is also lights – not flame.


Analysis of “Things to Come”; Part Two: From the same place as “Interstellar”

This article is a follow up to

Interstellar, the movie: representing Freemasonic lore to an unsuspecting audience (link)

Analysis of “Things to Come”, Part One: Mystery Babylon does all the war (link)


HG Wells’ “The Shape of Things to Come” is a history that appears in dreams to a character introduced in the preface of the book. The relationship between Raven, who thinks he has read a history from the future, and an editor character, known by his initials HGW, and who is presenting the material, perhaps should make the reader think of Wells’ own mentorship by TH Huxley, the eugenicist and “Darwin’s bulldog” – and the grandfather of Aldous and Julian Huxley. The book, then, should perhaps be seen as a manifesto for social development coming out of the powerful Victorian school of Darwinism (the term coined by TH Huxley). Apparently we aren’t meant to call Darwinism socialism because ideology is not meant to stray into the realms of science – but that’s assuming that Evolution is scientific. And when we look at this through the lens of Mystery School religion, that Social Darwinism could be extrapolated from Darwinism is perfectly reasonable. Through the lens of the Mystery School religion, both Darwinism and Social Darwinism are quite clearly central to the manifesto that is “The Shape of Things to Come” – which is totally concerned with social engineering the world into subjectivity to a global government.

“The Shape of Things to Come” sees human development in terms of creating a biological unity where humans contribute according to their abilities and where a ruling class is the brain of the organism (of course, underneath all the fine words is the concern that an elite remains at the top of the pile irrespective of its ability). This incorporates the Malthusian notion of the “useless eater” and the elimination of certain classes of people who make the unified organism inefficient – which would be an exercise that would have a racial aspect because of the Victorian view of coloured people who hadn’t benefitted from the same culture that had chiefly made the British the world’s “super race” (ironically, this culture wasn’t the Platonic collectivism at the core of Victorian ideas of utopia – more about that in a moment).

Secondly, “The Shape of Things to Come” understands the requirement for human survival to be social, and related to a collectivised effort in response to perpetual struggle. In other words, the human race is like an animal that evolves by surviving – all very Darwinian. Moreover, human survival needs continual progress:

Human society… is obliged to raise its standards of consumption and extend its activities year by year, or collapse.

Again, the delusion of the Victorian eugenicist is huge, but actually the dishonesty is not in ignorance. In his “Republic”, Plato fudged the issue of how children of the elite could be demoted to lower classes, and this would speak to the concern that a ruling class which no longer deserves to rule would have about staying in power. The Darwinian utopia uses perpetual progress to disorient and discombobulate the population that is subject to it – so there are no reference points; nothing remains to show that actually some things were better in the past, and therefore there are reasons to rebel against the leadership of society. Indeed, what we can’t help to notice about “Things to Come” is that the same families and cronies stay in power. Moreover, generally we can say that science and technology is a product of the Renaissance, which in turn can have this said about it: at its core was the rediscovery of Aristotlean individualism. The new Aristotlean culture in republican Italy and then in other parts of Europe (notably republican England – the constitutional monarchy, properly used, is a form of republicanism) gave rise to an age of reason, and brought whole countries of people out of the control of the collectivist, medieval Catholic Church, itself a Mystery political system. History would suggest that great scientific and technological advances do not happen in collectivised societies. Wells’ central idea that humanity as an organic body can progress technologically is a fallacy.

In Hermeticism, which is another name for the Mystery Religion, progress is closely related to the continued beautification of the universe; in reality, at a very basic level, this translates into building statements of authority that the ruling class use to impress the masses – i.e. pyramids. In turn, the subjects of this rule are made to understand that their effort is crucial to making the world keep turning, and therefore are willing to be dominated for the common purpose. This is the essence of Wells’ progress.

The evolutionary struggle is also an expression of the alchemical spiritual development that is central to Hermeticism. In “The Shape of Things to Come” war and disease wipe out swathes of the world’s population, and from this comes a New World Order – a global state. Therefore, the alchemical process of reducing a substance by fire to produce something that is more refined is being represented in the depopulation aspect of eugenics. When we have this information, we can understand that Darwinism is scientific only in the sense that it is an expression of Hermetic technocracy – meaning it is not scientific. Indeed, evolution was understood before Darwin in Hermeticism because of how it was believed certain men could evolve into gods through the spiritual alchemy. Animals turning into men is a downwards extension of this belief.

The film version of Wells’ book, “Things to Come”, and the more modern Hollywood blockbuster, “Interstellar” both have this alchemical progress at their core – telling us that although they were made 80 years apart, the same people who were directing the destiny of the West back in the 1930s are the same people who are doing it now. Indeed, in the older film, there is direct reference to who these people are: a globalist organisation which doesn’t “approve of independent sovereign states” and which is described by a character called John Cabal (whose descendent becomes the “Air Dictator” in a future society that looks like imperial Rome) as the “Freemasonry of Science” and a “Brotherhood of Efficiency” – and which ultimately takes advantage of the chaos. Notice the continued lying insistence on the collectivised human organism having anything to do with good governance and enlightenment – the important words to register are “Freemasonry” and “Brotherhood”.

In both films there is depopulation through weapons of war. In “Things to Come” the assumption is that there is a war between foreign powers, and this would be reasonable because the book states it. However, in the film the war is framed in such a way that we can suspect it to be a war by a government on its people, rather like Julia in Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four”, who thinks that the conflict that Oceania is endlessly involved in is in fact a huge deception: “The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened’”. In the 1930s, very few people would have been able to see this possibility in the film. Post 9/11, it becomes more obvious. And because the sense of a false flag war is evident in the film, we perhaps can conclude that we are seeing in-the-know messaging about who ultimately would be responsible for the second world war that the film is predicting (easy to do if it is planned as an alchemical reduction for the entire planet).

Furthermore, when the war starts in “Things to Come”, there is no declaration. All of a sudden a mysterious aircraft is bombing some location in the town. The bombing of civilians is immediate – not something that develops as a strategy. Soldiers turn up in the town centre and with loud hailers (mirroring British Army psyop techniques) to start terrorising the people. Bombs fall soon after. The extent of the devastation is hinted at by pictures of hundreds of planes coming over the southern white cliffs of England. However, the enemy is never named, although, intriguingly, the following is what a radio announcer has to say about the first unprovoked attack: “we don’t know who it is, but there’s not much doubt about who did it”. To modern ears this is shockingly familiar. There was a similar spirit not very long after 9/11 when the “approximate” culprits were known. Whenever a terror attack happened thereafter, people have become familiar with politicians and corporate-media immediately insinuating that the assault is the work of Muslim terrorists.

The last signal that makes an alert viewer appreciate there is a false flag feel to what is most definitely portrayed as a war against civilians in “Things to Come” is a handbill posted on a piece of barbed wire towards the end of the war (it endures from 1940 to 1966): “enemy near breaking point and defeated on land on sea”. Despite this, the enemy still has positions from which to launch air raids – and to bomb with chemical weapons in a seemingly last ditch effort to murder a civilian population.

The chemical weapon produces a disease called the “Wandering Sickness” that makes its victims suddenly get up from their death beds and roam aimlessly, as if sleepwalking. The community living amongst the rubble take to shooting these disease victims out of fear of contagion. There is something very significant about the portrayal of this phenomenon in the film because of how victims of the disease look to a modern viewer like a zombie. In modern films involving depopulation, zombies represent a portion of humanity that it is ok to kill, because they are no longer people. In other words, human beings become dehumanised by being portrayed as being a zombie, and also a threat that cannot be reasoned with. For the survival of the species, pity cannot be bestowed upon them.

Whereas false flag democide coded into the 1930s film, “Things to Come”, just would not be recognised by its contemporary audience, a good portion of a 21st century viewership would identify it and understand what a film treating the subject was speaking to them about. This is why in “Interstellar”, the fact that government kills its own people has to be heavily disguised. In “Interstellar”, the clues tell us that there must have been an overt war against starved populations – which may even be ongoing as the film starts – because of the threat that they pose (see the first article in the list above). What both films express is the eugenics of Social Darwinism, the reduction of alchemy, and the struggle required for evolution. Of course, none of this is natural. It is all engineered. It must be reiterated that the huge perversion inherent in Victorian social engineering as expressed in both films is that if it didn’t happen (meaning in real history – thus far in the form of world wars, the Inclosure Acts, the Oxford Movement, etc) a degenerate ruling class (see Lord Randolph Churchill) that had as yet been able to dominate through cunning and criminality would eventually have been out-competed and turned into “useless eaters” by a gentrified middle class that had begun developing in the proceeding Georgian era.

Common to both films is the goal of space travel. In “Interstellar” it stands for the survival of the collective: “think not as individuals but as a species” says Professor Brand. But actually it especially represents the development of the “brain” of the species – the ruling class – into super-human status; or into godhood as per the Luciferian/Hermetic/Mystery School belief system. In “Things to Come” space travel is something that mankind must do to continue evolving – and this is explicit in the treatment. Now, it should come as no surprise that space travel was a subject fantasised about much more by Victorians than by any other people of any preceding epoch. What we might not understand on this chronological side of the obsession is that space travel has always been about the symbolism of Luciferian godhood. The promise of it informs the masses that there are people who are much cleverer than they are – a class of people who will go places that normal folk cannot even imagine. It suggests a super-human class. It represents the hidden idea that the ruling class will become as gods through Luciferian evolution – so it is extremely useful because it exoterically demonstrates the superiority of the ruling class. Of course, the development of space travel counts as Hermetic beautification of the universe – which the masses support through taxes. In “Things to Come” there is actually sacrifice in life when the “space gun” is fired while a revolt, which becomes collateral damage, is trying to destroy it. In “Interstellar” the human sacrifice is more generational – but in both cases it is quite in keeping with what a Hermetic elite expects of the masses it rules over.

In simple terms, space travel is a tower of Babel (nothing exemplifies this more than the Apollo mission rockets) – a pretence that chosen men can indeed take their places in the stars: a hoax for the purposes of exerting control. There isn’t a class a people whose destiny is to take their place in the stars. It can’t be done actually, and to do it metaphorically is just self-annointment to rule regardless or not of any real authority – and this is why the likes of Walt Disney have to resort to having their heads cryogenically frozen in the hope that some technology will come along to resurrect them. They are still, and already dead.

Thus the portrayal of space travel in “Interstellar” is exactly for the same purpose of the space travel in “Things to Come”; both show the symbolism of the belief system of the people who control society, and therefore control the movie industry through which they can baptise large populations with conditioning – it doesn’t matter if this audience doesn’t understand the signalling, in fact it is better that they receive it on a emotional level. The previous discussion of “Interstellar” at this site deals with what that signalling is: a retelling of Freemasonic lore, and to inject an expectation of global catastrophe (engineered by the elite – but the audience isn’t told that) that justifies their probable extermination. “Interstellar” and “Things to Come” both serve to train their viewership into perceiving that it has a sacrifice to make for a common purpose – for the “beautification of the universe” to keep its wheels turning – for the survival of the efficient human collective, the political scheme that maintains it, and the evolution of the “brain” of that organism.