The TV Licensing Company – a shake down operation

Imagine that a private company that you had no prior dealings with contacted you demanding money – and not even for any service that they accused you of having been provided with. It sounds a bit like an encounter with a debt collection agency, does it not? – a company with whom you have no contract, but one that assumes your business from its own separate dealings with other parties. Well, such companies can take a hike – and do seem to understand that they are relying on your consent (any “punishment” manifests itself through a national credit ratings scheme – and people really should refrain from empowering these corporate-government gangsterist systems as a matter of patriotism; i.e. stop giving the likes of Experian any money). But what we’re actually talking about is the TV Licensing Company – who are way worse than any debt collection agency, because at least debt collection agencies claim service provision – which can fool a victim into engagement. Partaking in a service represents contract – and this is ultimately why you ignore companies that you have no business with. The TV Licensing Company doesn’t even claim to provide a service – it just wants money.

One might compare the TV Licensing Company to an organisation who writes to you after the purchase of a washing machine, acting on behalf of a manufacturer who makes “Soapysuds” and demanding that because you might use that particular brand of washing detergent, then you must pay monies to them. If you actually use any other soap, then to escape being liable for payment you would have to prove that you don’t use Soapysuds. But actually, this is not a good comparison with the dynamic between TV owners and the TV Licensing Company. A better one is a Saucepan Licensing Company acting on behalf of a water supplier that contacts you to ask that you prove that you are using your saucepans to boil milk rather than tap water. We can all see the ludicrousness of the situation, and we can all agree that we wouldn’t tolerate the attempt to insert business where there is none. And yet in fact, even this comparison is no good (water companies can control who they supply to).

The BBC, who the TV Licensing primarily acts for, broadcasts its product indiscriminately. In common law, if you receive unsolicited, then you don’t have to pay. So to begin with, there is no contract between the BBC and any TV owner, whereas there is one between the makers of Soapysuds and the washing machine owner – the latter has bought the product on the understanding that it does what it claims it can do; this is contract. If the TV Licensing Company claimed to own the means by which you received TV broadcasts (or was acting on behalf of another party making that claim), then things might be different. But the TV Licensing Company demands payment even though (and because) you are able to receive unsolicited – self-evidently in contrariness to your common law rights. In a well-adjusted and free country, all TV companies would have to advertise on what is obviously a free network, or would charge a subscription so that there was contract. However, no one in the British Government wants a well-adjusted country. They want to propagandise you, and they want you to pay for it.

Well, they don’t get what they want any more.

Having established that, in the first instance, the TV Licensing Company functions from very flimsy ground in terms of Law, let’s have a look at the criminality of their money collecting operation. All one needs to do is examine the letters that are sent out to people who won’t pay the TV Tax. The author has a collection from October 2016 – this is when he decided to stop throwing them away and retain them for evidence of “attempted extortion of monies by threats”.

October 2016. The title of this letter is “Official Warning: we have started an investigation”. Then it goes on:

To the Legal Occupier,

This is an official warning that we are carrying out an investigation of your address. We have asked you to contact us several times, but you have not responded. There is still no record of a TV Licence at this property.

It then goes on to explain the “law”, and then how to stop the investigation: options telling you that you can pay for a Licence, transfer a Licence if you have just moved, or by letting them know that you don’t use TV receiving equipment; “we may confirm this with a quick visit”, it states.

The first thing that we should notice is the failure to make a clear distinction between owning and using TV receiving equipment, and what either means in terms of being exempt, or not, from paying the TV tax. It has to be said that further detail is provided on the reverse of the letter, but again there is no overt information regarding how ownership of TV receiving equipment is perfectly legal without being any business of TV Licensing. Again, it is couched in an apparent requirement to inform TV Licensing:  “let us know if you never watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV”.

Now, if you still use TV to receive live television broadcasts – shame on you. Imagine, if you can, that you own a TV, but don’t use it to become propagandised by the State. If you receive abovementioned letter, then you have become a potential victim of a confidence trick to prompt you, who have no need whatsoever to engage with a private company that wants to sell you something, to contact that company to invite the selling. Furthermore, through threats of punishment, the letter bullies this contact out of you, and thus also bullies consent to the terms related to claiming exemption.

What are these, exactly? The letter says that if you contact TV Licensing to claim no need for a Licence, then it may visit to verify. So, when you contact them to claim innocence, they assume you have consented to this happening. This has to be the case because a visit is set out as a consequence of your contacting them – and then you agree to it by contacting them. And what does the term “visit” imply? The inspectors aren’t going to stand at your windows peering in through the net curtains. They are going to want to inspect your television set, which means entering your house. And so what will be the outcome of your contacting them? They will have further information and leverage by which to escalate their harassment of you – for the purpose of selling you something that you don’t need. The bottom line is this: they are a private company looking to make the pips squeak – and they’ve been given carte blanche by the government to do it. They aren’t ever going to be happy that you aren’t being squeezed as well.

The next letter dated November 2016: “We visit 10,743 addresses a day. Is yours next?”

As there is no record of a TV Licence at your address, you can expect an Enforcement Visit at any moment. Our officers knock on over 10,000 doors a day. That’s one every 5 seconds. Day. Evening. Even on weekends.

The letter goes on to threaten prosecution arising from the visit of this “Officer”, and bears a seal to make it look like something issued by a court: “Enforcement Officer Visit Approved”. It goes on to detail the punishment that the recipient of the letter might face.

At this juncture we need to remind ourselves that in England it is traditional to presume innocence. In fact, it is a basic right to be viewed as an innocent party at the outset of any investigation into wrongdoing. Indeed, even when someone is made a suspect, the presumption of innocence is maintained. However, what letters from TV Licensing do, and this type especially, is presume guilt. If there is no TV Licence at the address, the assumption is that there is Licence fee evasion; it is indicated in the fact that you are the target of an enforcement.

An enforcement – what is that? This is when a power that is lawfully in the right acts to stop behaviour that is unlawful. However, does that really apply with regards the way TV Licensing brandishes the word “enforcement” at someone who has TV receiving equipment but does not receive TV? No, it does not. When victimising an innocent, the TV Licensing Company is pretending to be an authority acting in the right, when it can’t be in the right because it is not stopping unlawful behaviour – because there is none. Therefore, it cannot be an authority – because it is not acting lawfully. By presenting itself as such to innocent people, it is acting fraudulently – and in threatening punishment and intimidation (with personal visits and searches) it is compounding its criminality. And for what purpose is this fraud? To extort monies, of course. So,what enforcement means here is acting to make innocent people believe that they are breaking the law, and make them believe that in order to rectify the situation they have to make payments of monies. This is what is known as a “shake down”. Shake downs are, for instance, what corrupt police do when they stop vehicles and threaten to charge the driver with a misdemeanour – unless the victim pays the cop money. Shake downs are what gangsters do when they turn up at an establishment demanding protection money. The TV Licensing Company is a shake down operation. And actually not just in the narrow terms of targetting people who don’t watch TV. As noted before, receiving without asking is essentially being given, and no reimbursement is required. No demand for reimbursement should be forthcoming.

Letters from the TV Licensing Company come every month, and vary very slightly from the ones described above, but there are a few more items of content that need to be discussed. The first is the statement contained in the January 2017 letter from the Licensing Company to the author. It bluffs like this: “You have until 2nd February to get correctly license… if you think you don’t need a licence, you should tell us in the next 10 days”.

Notice how the recipient of the letter is told that if they have cause to dispute the Licensing Company’s assertion and demand, then it’s because he or she only thinks it – i.e. they are potentially mistaken. This time, the invitation to contact is presented in terms of an order to do it. This is confidence trickery, no more, no less. But one should not expect anything else from gangsters.

The follow up letter, February 2017, comes with regret, apparently. Because there was no response within 10 days of the last letter there is “no option” but to start an investigation of the address in question. This letter, for the first time, starts to mention a court process:

If they [the Enforcement Officer] find evidence that you are watching… they will interview you under caution and this could be used as evidence in court.

Be clear, what this letter is doing is blurring the boundaries of fact one into the other, because it also states in a separate sentence that a warrant can be issued by a court to gain access to conduct a search (a very rare thing, all good sources report). However, the above quote is from a part of the letter that is about a routine visit by an “Enforcement Officer” – with the assumption that the victim has acquiesced and allowed entry. Obviously, the TV Licensing Company wants to give the impression that a warrant will be flourished with routine visits (because the interview is apparently only conducted when a warrant is produced – see below). Enforcement Officers on routine visits can be told where to go with no repercussions, and have the door slammed in their faces (indeed, they might be deemed to be trespassing, and of course householders have certain rights in that respect). There is a school of thought that householders should be polite so as to encourage further visits and have the Licensing Company waste money. However, we should be interested in the morale of “Enforcement Officers” and how eager or reluctant they are to do the TV Licensing Company’s dirty work.

The general information out there on the internet (where you have to find it, because the official documents that explain expected conduct and process during a search with a warrant are redacted so that the public can’t read them and know what to expect – well, we are dealing with gangsters) suggests that an interview under caution occurs with a visit from an Enforcement Officer with a warrant. A victim is expected to give reasonable assistance so that any TVs can be checked, but does not have to allow himself to be interviewed – “no comment” to all and any questions should be perfectly acceptable (as should writing “declined to be interviewed” when signing any paperwork). Be that as it may, the easiest thing to do must be not answering the door. The Licensing Company have made public reassurances that it doesn’t break in to conduct a search with a warrant – so why not leave them standing on the doorstep?

And yet it’s not enough just to have defensive strategies against gangsters. There needs to be attack. The TV Licensing Company needs to be taken down. It’s well past time to take the TV Licensing Company down. We do it by insisting that it is engaging in criminal activity that its victims need protection from, and that if the “law” is, to the contrary, facilitating what is essentially a shake down operation, then it is a disgrace, and in fact no law at all. We create a fashion whereby the TV Licensing Company is perceived as being a criminal outfit. There may well be legal courses to take through which to attack the enforcement of the TV tax – please contact the author with any ideas – and the approach shouldn’t be ruled out even though we may think that the British legal system is going to be stacked against doling out justice in respects of the means by which the State funds its propaganda. What is primarily needed is a general understanding in the mass ranks of the public of the actual criminality of TV tax enforcement – and it goes without saying that this needs to be accompanied with an appreciation of TV programming as a social control mechanism, with terrible consequences for individual human development.

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

Back in the day, when the likes of Charlton Heston appeared in a film about population reduction, forced scarcity and two-tier segregated social order of the very rich and powerful and then everyone else, then there was a good chance that a film was sending its audience an unmistakable message. Back in the day, such a film as “Soylent Green” was clearly a warning against corporate-government socialism of the very same sort that exists today in the UK. Back in the day, people in the English speaking world knew what socialism looked like. (The reader must excuse this piece going against its own flow – and right at its start too – but the point must be belaboured for those who think that Britain suffers from capitalism and that the remedy is socialism. The UK has a form of communism whereby corporations operate, or monopolise, some of the centralised functions specified in the 10 planks. Call it crony capitalism, or corporate cronyism – or even fascism – it is still all socialism by another name).

On the other hand, a film like “2001, a Space Odyssey”, was meant to go over the general audience’s head because it was messaging to a different recipient. It wasn’t appealing to an appreciation is some of film as Modern Art (i.e. the cinematic equivalent of a pile of bricks on a gallery floor). It was sending a message that certain people were very firmly in charge of the future evolutionary development of man (as they see it, of course) – which means that it was sending a message that certain people were firmly in charge of government. Now, this information about who is in charge might have been signalled in other films, because Hollywood has always been a propaganda factory, such as “The Network” when Howard Beale is warned off by a corporate honcho from (to paraphrase) “messing with the forces of nature”, but it has never been conveyed quite so purely as “2001” because in that film, if we recognise it, we are retold Freemasonic luciferian mythology and reminded of the cosmology from which human development will take a certain assumed direction.

Unknown to the masses who partake in modern cinema, people are routinely inculcated in this desired human development as they watch, for it is surreptitiously, and sometimes less covertly, promoted in the medium of film. (Of course, TV is the actual routine means by which people are programmed to accept development that they should, if they were in their right minds, resist with all their might – but they aren’t in their right mind; just look at the uniform reluctance to stop paying the TV tax). Hollywood, these days, definitely produces more inculcation than it does horrifying warning – and it rarely produces the sort of pure message that constitutes “2001”. However, “Interstellar” (2014), is a film like it on one dimension – that’s why cinema goers were rendered puzzled by it. On another level, it also provides indoctrination about the Freemasonic luciferian progress for man because it gives an explanation for why it must happen. It is the perfect New World Order film, then.

The key to understanding “Interstellar” is comprehending what has happened to the food. Meat is already a thing of the past, and the crop is dying out… but why? A blight has attacked every variety so that when the film starts only corn is viable. What appears to have happened is that the blight provokes farmers to burn the crop in the fields, thus each year there is a smaller harvest. At the start of the film the last of the okra is being burnt. The corn too is somehow dying, we are told, and this gives the impression of genetic weakening from generation to generation.

However, when NASA establishes a space station at the end of the film there are no fears for the abundant crop of corn that somehow grows straight upwards from fields that form the curved interior walls of the station (with the sun peaking in from one end of what is effectively a tube). This hardy performance suggests that there is nothing genetically wrong with the food crop after all, and that it has not become inherently susceptible to infestation or plain underperformance. The attentive viewer starts to suspect that the blight has come about by the environment, especially because the skies are mostly white-grey and look like they have suffered weather modification. Or, and the clues exist to suggest it, that the crop that had been failing on Earth had been modified to do so, with the stuff growing on the space station being the genetically-vanilla version.

Let’s, at this point, look at some real life related facts that we need to have in order to understand what “Interstellar” is conditioning its audience for. First there is the fact of the matter of how persistent contrails turn into vast blankets of sunshine-blocking clouds, and are always, without fail, a precursor to wet weather. Chemtrails, as they are called, cause conditions that damage the prospects of plants. Research in California by Rosalind Peterson has borne this out to be true. Secondly, genetic modification of plants is a reality so that a generation of seeds can produce another generation that can’t germinate – they aren’t heirloom. This is already all about controlling food production capability. Additionally – and this is definitely related to the issue of control – there is apparently a need, felt by whomsoever it is can afford it, thinks it necessary and has the access to do it (nebulously described as world governments in the media), to keep a bank of original, heirloom seed in stores at the Artic – “to guarantee against global warming” (paraphrasing). Although on first encountering this idea it appears to be a fable, but it is quite true.

The forced scarcity in “Interstellar” is something that is already happening in real life. And where is it headed? Well, in the film there is plenty of evidence that the Earth has been depopulated. The main protagonist, Coop, gives an indication as to what size humanity has shrunk to when he talks of the “millions of families” on Earth. If Coop’s own family is anything to go by, where his own wife had died through a lack of medicine, and his father-in-law is also widowed, families are being pared down and not getting bigger – Coop only produced two children himself.  Three children would have indicated a growing population. And so families are small – consisting of about 4 people, perhaps? And when Coop says “millions”, technically he could be talking about 2 – although it would be odd to refer to 2 million as “millions”. The least that a million in the plural form could represent is 3 million. But let’s call it 10, or even 50. That would mean the Earth only had 40 to 100 million people on it. Note, the Georgia Guidestones, commissioned by someone going under the pseudonym, R.C. Christian (this could very well be referring to Christian Rosenkreuz – a figure historically connected with a Mystery School sect, the Rosacrucians (most easily explained as coming from the same place as Freemasonry)), commands that the population of the Earth should be kept below 500 million.

The film throws a red herring in the path of the audience by hinting of a war, and some might assume that Coop had played a role himself because he knows, technically, about combat droids. But Coop was a NASA test pilot, and the only soldiers referred to are robots – indicating that any conflict involved robots, not humans, to prosecute it. Could the war have happened after the depopulation – or in fact, more sinisterly, could the robots have been used as weapons against humans? A clue occurs in a conversation between the NASA honcho, Professor Brand, and Coop. During a time of troubles, NASA had refused to drop bombs on “starving people from the stratosphere”. One is reminded of the “peace bombs” from a film, “Things to Come”, that was made a long time before “Interstellar”, but basically tells the same Freemasonic tale. In actual fact, we are told that NASA’s robots are what the government can spare – so maybe the depopulation war is automatic and ongoing at the time we join the film – at least in other parts of the world. Indeed, Coop brings down a wayward Indian drone justifying it by saying that its controlling facility was long gone. But did it need one?

By the end of the film we discover that Brand, true to NASA form, is a bold-faced liar, and so it is quite possible that NASA did help to spread love and peace by exterminating a good deal of the population of the Earth (he also tells a story of NASA having been abolished for its refusal – and yet it obviously survived): “is a lion evil because it rips a gazelle to shreds?” asks Brand’s daughter of Coop, and this indicates the sentiment from which the elite gives itself a right to kill its prey. In fact, in the end, NASA’s involvement is one detail – it looks very much as if world governments came together to brutally put down a resistance that had been provoked by mass starvation caused by forced scarcity. And why shouldn’t we suspect that this event was the transformative one that the western ruling class are always looking for to form a World Government? A good clue is how there are no flags in “Interstellar” – meaning that none are blatantly obvious until we meet NASA. The one at school which Coop’s children attend – where teachers refer to an “old federal textbook”, suggesting that it is the US federation that is antiquated – hangs limply from a flagpole in the background. There aren’t any flags at the baseball game. However, NASA does use the Stars and Stripes (and very boldly too) and this is clearly a reference to the pan-Masonic belief of the destiny of America, and reminds that the formation of America never had anything to do with the rights of man.

Naturally, the previous paragraph must lead to a discussion of the elite – the real Americans – who have engineered the social situation in “Interstellar”. The reader is asked to notice the talking heads that introduce the film – talking about the terrible amounts of dust caused, presumably, by wind erosion of empty fields. All of these are white people. Additionally, all the people in the crowd at the baseball match are white. There is a black teacher at the school, and there are two black men in NASA. The only latino features as a player on the NY Yankees baseball team.

It appears that people who are not white survive in America if they are useful to it with jobs to do according to expectations formed through prejudice. This confirms to us what we already know: the Western ruling elite are terrible racists (and, pretending to be all for diversity, accuse decent people of their own trait, and use is to stir tension as a tool of control). Furthermore, at the time we join “Interstellar”, they have managed to achieve another long-held ambition of cutting away the middle class, so it’s just them and the workers, and a non navigable chasm between. This truth manifests in the following ways.

Firstly, it appears that there aren’t enough people for excellence to flourish. The NY Yankees find themselves playing in provincial rural areas, in small, barely-filled stadia. Coop’s father-in-law complains that “no one can play baseball” like they did before. But this perhaps isn’t the truth of it. It’s that there just isn’t enough of a pool from which excellent talent can emerge – this would be true in all fields of life. And in fact, if it did emerge, it wouldn’t amount to anything. Examine the case of Coop’s son, Tom, who eventually comes second in his class (and perhaps would have come first if a particular teacher hadn’t given him lower grades – suggesting deliberate manipulation to effect an outcome). Tom’s teachers tell Coop that he wouldn’t be allowed to go to university, and instead will have to become a farmer.

Clearly what is happening here is that the crop problem is being used as an excuse to keep talent out of the highest strata of society, as manpower is diverted into farming. This means that there is a shortage of engineers, and a shortage of tech-manufacturers, and thus a shortage of certain equipment: we find that Coop’s wife died for the want of an MRI scan. And yet we also know that NASA, which Brand’s daughter calls “the best of humanity”, has advanced life-saving equipment. There clearly is a them-and-us divide in society. Furthermore, it’s not just that university is for the purpose of safeguarding the position of an elite; there is cause to be suspicious that NASA is in fact “university”. This is where Murphy, Coop’s daughter, is recruited to to continue her education (but it’s quite possible that Murphy, despite her intelligence, wouldn’t have received this benediction if it weren’t for the importance of her presence at NASA to the storyline). We also discover that it is NASA who are looking into the blight problem – its facility contains wilting plant samples. So NASA is dealing with the scientific issues that are of the most important to the ruling elite bar none. And in a big and sick twist it appears that the farming people are paying for the end of social mobility through their taxes. Coop asks what he is getting for his own payments when he is told that his son can’t go to university. The reply he receives is that taxes don’t fund universities. This must be a lie to justify barring talented farming class from the upper echelons. The Western ruling elite that is portrayed as the top dog class in “Interstellar” pay for nothing if they can get the slaves to do it. And ultimately, no funding isn’t true of the NASA “university”. We are told that NASA had its public funding stopped – and yet it still survives.

And so to the question – what is it all for? What is the elite up to in “Interstellar” that they have engineered their own exclusivity, massive depopulation and the creation of a farming class lower order, and then finally the death of the planet? There are plenty of clues in the dialogue between characters: “we’re meant to leave the world” says Brand to Coop. Man has a “place in the stars”, says someone else, and man was “never meant to die on Earth”. What all this betrays is the Freemasonic/Mystery School belief system that gods populate the stars. This is both about the social-controlling myth of a pantheon of gods, later updated with saints, which dictates the fate of the masses, and also at the same time an aspect of the big lie at the centre of the Mystery Babylon religion: that a man can become a god.

Into the 20th and 21st centuries, and the signs are that the Western ruling elite have started to hope that technology can make their mad fantasy real. “2001, a Space Odyssey” was all about man becoming god through technology, and in “Things to Come” getting to space at any cost is seen as the pinnacle of the development of mankind. “Interstellar”, too, is about man becoming god through technology. Coop accesses a multi-dimensional phenomenon – supposedly built by humans who became a technical super-species in the future – to create a leap forward in human scientific development. In this respect, the Tesseract that Coop encounters is like the monolith in “2001”. Putting aside the writing problem whereby the chicken exists fully formed before the egg it hatches from, what you have here is a classic Freemasonic Hiram Abiff scenario. Coop passes through the Molten Sea to become reborn in the future. While the temple builder became Lazarus, Coop – already comparatively immortal thanks to the effects of Einstein’s physics (which all space “science” is based on) – eventually takes his place in the stars with Brand’s daughter. Indeed, there is a church of Coop on the space station – itself named after Murphy – a recreation of his farmhouse where those talking heads mentioned above appear on TV screens to tell of the hell on Earth that mankind – what very little left there is of it – has escaped. But it is actually Murphy who is revered for her part in the the escape from “hell”. She is the saviour, and she is also the daughter, not the son, of god.

Also well worth noting is that the operation to find an inhabitable planet is called the “Lazarus Missions” – which reinforces the association between Coop and Hiram Abiff. Not surprisingly there were 12 astronauts who were sent on this mission, led by a chief scientist by the name of Mann. It’s entirely no surprise that Mann turns out to be a liar, coward and a murderer; we are meant to associate this behaviour with his name. That he is one amongst 12 tells us that he is meant to represent Scorpio in the zodiac (Judas in the Christ story). Now, Scorpio killed Orion, the same as Seth killed Osiris (and Judas killed the Christ – not the same thing as you think it is in the context of Freemasonic lore) which makes Mann representative of the mass of humanity that the elite hate because of how they always pose a threat to their ambitions. Of course, the masses of mankind are portrayed as being thuggish and brutal, but this is projection. It is the elite who are inhuman and monstrous. After all, according to Freemasonic lore, Hiram Abiff is the means by which the “sons of Cain” are reconciled to the “sons of Adam” and humanity is unified and both have moved into a new religion, with the sons of Adam leaving their god behind – i.e. God. The new religion, of course, is man as god. And the sons of the murderer somehow just have to be accommodated as if they didn’t have blood on their hands; this is why compromise with Luciferians always actually means submission.

“Interstellar” is a film that signals to its audience a message regarding who is in charge of their affairs, and indeed what those “gods” are going to do with them. We, the audience, are not meant to see the challenge presented to us, but we are just meant to accept our fate. We caused it, after all, the ruling elite will tell us – and they do tell us. Humans cause global warming, we are told. Humans cause devastating wars, we are told. Humans cause starvation and crippling and murderous poverty, we are told. It’s all lies. These things are caused by an ambitious and callous few who think they are morally (in their scheme) compelled to engineer events, no matter how hideous, to further their goals. They don’t like it when we can see them engaged in their wickedness as they process their catastrophes – look upwards and see the very long trails of cloud that expand to cover miles of sky blocking out sunlight over tracts of land, and know what is coming next, and who is doing it. That is why “Interstellar” is an unintended warning to those who aren’t meant to see it, but who do; those who can’t be inculcated by the message as is the intention. And the surprising thing about “Interstellar” is that it isn’t really about space. The space travel is a metaphor for the victory of the luciferian elite over the “dangerous” masses: a victory defined by their exclusivity, their wealth, their separateness, their right to rule eternally, and on the other hand the death of their enemy.

Conspiracy theory and revisionist history vs Flat Earth and Nibiru, etc

There is a noticeable increase in garbage conspiracy theory at the moment, so it’s worth setting the FBEL stall out regarding it; first of all, let’s deal with terminology. If you look for it, you will find material on the internet whereby someone is trying to tell you that there is a conspiracy by government to hide the existence of planet Niburu. And so you are being asked to give the same credence to the idea that there is a rogue solar system (that is converging with the one that has the Sun at its centre) as you would to the idea that some element of the US government planted explosive devices in the World Trade Centre building ahead of 9/11. See how it works? To spell it out: the garbage gets called “conspiracy theory” to delegitimize investigation into real government and corporate criminality.

For the sake of writing this article, the author had to sit through a video lecture that used the book of Enoch to translate conjecture about Niburu into supposed truth – how Niburu is going to be the fulfilment of prophesy. Obviously, there is no comparison, in terms of evidence, with measuring the actual freefall rate of descent of WTC7 so as to detect controlled demolition. Indeed, Nibiru is not even there – anywhere – for any person to behold – despite the wasted internet space on Youtube devoted to claims that sun-lit illuminated cloud, or sun dogs, or big-sky sunsets, or reflections off of the camera lens are proof of a second star. We know about Nibiru because some guy said that the government knew about it. 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, Planet Nibiru is batcrap craziness. Furthermore, and this might come as a shock to some people, no human being, whether it be Enoch or Mohammed, in the complete history of the world, was ever taken by an angel – to the Antarctic or any other place – to have secret knowledge revealed to them. This sort of stuff is never about real cases of knowledge-bringing contact with mystical creatures (which is, in fact, Luciferian/Freemasonic mythology), and everything to do with the coded initiation ritual of very earthly, very grubby (definitely not angelic) human beings.

And yet, the corporate-media is giving the “Planet Nibiru conspiracy theory” a lot of room. The Daily Express has pages of the stuff. In fact, what used to be called the tabloid corporate-media also hosts on the internet reams of “copy” about aliens – that other extra-terrestrial fantasy that is, in short, a psyop that’s always being kept warm in the oven for our eventual One World Government supper (aided by the illusion of manned outer space flight– the biggest con in the history of the planet‡). It shouldn’t be a surprise that the corporate-media would want to take ownership of material it can call “conspiracy theory” with impunity. In the old days, people becoming curious about ET would be prone to finding themselves investigating legitimate political conspiracies. The linking of the two was meant to discredit the latter – and it still does do that – but unfortunately for Government, arguably, it drew more people “down the rabbit hole” than might have otherwise become aware. Obviously, when the corporate-media owns the sewer, then it can block the exits to the sunlit uplands.

Naturally, we want to be able to discern the dank dingy underworld from the airy green pastures – and in those terms we should be able to do it. Well, it should be quite easy to have discernment, yes. For instance, if someone tells you that the people ruling the Earth are shape shifting reptiles, then we shouldn’t be interested in anything else from that source. If an “alternative media” big gun is discredited, it is discredited, folks. There is no half-way house. Likewise, we should be able to detect that the Earth is not flat. A good way to do this is to fly on an airplane from the UK to the United States – arriving about the same “time” as you departed, or much earlier in the day than you left if you were on Concorde. This happens because local time is oriented to the moment the Sun is at its zenith in the local sky. Or one can observe a ship coming over the horizon mast first; nothing else quite demonstrates the infinity-by-small-degrees nature (at least as humans perceive it) of the Earth’s form. Flat-earthers have forgotten how big the world is – easy to do in this day and age.

Of course, we should be aware, in the game of intelligence that is the alternative-media, that counter material is going to be set up to drive folly of disinformation and distraction – whatever its topic. What does the reader think, for instance, about an interview conducted by a darling of the alt-Right alt-media, Stefan Molyneux, with a flat-earther, Steven (please look it up on Youtube), in which the former demonstrates his true colours by telling his debating opponent that believing in a flat Earth won’t buy a guy any success with women. Isn’t this exactly the sort of thing designed to trigger an intense emotional response by which the listener will become defensive about the flat-earther (already sounding like Napoleon Dynamite proselytizing about the efforts to save our ally Nessie from Japanese scientists wanting to blast it out of the Loch) and also about his views?

It wouldn’t be FBEL if the reader didn’t get the following sort of perspective: the narrative we are sold is that Flat Earth restores faith in a Creator, because the Flat Earth model can’t be accidental. As always, these things proceed from abject ignorance. As it happens, the model that we do live in is so precise for life, and its survival, on Earth that it is too unlikely to have happened by accident. Now, we could look into the iron core, the magnetic field, the placement of the Moon in relation to the Earth, the placement of the Earth in relation to the Sun – there are many aspects of the arrangement of Earth in its quite-so fashion whereby any deviation would prove catastrophic – or we could believe that we live on a big plate, and get called a loser, and feel like a loser. What does the reader think that the Godless Government would rather we do? Furthermore, who was it, historically, that lost a lot of power because people started understanding that the Earth span around the Sun? It was the diverse Mystery School priests – the ones of the Catholic Church got very upset – whose religion came down to them from Babylon; a religion in which the destiny of the masses was locked into the motion of the planets around the Earth. To be clear, this is the idea that is disseminated to achieve political control – the ruling class don’t believe in it – and it doesn’t matter if the masses have medieval, ancient or modern minds, or what pantheon of gods or saints overlies their fundamental indoctrination. The fact of a heliocentric universe should make no difference at all to a follower of the god the Greeks called Jesus – in fact, it goes hand in hand with the escape from slavery that the example of Yehoshua – the man – represents.

On the exact opposite of the scale, what is of fabulous value to the human race is the revisionist history movement that is thriving at the moment – there has to be such a movement in the light of the 9/11 reality-check. A big light has flicked on for humanity, and there is a big appetite for reviewing the causes and events of the two world wars of the 20th century – and doing it from a 21st century perspective where knowledge of historical and current activity by shadowy vested interests – globalist players – have been revealed. Part of this, rightfully, is reinvestigating the holocaust. None of this should be sacred territory.

There is more scope for this re-evaluation, and it should be extended to take in some surprising territory: the dinosaur weight issue. The reader can investigate this particular topic at his or her own leisure†; the wider subject is the trustworthiness of Victorian science. Take archaeology, for example. The Victorians established the scheme that is still used today. When obviously brilliant free thinkers like David Rohl challenge it, their careers suffer.

But the ruling Victorian class were basically the same people who, fast forwarding half a century, engineered affairs to sacrifice millions of the profane class – Joe Public en masse – in world wars. The Victorians gave us Marx and the Fabian Society – and the breeding ground for it when people were forced off their land to be factory fodder. They gave us Gothicism rather than Classicism, Empire instead of Republic, moral apathy and subversive sexual deviancy – and in fact the championing of it through larger than life literary figures. Victorian science was operating in that context, and was undoubtedly promoting an agenda – as it still is (see Global Warming). Being kind, it was still a wild west, and good hunting ground for unscrupulous charlatans.

And there is further scope to look back in time. Of personal interest to the author is the machinations by which the Royal parasite was allowed to ascend the throne of a supposedly abolished kingdom after the republican experiment. It should be of great interest to all Britons, because in terms of contemporary impact, it means that very rich commonwealth assets are used to turn profits for individuals instead of being used to benefit the common wealth – reduce taxation, for instance. General Monck lead the last standing, intact, Parliamentarian army in the last days of the Protectorate, and when he marched it on London down from Scotland, people thought that he was going to reinforce the anti-Royalist parliament. When he arrived in the capital, he was entertained by City of London aldermen, and the next morning, essentially, he surprised everyone by coming out in favour of the Restoration. This is as reported by none other than Samuel Pepys, but naturally it is far too telling to be broader knowledge. In fact, the era could be rich in political conspiracy that manifests as “stuff that just happens” – thinking about the Fire of London in particular. In any case, our full history is bound to be strewn with little-noticed crucial defining junctures (from which the reality of things screams out) that never get taught by state controlled media or education and, because Britons are now culturally adverse to reading a book independently, just aren’t known of or understood. What an important task it is, then, to get the unofficial history of the country out there to the people.

‡There is no secret space fleet either.

†The author is new to it himself. It has nothing to do with the idea that the Earth must have had a different sort of gravity to accommodate massive dinosaurs, but rather the creatures were never like what we’ve been led to believe. This is a big subject to deal with in a footnote – but basically, anything bigger than, say, an elephant perhaps should have been confined to water, while horse-sized and much smaller flying reptiles might even have survived into pre-history to furnish the dragon myths (before being hunted out of existence). The big implication for natural history is that there doesn’t need to have been an extraordinary cataclysmic event to have killed these not-so-terrible lizards off.

In which we notice Plato referring to the link between freemasonry and government

William Cooper’s Mystery Babylon series (hear it here) links modern freemasonry to ancient government by identifying it as a form of the Mystery School religion which at its heart is about protecting a ruling elite from any free randomness of the otherwise lethal masses. Ancient secret society, and all the barbarity that it entails (it has nothing at all to do with civilisation), is alive and well today. It commandeered Christendom as it co-optioned the Mosaic Israeli state before that; the saints who followed Yehoshua and Moses were engaged in leaving the World Order (it isn’t new), and thus they were extremely dangerous. The ability of the Mystery School to infiltrate Christianity is chiefly why it not only survives, but also why it dominates. But as freemasonry it forms the frame of modern government. We talk about the New World Order, and Globalists sitting over the top of supposedly elected governments.

The proof of the pudding is always in the eating; it is increasingly obvious that there is no representative government, but only an illusion of it, with power being exercised from above, and not below. Globalism is secret society structure on a universal scale, and it does exactly what it would do in any individual lodge – it ensures power in the hands of a few that won’t fail because of the way it binds membership into subservience of the hierarchy with promises of power through secret knowledge, and gangsterism – that ancient brutality as just mentioned. Furthermore, if we look at the cultural and academic output in areas of the planet under Globalist control we see it is for the purposes of propaganda and, telling us who is in charge, it is rife with freemasonic lore for inculcating the 99% into their slave roles. The contemporary globalist elite is as obsessed with disarming the same two greatest threats to its power as ever any of its preceding membership was: personal death and whatever random catastrophe the planet has in store. It won’t be gone into here, but this obsession explains the attempt at space travel, geo-engineering, cloning, artificial-intelligence and robotics. Science is also employed, as it ever was, in the service of keeping the masses down. Contemporary science is as good an indicator as the propaganda† (who can call it art?) as to who is running the show.

Evidence of what is actually the ancient superstition, and not science, of the Mystery School being behind key and timeless concepts of governance that endure today has been hiding in plain view in one of the most seminal works on government in the history of Western literature. In Plato’s Republic, when building a bedrock for his philosophy, Socrates refers to certain notions that must have been, in the contemporaneous culture, seen as self-evident truths. And it turns out that we can recognise these from Egyptian mythology, and thus they hark back to Babylonian Nimrod worship. Indeed, Socrates, in the exercise, is merely trying to reshape rule by an elite into a version that is just – but crucially, the old understanding of the universe always dictates elitism.

Hopefully, the reader is familiar with Plato’s notion of Forms. Basically, everything in the physical world has a template in the realm of forms. For example, a bed in the physical world stems from an ideal bed in the world of forms. Moreover, all types of bed in the physical world come from one ideal notion of a bed. In another example, you can create a circle in the physical world one way or another, but the perfect circle only exists in the realm of the ideas: it is the idea of a circle, then, that is the real version in Plato’s scheme. Likewise, it is the idea of a bed that is the real version.

In the physical realm, your eyes can see objects because of the light from the Sun. But in the realm of ideas, your mind’s eye sees knowledge because of the light from something called “the good”. It’s a very safe bet that in all the reams of literary criticism that Plato has inspired, this has never been called out for the Luciferianism that it clearly is. Lucifer is the bearer of light by which an individual has knowledge; in freemasonry (and beyond) he represents the receiving of illumination by which a man can evolve into a god. And of course, Plato’s idea was that people who were recipients of the light of “the good” were the philosopher-kings who should form the ruling class of a society. As such, he must only be restating general notions from an established world view that links the right to rule with a specific spiritual ability – in reality, a position of privilege or power onto which this skill is nominally grafted. His idea isn’t new, it’s merely a slightly different version of the same thing that had been around for ages.

Specifically are we reminded of the Egyptian connection with his philosophy when Plato writes “of all the sense-organs the eye is the most sunlike”. Here is reference to the Eye of Horus – the All Seeing Eye of freemasonry. The Sun, in the Egyptian manifestation of the Mystery School, Hermeticism, represented Horus. Horus wasn’t the sun, he was the idea that the sun resembled in the physical world. Worship in the ancient world wasn’t of the sun itself, but the idea it represented. There is an Egyptian trinity that enables us to better understand Horus (the same that is reproduced in Christianity). His mother, Isis (the moon) is the school by which there is initiation into the knowledge represented by her husband Osiris (the sun). Horus is the offspring, and a reincarnation of the sun – the body of initiates who are borne from the school – the men whose divine right used to be more commonly illustrated by the corona worn on their heads: the ruling class. Of course, the legend of Osiris is merely a retelling of the one of Nimrod – he who was also dismembered and then reconstituted with the addition of a golden penis (the obelisk) with which to conceive the god/man progeny.

And so it turns out our form of government is thousands of years old, all about tyranny that wants to defy God, and yet still believes in a divine right to rule based on what is frankly a lot of old nonsense (the author created an illustrative board game: Mighty Hunters), and in Britain it even still uses the ancient confidence trick of majesty to elicit grovelling subserviance. Needles to say, our government is well past its use-by date, isn’t interested in serving the natural aspirations of man as God made them, and the only reason it still survives is its skilful wielding of the old art of technocracy, and an ability to convince the people that it is something very different than what it is. It has become quite clear to the author that voting within a system where representative government is a mere illusion is not going to produce anything to overthrow the Pharaoh at long last.

Withdrawal from the system is the only way to go, and when you aren’t allowed to withdraw, then you must use their system to prosecute individuals, and go after people who abuse power, and make them lose their jobs (and cause disarray, disconnection and above all financial cost in the ranks of government). Make it about the government burning its hands if it tries to deny you. It can’t hold on to its slaves if it keeps getting its fingers burnt, and this means more people are able to slip free. The more people are free, the less government is able to wield power. And the first and easiest thing for a saint who wants to leave Egypt/Rome to do is to stop paying the TV licence fee. There is no excuse for paying your TV licence fee if you are aware of the detrimental impact of government by and for the elite on your life. If you don’t stop paying the licence fee, then you are part of the problem (go and read your precious BBC, you’re not wanted around here). The enemy of the British and the wider Globalist government is Yehoshuaism – the model given to mankind by the fellow we know by a Greek name, Jesus. Live like the human being that God made you, and that you are supposed to be – live like one despite all the abuse that the “gods” can generate as they befoul the society you live in, or even attack you personally. Be unafraid of any punishment that they can invent for you. You aren’t supposed to become a god as the elite learn by their religion, and neither are you supposed to be one of their slaves. You are supposed to become a human being.


† “Hermaphroditism” is a feature of freemasonic lore, which explains the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism. The encouragement of a general tolerance of paedophilia is bound to follow.

Under authoritarianism all people expecting freedom are a “terrorist” threat to Government

The Finsbury Park Mosque attack. We are being asked to believe that a man, Darren Osborne, hired a van in Cardiff on a Sunday evening, and drove it to London to arrive in time for when people were leaving off worship in the early hours of Monday morning. What are we to make of it? Is the author alone in his astonishment that a man all the way over in Cardiff has knowledge of kicking-out time at Finsbury Park?

We should also notice that Darren Osborne is reported in the corporate-media as having been “known for ‘flipping his lid’ when he drank too much”. Did Darren Osborne attack Muslims with a van because his lid was flipped? In a photograph purportedly taken shortly after his arrest (right), he certainly doesn’t look very stable. The author wonders if a bloke that sweaty and “emotional” should not have crashed the van not very far out of Cardiff, and the matter, therefore, should have been traffic accident related and firmly in the jurisdiction of South Wales Police?

And of course, as is usually the case with these things, it turns out that there has been a history of mental illness, with old Mrs Osborne, with whom Darren apparently still resided, claiming “he was “disturbed” and had been on medication for mental health problems… ‘My son is no terrorist – he’s just a man with problems and I don’t know how to cope with all this’”. Then of course, when the author saw this, he wasn’t surprised at all:

Osborne was born in Singapore but raised by his parents John and Christine in Weston-Super-Mare, Somerset, where he attended Broadoak Mathematics and Computing College… Neighbours [said] “Darren’s not had a bad life. He’s had quite a privileged life. He’s had more options than a lot of people.”

It would be very interesting to know if the Osborne’s were in Singapore in some role attached to or representing the British Government in one way or another.

Now compare, or contrast, with the case of the Forest Hill stabber – one Adrian Brown (allegedly). This was an incident that happened in December 2016, and the case is still ongoing. A man is on trial for an attempted murder (not terrorism, mind) after he had knifed a Muslim man. There was a big thing at the time about him apparently expressing a desire to hurt a Muslim during his rampage – but all this talk seems to have died out. In fact, there is no news about Adrian Brown. His case was meant to be heard at the start of June, but there is only silence even in the nooks and crannies of the internet. In fact, Brown did not come under any of the sort of scrutiny we are seeing being applied to Osbourne – which should make us incredibly suspicious of this Finsbury Park thing. You see, there is the real legal world, and there is a world of illusion that pretends to be real, and the British Establishment uses this latter instrument when it wants to cut corners that would be against the law, and to process the public fantasies that it owns to a point of conclusion. It could very well be that Brown’s case resides in the real legal world, and this would be why his trial wouldn’t be prejudiced by heavy corporate-media coverage – which definitely had been active at the very initial moments of its coverage in looking for a terror angle (this incident needs to be written about after Brown’s case has been concluded).

Additionally, if the reader is in any way knowledgeable in this particular field, then he or she will know that Finsbury Park Mosque has an extended history of being a psyop prop in the British Government’s long-developing strategy of tension – where hatred is engineered between communities for a fiendish political divide and rule scheme for authoritarian governance. The reader should research the history for him or herself – Richard Reid, Abu Hamza, etc – the point that the author wants to get to in this article is the apparent acceleration of the engineering of hatred.

There are police on the streets of even the quietest English market towns because of the two terror incidents in Manchester and London that immediately preceded the 2017 General Election – and the author knows because he has, in disbelief, seen them himself (and told them that they had to be joking). No one can deny that this doesn’t constitute a racheting. Armed police on the streets is not England – it doesn’t matter what country you imagine you are living in. Armed police, and any other security apparatus that is now going to come down on us like a hard rain, aren’t really aimed at would-be Muslim terrorists in the author’s market town – because there are none. In fact, any security apparatus that has been generated by recent events is not there to react to any potential Muslim terrorist in any town. Instead, it is aimed at the law-abiding body politic – the general public – so that, although it might not like some of the restrictions it will soon find Government has imposed on it, it will keep its head down all the same. And now, with this supposed terror attack by a white Briton, the Government looks like it may well have acquired justification for the deployment of its licensed thugs with guns – to point them at all sorts of innocent people while they are harmlessly going about their own business. And make no mistake – it is not a coincidence that this is happening just as Britons decide to leave the EU. What are the chances of Brexit happening with an EU “peacekeeping” force on the streets of Britain – there to so lovingly help the UK’s overstretched (and collaborating) gendarmerie? Farfetched, you think? Well, police with rifles in Dunny-on-the-Wold would have been farfetched ten years ago.

Up there with all the people you will have to thank for the authoritarianism that is now going to unfold will be all your favourite “alternative media” stars – those who are so energetically assisting in the instalment of fear and distrust between races and religions. Up for special recognition is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – or “On the Spot Tommy” Robinson, as he is known in these parts for his ability to be instantly on the scene of a “Muslim terror attack”, with his Rebel “fake news” Media affiliation,  to exploit events by declaring that all Muslims are “enemy combatants”. We’re not going to go into his record again here – it was covered a little in an article that is about to be mentioned – but we will note commonly-known connections between football hooliganism and the British intelligence agencies, and then the EDL (“founded” by Yaxley-Lennon) coming out of football crowds, and the commonly-known occurrence of the British intelligence infiltration of the BNP (which Yaxley-Lennon shortly became involved with before making a few enemies). In short, the Alt-Right “alternative media”, of which Rebel Media and “On the Spot Tommy” is now quite a substantial part (seemingly), has more than a whiff of the Government about it, and is clearly contributing to a recognisable strategy of tension – FBEL started to investigate in the article which can be read by clicking here. Moreover, these people have allies agitating in exactly the same way in the mainstream media – pea-brained Katy Hopkins for one. And isn’t it just typical that right at this moment, when things are promising to boil up and over, Piers Morgan has “On the Spot Tommy” on his show so that the agitator can get even more exposure?

These people are all players, unwitting or not, for the Government in its problem-reaction-solution-utilising fraudulent rule to become uncontested in rule – and for a nightmare outcome that is already manifesting itself as armed low-IQ thugs in black goosestepping up and down every quiet High Street in the land, and that only promises to further develop into scenarios that we just can’t imagine (early-morning kidnappings and mass detention in football stadia?). Keep following and supporting these people, keep buying the official narrative out of the Establishment’s corporate and “alternative” sources both, and just see what happens.

The LibLabCon: reclad socialism, and an inevitable death trap

Grenfell Tower went up in smoke today (with no sign of any 9/11 pancake physics either). Built in 1974, it was recently reclad in a new façade, and apparently residents got letters telling them that their refurbished front doors would let them sit out a fire in the tower for 30 minutes before they would be rescued by the fire brigade – no need to evacuate! Yes, seriously; from a 2014 Grenfell Tower regeneration newsletter (according to Wikipedia):

Emergency fire arrangements
Our longstanding ‘stay put’ policy stays in force until you are told otherwise. This means that (unless there is a fire in your flat or in the hallway outside your flat) you should stay inside your flat. This is because Grenfell was designed according to rigorous fire safety standards. Also, the new front doors for each flat can withstand a fire for up to 30 minutes, which gives plenty of time for the fire brigade to arrive.

While the author is very sorry about the loss of life, and so doesn’t mean to make light of the event, the building is an appropriate symbol in our current political climate. Any 60s or 70s high rise apartment block is inevitably an emblem for the socialist utopia – which always means dystopia. Grenfell was lately refurbished – like socialism has been, and we’ll discuss the ways it has been in a moment – and it was a death trap not least, it appears, because of diktat by self-appointed technocrats who always think they know better.

The British Establishment has historically had a problem because, since the 19th century, it has always been trying to institute what we now call socialism (and we’ll get to a fuller explanation of that assertion momentarily) but it hasn’t been easy to sell it to everyone – the further back we go, the harder it would have been. And so it has had to institute socialism through a fake left/right paradigm whereby one side aspiring to take governmental office pretended to be anti, the other pro – because to be most effective, there had to be a discernible difference between wings so that the camps on either side had something to react and identify against. When the pro-side got into office, whey-hey! The National Health Service, nationalised utilities and transport systems, local councils instead of city and town corporations – all that sort of thing. When the anti side got into office… it just implemented a bit more socialism‡ anyway.

Now, by the 90s, the model had worn out in a dramatic way, and so the pro-socialism side pretended to be anti-socialism, and with this no-great feat of magic (which fooled the dumb masses regardless – please note, the author never once voted for Blair & Brown’s Labour) the British Establishment fully instituted a Culturally Marxist Britain after the 1997 election. Well, there was yet more to do, and people had grown sick of the political paradigm where all the parties looked and did much the same thing – the LibLabCon – and so now, to bring things up to date, the British Establishment proudly present to you Jeremy Corbyn; a man who brings cheer to some red-flag waving hearts by being an “old school socialist” – as if it somehow fetches up favourably against Tony Blair’s socialism – or John Major’s socialism – or Margaret Thatcher’s socialism (yes, even her). But there is no big deal about Corbyn, or any difference in the end: one is Nineteen Eighty Four, and any of the others is Brave New World. Cut it up and analyse it all you like – basically it boils down to a reclad Grenfell Tower; glitzy on the outside, old bitten-up workers-paradise concrete underneath. Both the Tories and Labour are internationalist socialists. The Tories pretend not to be, and Labour pretends that it has nothing to do with globalism – when it has got everything to do with globalism.

There is an ambition, and it’s been held dear by a tiny group of individuals for a long time – it’s older than Plato and his Republic – whereby one small class rules all the other people, not for the benefit of the State, as per the Noble Lie, but for the benefit of the few (see Bill Cooper’s Mystery Babylon series for a schooling). Socialism is just a name for this centuries-old plan: it is just the latest iteration, and never are the British electorate more mocked when Labour tells them to vote “for the many, not the few”. But it’s not just the Labour Party. The Tories are also statists (in that the State is for the benefit of a few), they too are about impoverishing people to keep them unable to challenge the status quo. Now, of course, Labourites will contest this idea of similitude between their party and the Tories, and point out how the lovely Labour Party gives hand outs so that people aren’t impoverished. No. The British Government has created a large, and never satiated welfare class – but it knows that it cannot make this blackhole never ending: it has to have boundaries. And so, currently, under the Tory-dominated parliament (as under the previous LibCon one), the Government is displacing one set of people from the juiciest teats of the welfare state and bringing in foreigners as recipients (who the government can get a slightly better return on). There’s no austerity – welfare is just being redistributed (socialists are meant to be all for this, aren’t they?). So back to the point, the large tax guzzling welfare state (which nearly everyone is dependent on – see the NHS) is there so that money can be stolen off wage earners in taxes (in fact, currently tax just pays off the debt). The people who are given handouts aren’t ever given enough to prosper, the people who have money taken don’t retain enough to prosper (meaning creating further wealth in any meaningful way). Everyone is poor.

The exact opposite is to have many rich individuals, and many more reasonably well-off who give charitably to the needy according to a moral code that hasn’t deliberately been eviscerated by the State, and by the same moral code do not withhold wealth unnecessarily (profit hoarding).  The needy will be folk unable to work, because where there is no deliberate suppression of an economy, where there is no forced scarcity, and where there is no cronyism (if it is morally unacceptable), then everybody who wanted it and was able would be in some work or other – usually their own business. But, because of the ancient desire of the gold class (Plato’s ruling elite†), there hasn’t been anything approaching this model since the 18th/19th century where it gave the little man power, and he could start calling himself Mister – which got right up the nose of those who thought they should be the only ones with titles. Make no mistake, this model is not what we might call proper “conservatism” that we could imagine should be the real opposite to socialism. The King and Church Tories were against liberalism – for that is what it is – from the very start. Conservatism is for the conservation of the system that benefits the gold class. No, this is real liberalism – and the party one would most closely identify with it in the current scheme of things is UKIP (although they too have to pander to the British people’s conditioned love of welfare). And so it comes to this: whenever Labour or the Tories go into an election, it doesn’t matter what is in their manifestos because British State only has one goal. Keep the real liberals out, run the State for the benefit of a few.

Of course, the EU is the State on a bigger scale – a step towards truly global rule by an international elite. In 2017, and if people looked closely enough, Labour and the Tories both pretty much let it be known what they were going to do regarding Brexit in manifestos and white papers – which was deliver what the British Establishment has coined a “soft Brexit” – or no Brexit; in other words for the UK to be in the EU in all but name – to have no independent development outside of a global programme (as explained extensively in many articles that appeared on this site in the last year). This site also particularly warned of the Tories, and so no-one who voted for them, instead of the real solution, can complain now that May is ploughing ahead with a “Remainer” cabinet. It also has to be said that the author sorely underestimated the legions of the short-plank army (i.e. as thick as two of them) by assuming that no one needed to be warned about Labour – who of course would have to misrepresent their stand on Brexit by making the right obfuscatory sounds. Labour would have been annihilated in the 2017 election if it had stood on a platform representing its real views on Britain and the EU, and had been unequivocal about them. Instead, we had an umbrella promise of Brexit, but on closer inspection, you would have seen that Labour has been even more overt in promises about maintaining EU-derived rights (and all that they entail – the reader of this site should be well informed on these by now) than the Tories had. Unfortunately, the short-plank brigade always have one eye on Strictly Come Dancing, and the other on football (a Victorian invention to assist in the bringing about of impoverishment), and even when these things are pointed out, there doesn’t seem to be any capacity to process them into thoughts about the consequences of a vote cast. See Election 2017: the day of the dumb for more.


† Socrates’ plan was generally meant to see people from the iron and bronze classes promoted into the gold class, but it’s pretty clear in the details how the elite would become protected.

‡ Corporate-cronyism amounts to the same thing.


Election 2017: the day of the dumb

In the film, Omega Man, it isn’t that the world outside Charlton Heston’s fortified home is full of zombies – that’s just a metaphor for his being alone, with an intellect, amongst stupid people. He is the last man. In the UK, in 2017, we’re not far off that scenario. In fact, one could use a more recent film, Idiocracy, as an adequate example. Now the author usually refrains from calling voters thick, but how do you explain people voting for Craig McKinlay – a man on a police charge – in Thanet South? How do you explain traditional Labour voters, who would be the worst off under an immigrant friendly government, voting for Corbyn’s EU Rights and Protections Bill?

The reality of the permanent and irredeemable idiocy of the British electorate dawned on the author after the second result. Newcastle won that rather pathetic race (more bread and circus) between two towns in the North East, and so it was Sunderland –  the very same place where in 2016 it first became clear that Britain had voted to leave the EU – that demonstrated how completely manipulated the British people are (and how easily they allowed it). In 2017 a pro-Brexit constituency voted for a virulently anti-Brexit party. Yes, Labour won. Yes, Labour are categorically an anti-Brexit party – despite what they might say in any manifesto. And while UKIP – the demonstrably pro-Brexit party – had achieved 2nd place in the 2015 election, now, in 2017, the Tories had been leap-frogged ahead – not even to win, mind you, but just to finish in second place.

While “Ow my balls” cretinism is the rich soil that makes people ripe for the plucking, there also have to be triggering factors – or an environment for the growing. Consider the following, which has already appeared in these pages, and as such constitutes not only a very good analysis, but also a prediction:

Jeremy Corbyn is for two purposes. Firstly, he appeals to people who have voted Labour and who detect the dead hand of the British Government of and for corporate globalism. These people think that Corbyn is an anti-Establishment revolutionary – a reaction to the Blair corporatism – rather than the Government tool he clearly is. Corbyn demonstrated a disqualifying lack of integrity when he discarded, what we were told were, deeply-held personal convictions regarding opposition to the EU, to oversee an official Labour Remain stance during the referendum on EU membership. But in spite of this, the hoodwink suffers not, and so certain Labour voters won’t abandon the Labour party for UKIP because of Corbyn. On the other hand, Corbyn is the bogeyman that drives would-be UKIP voters to the Tories; the motivation is panic brought on by fear that a party with his demonised-self would rule the country. It’s an age old tactic.

But it wasn’t just “Corbyn-appeal” at work that made people abandon UKIP. A great deal of assistance was provided by Labour’s great silence in the election campaign on its position on Brexit – or the lack of scrutiny. Let’s be quite clear, Labour would make as much of a pigs ear of Brexit as the Tories wanted to; instead of being devious, Labour just kept shtum (which is a form of deception).

And yet the Establishment obviously thought that the Tories would mop up most of the UKIP votes. The dubious Leave.EU campaign was doing its darndest to help. But what probably happened is that as soon as the Labour contingent of UKIP saw one side of the party threaten to be scooped out in support of the Tories, it resolved to abandon the other. This is borne out in the media pundit analysis of the election: UKIP voters “returned” to Labour. Look at Bury North, where UKIP stood down for the Tory David Nuttall. The voters went prehistoric – let alone tribal – returned to type and the expected Tory victory did not emerge after all. The horses were never more frightened than they were in Clacton, where UKIP was clattered with a very heavy defeat. .

However, back at Sunderland, and the result merely reinforced the author’s conviction that this election wasn’t about delivering Brexit – or not. It was about reconstituting the LibLabCon. We’d noted previously that if the Tories really cared about Brexit then in a few places like Sunderland they’d make a “vote for the Brexit candidate” sacrifice and stand down. But they didn’t stand down, and instead forced the voters of Sunderland to make the binary choice with the rest of the nation – blue or red. (In the end this could have motivated the Labour resurgence – if there were no guaranteed UKIP presence at the end of the night, why invest in voting for it elsewhere?) The election wasn’t about Brexit, it was about denying UKIP. The election was about rubbing out the real opposition – the one party which the Establishment has to cheat against in order to make sure it can’t get elected. The result in the process doesn’t matter, although the British Government in its widest sense was looking for that useful Tory majority. That being said, the Tories are now depending on the DUP – who promise to be a driving force for hard core Brexit. It looks like an ironic twist, and maybe the Establishment has outsmarted itself.

Of course, in all that just described, there is a heavy element of manipulation of people by the government. And yet that still doesn’t alter the fact that the British public is an army of the dumb – an undead mob that can’t get to grips with the sophisticated way it is played like a wobbly banjo – or a concert piano if we’re talking about the skill of the player rather than the noise being made. And so, in this environment, the author intends to scale things down on this website, and produce services that are mostly paid for or they just don’t happen. He’s through trying to explain that Rachmaninoff is being hammered out all up and down the keyboard of the body politic – and doing it for absolutely nothing in return. And there’s a big problem in that the stupidity of the British people renders them unable to look at a few pieces of data that would eliminate their preconceived ideas – given to them by the corporate-media – which in turn means there is no deep soil for doing this work, initially, from no beans at all. Furthermore, the existing left-leaning British “truth movement” is barren for sustenance – because again, frankly, it is not very bright – regardless of how many books or radio shows it produces. The zombie nature manifests in a political blindness. There are researchers and writers out there in “truther” land, and intelligence “experts” on media with bigger audience, who think (or merely imply if they’re not very brave) that recent terror false flags were ordered by Theresa May to damage Jeremy Corbyn. They are both puppets. The scale of the denial, whereby people think that the same old criminality wouldn’t happen under a man (Corbyn) who, though everyone thought he was against the EU, lead a party that campaigned to Remain in it, is nothing short of fantastic. There are people who can spot a hoax only a minute into it (and usually in a crack-potted way), but who won’t call out the LibLabCon. There’s something wrong with that; indeed the more crack-potted they are, the more there is wrong. So, good luck with it.

Much more to London Bridge and Borough Market than meets the eye

The incident at London Bridge and then Borough Market is definitely not what it seems. Firstly, there may well not have been time for the terrorists to do everything they are supposed to have done. It’s not just a case of making a central act of terror fit into an 8 minute time frame, but also having to account for peripheral incidents that happened elsewhere that have been attributed to the same terrorists. Logically, there may well have had to be additional personnel involved – and it begins to look like this is borne out in the evidence.

The range of peripheral events makes the author wonder if the central act of terror, and the police response to it, was in fact cover for something else – another operation that would involve the use of firearms? Even if it wasn’t, the least we can say is that there are sure signs that the core terror issue was something that was in part engineered by powers other than supposed home-spun terrorists – we only have to look at the way that police actively created panic, and apparently worked to populate the general area in which the core terror took place with concerned, anxious and frightened citizenry. To what extent this engineering develops into fully fledged hoaxery cannot be judged, and while it appears to be a fact that there were injuries sustained enough in some people to cause death, there are also some strange tales of uncontested victimhood coming from people who had contact with the terrorists. In general, the author is very perplexed – and astonished – that what is essentially an entire town centre (Southwark), full of Saturday night drinkers, couldn’t deal with three men with knives.

We’ll start this analysis by examining the following passage because of the way it naturally leads into the discussion:

At least two people have been killed and and multiple people are injured in a terrorist “rampage” at two central London landmarks.

London Bridge and Borough Market have been hit in what appears to be two coordinated attacks south of the River Thames. A separate incident at Vauxhall is not connected, police have said.

This extract comes from a saved copy of the Telegraph live update page, but it doesn’t appear on the current version. The author speculates that the initial prognosis of two coordinated attacks would spoil the official narrative. Notice the very early insistence that an incident in Vauxhall is not related. What appears to have been an arrest in connection with that incident was covered in the previous article at FBEL (here). The author thinks that it is connected with whatever happened in Borough Market in the wider sense†.

We shouldn’t examine previous State Crime without applying the lessons learned to potential new cases. It was previously postulated in these pages that the Westminster Bridge attack was an operation split in two: somebody drove the 4×4, and somebody else did the knife attack. When the above passage speaks of two coordinated attacks, these are the components it is referring to. If the attack by white-van-ploughing-into-pedestrians was separate to a flurry of knifings, then the assailants with blades didn’t need to originate in the scene of the crime from the van. In fact, given the time scales, the author suggests they might not have.

However, at least one witness (and bear in mind, witnesses are rarely reliable – even if they are named, which isn’t the case here), reports that the knife attackers were associated with the van because the Guardian reports this:

Three suspects jumped out of the back door, running towards Borough Market stabbing anyone who got in their way and attacking people in bars and restaurants. Witnesses described desperately throwing bottles and chairs at the attackers in an attempt to stop them.

Witnesses report seeing attackers stabbing people along Stoney Street near the restaurants Brindisa, El Pastor, Roast and Black & Blue.

Note the list of restaurants – we’ll be looking at those shortly. That the terrorists exited from the back of the van could be a complete fairy tale, but notice that it implies at least another person in the vehicle – a driver. Why would a driver exit from the back of a van? If the story is true then there is at least one other person who is unaccounted for in the official narrative and who could be involved.

But let’s stick with the official narrative, and trace the movements of the three attackers as they went about their grisly business. When one looks at the trail of interaction between the attackers and property (and the people in it), it goes south along Stoney Street having first entered into that road via Rochester Walk. Apparently, the quickest way, according to GoogleMaps, to get from the abandoned van to Rochester Walk is under the railway and through the Borough Market. Apparently, killing started in this undercover mall – one report specifies the Brindisa tapas shop -  so let us assume that this is the way that the attackers went.

First up is the Black and Blue restaurant on Rochester Walk:

Jamie, a witness who was in a restaurant on Rochester Walk near London Bridge, told the Press Association: “We were in the Black and Blue restaurant, we heard a fight and everyone got up and everyone rushed out of the restaurant and we heard a massive, massive bang. “Then we hid under the table and people came into the restaurant and knocked a bunch of stuff over, like the till.

“And then we ran into the restaurant into the kitchen, where there was a bunch of other people and a guy had been stabbed and he was cut and he was bleeding quite a lot.”

He added that they waited in the kitchen for “quite a while” before they were evacuated.

A female companion said: “We were in the restaurant and we just saw three guys come into the restaurant, stabbed someone in the face and someone in the stomach.

“One of them had a big knife, then he came in and walked around the restaurant, I guess they just kind of stabbed anyone that they saw and knocked things on the ground and then we just hid.”


Next is Eliot’s café – or maybe not. The named victim’s shift as a waitress was over, and it’s not clear if this attack didn’t actually happen at another restaurant:

A waitress at neighbouring Elliot’s cafe is ruthlessly stabbed when the attackers enter. Australian Candice Hedge, 31, had finished her shift and was having a drink with her boyfriend, when one of the terrorists is believed to have grabbed her head from behind and stabbed her in the neck. Others inside rush to the back and attempt to crouch and hide.


The attackers also called in at the El Pastor Mexican restaurant, which is next door to the Market Porter.

[A] worker at Borough Market, Alex Martinez, told Fairfax Media he was working behind the bar when a man holding a knife entered the restaurant and started screaming.

Mr Martinez, who works at the El Pastor restaurant, said he knew it was terrorism straight away.

“I saw that man with a knife in the hand, and after the man started screaming,” he said.


There is also this account:

The attackers then head for Mexican restaurant El Pastor. “One man entered the restaurant armed with a knife, about a foot long, and stabbed a lady who was in the restaurant – maybe a waitress,” recalls an eyewitness. He [the witness], along with others, then begin to fight back, throwing “bottles and chairs at the man armed with a knife to try and stop him.”

At the end of the trail is the Wheatsheaf pub outside of which the attackers are gunned down.

The reader might have noticed it; above is a map which gives the timings by Google for walking this route:  3 minutes. Look at the map below – something prepared by the MailOnline – which tells of 8 minutes between the terror suspects leaving the van and getting shot. Is it possible? The reader really needs to make up his or her own mind without being told. Remember, the suspects were meant to have ran when they first exited the van, but other parts of the media remind us of the calculated way that they moved steadily along Stoney Street (there is footage by the Daily Express to prove it).

As mentioned above, there was an incident in Vauxhall where the police may or may not have made an arrest – in the last article hereabouts an image published in the Sun was connected to that incident (through the Sun’s coverage), and a separate video of an arrest was also linked to the same incident. In actual fact, now that the author has more information, the video could be of the following [also see the update at the foot of the page]:

London resident Neal Tate told Fairfax Media that he saw at least two men being arrested on Borough High Street, not far from Borough Market.

He said he saw riot police push the men, who he estimated to be aged in their mid 20s, up against a shuttered shop front.

The police were yelling at the men, who were being very compliant, Mr Tate said.

“At a glimpse, I would have said they were wearing black, kind of sports wear-ish tops. Average height, youngish men, slender frame,” he said.


Here is another version of Neal Tate’s account:

Neal Tate said he saw two or three young men in their 20s being arrested in Borough High Street. He told reporters he was walking around the back of Guy’s Hospital when he saw police cordons closing the streets off.

I found myself in an alleyway trying to get through to Borough High Street and then I found myself behind a civilian car with loads of police vans there.

Suddenly there was an arrest being made – two, maybe three guys being pushed up against the shutters of a shop.

The police were shouting at them and they were being very compliant.

The police to me looked like regular riot police. They didn’t seem like the armed tactical group.

As it happens, Borough High Street is where something completely different, but not unrelated to the overall event, was going on at the same time:

Armed police raid The Blue Eyed Maid in Borough high street at London Bridge following a terrorist incident.


Could this have anything to do with the happenings seen by Neal Tate? Maybe not, because the police involved, if the reader would follow the link, are wearing an armyesque uniform and look like they are about to go to war in Syria.

[correction 06/06/2017:

this is the picture of the Blue Eyed Maid being raided - by cops with tasers by the looks of it. The police the author is referring to are these:

It's possible that these police are the ones in a video that is gaining quite the reputation on Youtube showing cops changing uniforms. The author suggests that these could be they - police have been known to turn up at a scene and change into riot gear. If this is the case, then this activity must be later on, because the video had a timestamp of 0033 Hours - and also notice that the police cordon has been established. In any case, this image could still yet be showing another sub-operation - but more information is required].

So, what on earth took place at the Blue Eyed Maid that justified all this attention? It’s well off the beaten path for the Borough Market 3-man-brick.

And the same can be said for another place which apparently saw a terrorist attack – at least that is the implication made here:

Casualties were seen being taken away from Tito’s restaurant on London Bridge Street with blood on the steps of the eatery.

Look at the map directly above. London Bridge street is on the other side of Borough High Street from the Market, and in terms of the paltry time allowed the boys at Borough Market to run rampage, it is completely way out of their range.

These further flung incidents tell us that there was more stuff happening than the core terrorism in Borough Market. And there is one piece of witness testimony that tells us that there was definitely more than 3 assailants in the area:

An eye-witness who was standing with his wife at the entrance of London Bridge underground station [on Borough High Street] described the attacker and how he “coldly” attacked a man.

He said: “We saw people running away and then I saw a man with quite a large blade, at least 10-inches, stabbing a man three times.

“He was stabbing him quite coldly, and then the victim slumped to the ground.”

Describing the attacker, he added: “I think he was black, dark-skinned, red tracksuit on, with a red hoodie.

“He walked quite boldly along with another guy in the direction of the Southwark Tavern pub [near southern end of Stoney Street].

This eyewitness has been named as Ben, married to a Natalie, and he has been quoted extensively in corporate-media. Crucially, he saw that one of the attackers was wearing a red tracksuit, with hoodie, and who must have been progressing down Borough High Street to the bottom end of Stoney Street. Thus, he was a fourth attacker because the other three were not wearing red. We know this from the footage that the Express handily released (click on to enlarge):

There is yet more evidence of other happenings on the night of the 3rd June. The reader needs to consider how the Metropolitan Police admitted to using 50 rounds in the operation. Officially, that is 50 bullets to kill three people‡. This is not believable, and as it turns out it probably isn’t trueǂ. Look at this extract:

The [restaurant] worker, Patrick, said he saw “crazy” men enter the bustling market, which was packed with people on Saturday night, and start to attack random people with knives.

“People crazy, with their knife,” Patrick told Fairfax Media, while making a stabbing motion with his hand.

Patrick, who works at Porteña, an Argentinian street food restaurant in Borough Market, said he saw three people get stabbed, before a gunfight broke out between police and the offenders.

“Our door has holes, so the police went in one corner, and the guys went in another corner,” he said, and made a firing motion to describe what had happened.  Patrick collected what appeared to be bullet casings from the ground afterwards.

And so this witness appears to tell of a gun fight happening in the Borough Market. Does it sound crazy? Look at this:

Brindisa tapas restaurant is next in the terrorists’ sights. It is while they stab customers and staff inside that armed police arrive and fire shots.

This snippet is from the Mirror, and it is part of an account of the original three suspect’s movements. Thus it is claiming that they were shot at well before they met their final curtain outside the Wheatsheaf. In the light of this information, are we really to believe what we are seeing in that Express footage that shows them walking nonchalantly to their deaths in Stoney Street? Or were the people who the police were shooting at in the Borough Market the same as the ones in the footage? What the author is sure of as a certain possibility is that the police went through 50 rounds in different incidents – not just despatching the 3 suspects we know about.

Perhaps the most disgusting thing about the operation that took place on the 3rd June was the part that police played in it to introduce dismay and fear into the public. In the last article hereabouts the author wrote about the police storming a bar to warn the punters in it about being shot (they got them to hide under the table). The bar was obviously underground, and the author has since identified it as Katzenjammers – a cellar bar. People in that place could not suffer collateral injury by material flying in through the windows – because it was underground. If armed police stayed on the door, an assailant couldn’t enter. And so, what we saw the police doing was inducing panic – without a doubt.

Furthermore, after discovering that police has stopped a bus and emptied it out so that there were even more distressed people wandering on foot through the vicinity (see the update to in the previous article), the author also found this:

Officers were seen dragging startled diners and revellers out of restaurants and bars and telling them to run.

The author would humbly like to suggest that police should have encouraged people to remain put in any establishment, and have the management of the same lock up until the crisis had passed. For some reason, the police wanted frightened and discombobulated people on the streets.

Now read this:

Owen Evans, 39, was in the Wheatsheaf pub on Stoney Street near Borough Market on Saturday night, with friends, when shooting broke out nearby:

I was in the back of the pub. A wave of about 30 people ran in and tried to get into the cellar or cupboard. Then there were shots outside. They didn’t seem real – like a kid letting off firecrackers. We saw police lights and everyone got down under a table. People turned tables over.

We waited about 10 minutes or so, with several shots every couple of minutes. Someone at the front of the pub had been shot [this is probably the bystander who got hit in the head – see the previous article] – it’s speculation but we thought it was by accident, there were bullet holes in the windows.

The people near the person called for a medic, shouting: ‘He’s f***ing bleeding to death, we need a doctor.’ The bar staff were amazing, I think they locked the door so no one got in.

Then they told us to leave the pub and to run, and a policeman standing outside with a gun was shouting, ‘Go, get the f*** out.’ We ran down the street, turned left at the Market Porter, than ran down the road and away. We got to the South Bank and then waited ages for a tube, and eventually got home.

Leaving aside the fact that the tube station may well have been locked down by police, what we have here is the police chasing people out of a secure location. If the incident was by then over, then there was no need for the crowd in the pub to be exhorted to “flee for their lives”. Obviously, whatever the stage the incident was at, the intent was to fill the streets with panicking people.

And that smacks of engineering the locality to create a certain impression that can then be soaked up by reporting corporate-media – to be transferred into homes around the nation. In short, we’re getting into hoax territory, because a false flag is organic whatever else it is.

Bearing this in mind, please read the following extract:

Survivor Daniel O’Neill, 23, was standing outside a bar when one of the killers plunged a knife into him.

His mum Elizabeth told BBC News: “He had just stepped outside the bar for a second and a man ran up to him and said ‘this is for my family, this is for Islam’ and put a knife in him.”

Isn’t this so odd? Didn’t Daniel O’Neill want to do anything to avoid having a knife plunged into him (like some block of cheese) while his potential killer orated at him? Isn’t it rather unlucky that the second that Daniel O’Neill chose to step outside the bar was the same one in which the killer ran up to him, gave him a speech, and then plunged a knife into him?

Well, the reader must decide for him or herself. To the author the whole thing looks like an intelligence stand down – at least – meaning that the UK’s security services let plotters go ahead with an attack. Naturally, this would mean foreknowledge, and therefore an opportunity to introduce an engineered effect from the event that would 1) contribute to an already over-stimulated national emotional reaction to a perceived threat of terror, and reinforce the casus belli: stuff that false-flags are always about, and 2) perhaps to cover something else going on. Regarding that, the reader may have noticed that Qatar is in the news a lot today. Could it ever have anything to do with Borough Market?


Update 06/06/2017:

The narrator of a very good film by the Kent Freedom Movement, which can be viewed here, seems very certain that the Vauxhall incident arrest (going by the Sun) is actually being made on the London Bridge.

Additionally, the film points out that the area around the Wheatsheaf (Stoney Street) is deserted, and airs a suspicion that the death scene of the three suspects is staged – although it isn’t actually filmed – after the area has been cleared of real people; the reader of these pages will recognise this as standard. The emptiness of the Express footage of the suspects walking towards this moment was commented on in the previous article, and the author did notice that Gabriele Sciotto’s now iconic image of the beer-can man didn’t appear on the Telegraph Live Updates pages until Picture shows man on ground with canisters strapped to him.


† As soon as the police had decided that the Vauxhall incident was not related to what was happening at Market Borough, they also maintained that it was a major incident; in fact a stabbing (so at least related in terms of the mode of attack). The next day, the police had backpeddled completely. Now the Vauxhall thing was not a stabbing. The Metropolitan Police cannot be so incompetent.

‡ Except the bullet that hit the American “bystander” in the head. There is not enough information about this substory that now becomes incredibly suspicious. An eye needs to be kept on it as it resolves (although we probably won’t hear any more about).

ǂ A large area of the south side of London Bridge was still cordoned off on Monday morning. What could have been taking the police so long? A thorough investigation, or a clean up? While looking into this, the author discovered that the area where the main terror event took place is riddled with PR agencies. That’s interesting, isn’t it?

London Terror optics: police frighten the innocent public

Alternative headlines could have been “UKIP spoils terror cherry on top: refuses to halt GE campaigning” or “Terrorists pick soft target; would have got a kicking on a Saturday night in the Midlands or the North”.

And obviously this sort of response looks inappropriate because it’s not the Government-prescribed politically correct way to react. One should “Run, Hide, Tell”† – which is the actual official Metropolitan Police advice to people who are faced with losers who think beer cans strapped to their belts would pass as suicide vests (see below) – then hold a mass candlelight vigil if you were lucky enough not to be picked off in the melee of fleeing prey, and then acquiesce when election campaigning is cancelled, and lastly, thoroughly approve when the election is postponed indefinitely altogether. That’s the way a slave behaves.

Well, the author thinks that the dead can be honoured in a much better way by more resolve and less fainting. The latter is the game the way that the Establishment wants it played – and that way all ends in catastrophe. The dead of “terror” that the British Government, by years of social engineering at home and regime change abroad, is ultimately responsible for, and any other people who become a victim of it, are better served by our stopping it from happening – our fighting back. It is clearly evident, up and down the whole Islamic terror phenomenon, that the British Government would rather have us surrender instead. We should know this just by taking a look at the imagery and the information that came off the streets of London city centre yesterday (to be discussed momentarily). And why would they want surrender? The answer: so that nothing is done; so that the body count can keep stacking up, so that people are ever more cowed. The desired end game is total police state security apparatus, and carte blanche for meddling in foreign countries without real legal authority to do so.

What is the impression that we have of the attack in London? Is it stabbing victims lying in pools of blood? Is it of a van ploughing through crowds of “revellers”? Is it of identikit terror to be blamed vaguely on ISIS? No, not really. We haven’t seen imagery to give us that notion. The overall impression is of storm troopers stomping all over the norms by which the public usually impart consent to be policed. The feeling we get from the night’s activity (as we go through these, please check out the corresponding footnote for the source) is of the police humiliating innocent people by making them put their hands on their heads as if they had been made to surrender by force of arms[1], storming into bars (one that appears to be in a cellar, and presumably safe from “crossfire” from assailants with knives), frightening folk and making them panic[2], demanding that they get off the streets for no other reason that police don’t want to be filmed[3]. It is of police letting off weapons indiscriminately so that they actually hit bystanders[4]. It is of police, dressed in military uniforms, throwing their weight around[5]. It doesn’t matter if these attacks in London last night were real, or a false flag – they presented an opportunity for exploitation. And, to press the point home, while the UK Government does nothing to effectively deal with the prospect of terror, such incidents will be used to condition people, one degree at a time, to behave in a reflexively submissive and incarcerated way: to yield unquestioningly to the authoritarian command at the end of a gun barrel. And this is what we fight back against.

Of overarching concern for all libertarian or classically liberal minded people who are fixing on having this fight back should be the way that police can apparently shoot dead criminal suspects on the street. If people are frightened that the authorities might kill us no questions asked, and be able to justify their actions with only their unchallenged accusations, then people are surely more susceptible to the conditioning just mentioned.

Admittedly, the killings by police, as they in appear in this particular story, start to become riddled with anomaly and a little bit of the preposterousness that is always a faithful sign of a false flag. That being said, let’s assume that three terror suspects were shot dead, as the corporate-media appears to be reporting this morning.

Witness, Gabriele Sciotto, told of how he saw three men being grounded by police firearms officers. He commented on what media started to gingerly tout as being a suicide vest.

Describing what appeared to be canisters strapped to the man’s chest, he said: “The first sight I thought it wasn’t anything real, it didn’t look real to me but I’m not like the person who could honestly say if they were real or not because I have no experience.

“They looked like just a toy to me.”

Indeed, these canisters shouldn’t really have fooled anyone with a pair of eyes – they immediately struck the author as being empty beer cans. Something else struck the author too: if there was one sure fire way of making certain these “terrorists” would get themselves shot (and apparently all three suspects were wearing these toy vests), it was to pretend to be a suicide bomber. Why did it not register that wearing these things would have reduced the span of the operation – i.e. they would have been dead sooner? And here is a question to consider. Why was it that these suspects were wearing what one could essentially call exercise, or drill props? What else about them was also pretend?

The reader might understand the gist of what the author is thinking of when he or she considers the following evidence. The first piece is a caption from a MailOnline story:

A man said to be one of the terrorists has been pictured after being shot by police outside the Borough Market pub. Witnesses said he was still alive

Strangely enough, the author can no longer find the article by using a search phrase comprising of the exact caption quote – meaning the Mail have probably altered it in the current version (and indeed they have – see here). Secondly, UK corporate-media previously reported the following about Gabriele Sciotto and how he described the state of the suspects after the shooting:

Speaking to The Guardian, the 25-year-old, said: “I could see one of them moving still. There was blood. I could see the police were scared.”

At the time of writing the above quote could only be found in Australian publications. And so it begins to appear like any mention of any of the suspects remaining alive after the incident has been scrubbed from the British internet.

There is one last very noteworthy thing to cover, and that is the arrest of someone in the Vauxhall area. Now, police said that this had nothing to do with the terror attacks, but all the same they were extremely heavy handed – and they did NOT want anyone filming them making the arrest. The reader can see the foam-flecked, inferiority-complex driven raging disapproval of masked police with shields in the footage under footnote 3. Another perspective of the incident seems to be shown in another film (to be found here), and again, police are pretty frenzied in their not wanting people to see it.

What could possibly be so secret, and yet need so much yelling and screaming, and hissing and squealing from grown men? Well, take a look for yourself. The Sun published an image (above) of an arrested man, and from this accompanying text “It was first thought that he was scooped in Vauxhall” we are led to believe that this could be related to the arrest that police were under great pains to prevent anyone witnessing. He looks Caucasian.

† The American version of this is Run, Hide, Fight.


These images are quite self-explanatory.


Please view this film:


Image taken from:


Note, this story was also being reported in the MailOnline quite early on into the incident.

‘I think he’s dead’ Witness claims bystander ‘shot in head’ as cops fired at terrorists


Again, self-explanatory:

Salman Abedi’s suitcase, and the far more interesting (but hidden) Libyan dimension

There have been developments in the Salman Abedi story – and they are mostly preposterous. The serious news is all in Libya, and we’ll get to that after the farce.

First up are the two pictures released by the authorities of someone – purportedly Abedi – surrounded by blackness (one of which is here shown on the right). The author understands from reading around the images that Abedi is meant to be in a lift on his way to slaughtering the children, but he has been taken out of context in order not to hurt feelings or offend. Is it good enough? No, not in the slightest – not in the land of due process, and not when the British Government has been caught banged to rights in the act of committing state crime. The author suggests an alternative reason for blacking out Abedi’s surroundings: so that people who would have been in the picture don’t recognise themselves, and come forward to explain that they weren’t anywhere near the Manchester Arena on the 22nd May. Note in these “Abedi in space” images, the suspect is meant to be wearing a type of rucksack (pictured here) that has a high back that should appear above his neck. The reader can decide for him or herself if they think such a thing is visible in the image.

Secondly, police have also released a new image of someone they say is the Manchester Arena bomber with a huge blue luggage piece that they are calling a “suitcase”. Their motives for doing this were retailed by the Manchester Evening News as follows:

Police are trying to understand why Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi repeatedly visited Wilmslow Road with a blue suitcase.

A senior counter-terror officer revealed their focus on the busy south Manchester route as one of several new threads of the investigation into the atrocity last week.

The author submits that this piece of Public Relations is nothing to do with any investigation, and everything to do with tying up loose ends from the alternate reality that the British Government let loose before its narrative was completely undermined by other details published by US media. The reader should look at the previous articles hereabouts for full coverage of this topic, but to give a brief explanation: the Times newspaper claimed that it had seen CCTV footage of Abedi using a “suitcase bomb”. The following is the Independent’s account. Read it carefully:

Abedi used a suitcase bomb packed with homemade explosives and nails for the attack – the same method used for Isis’ bombings at Brussels Airport and Molenbeek metro station last year.

CCTV footage seen by The Times showed the 22-year-old putting the suitcase down in the foyer between Manchester Arena and Victoria station shortly before it detonated amid Ariana Grande fans pouring out of the concert.

The extract clearly states that the suitcase – meaning the bomb in it – detonated. However, a revised version of events, after intelligence shared with the US was leaked into the public domain, had it that the bomb had been in a Karrimor rucksack. Obviously, this presented a problem for the British authorities, because it introduced a risk that even the most naïve and meek of British subjects would become suspicious and start wondering why people who were supposedly beyond reproach would lie about the facts of such a distressing case. And so what the British authorities have done to solve their problem is present something to assuage the public cognitive dissonance.  The production of a picture of “Abedi with suitcase” is meant to address the puzzlement that two contradicting bomb delivery narratives must have produced in anyone who was trying to reconcile them. Certainly there is a reliance, when trying to pull this sort of thing off, on the public not remembering data correctly – but then the public are very reliable in these regards. And so it doesn’t matter if there is, in actuality, no relation whatsoever between the bombing and the image of “Abedi with suitcase”. All that matters is that the public are allowed to forge an association, and that association will explain why anyone will have ever encountered the concept of “Abedi with suitcase”.

So, what to make of the image in the light of its use as psychology in order to fix a mistake? There are several areas of discussion, including the actuality of Abedi being watched before the incident – in spite of what the intelligence agencies and police say. One that we shouldn’t rule out is that the image was created to order after the event. Yes, that has a certain ramification that may be hard to digest. But look at this:

The remains of suicide bomber Salman Abedi will never be cremated or buried in Greater Manchester as authorities battle to keep the killer’s body separate to those 22 victims of his attack .

Abedi’s remains are currently being kept at a morgue outside of the Greater Manchester area, according to the Manchester Evening News .

Abedi’s body is understood to be the property of the coroner.

Inquest hearings could be held in due course, and any ultimate decision regarding his remains will be down to a coroner, the source said.

This idea of separation between Abedi and the victims is obviously just a cover story because the author can only identify 8 victims of the 22 dead (from the list here) as being from Greater Manchester (including Bolton). And this cover story would be to rationalise, and normalise, how the government would get to keep the remains of “Abedi” and ultimately decide how to dispose of them. The author’s suspicion, first voiced in a previous article on this subject, that Abedi wasn’t even at the scene of the crime does not dissipate.

Now on to the really interesting news. An article in an African publication suggests that the arrest of Salman Abedi’s father in Tripoli was partly responsible for kicking off a huge clash between Libyan militias.

When suicide bomber Salman Abedi, a 22-year-old British-Libyan, triggered his bomb packed with nuts and bolts Monday in Manchester, he not only brought Libya’s civil war to the streets of Britain, he may well have wrecked the chances of a peace deal being struck between rival governments and their militia backers in the strife-torn North African state.

First of all, let’s look at why this might be feasible. What we do know for certain is that Salman Abedi’s father, Ramadan, was…

an administrative manager of the Central Security Force in the Libyan capital, was detained separately by security forces in the city, on suspicion of having links to the Islamic State group.

What the British corporate-media (source) never tells us is that the Central Security Force is also known as the Nawasi brigade – basically, the National Transitional Council (NTC), after it was gifted the nation in 2011 by the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, the SAS and MI6 – amongst others – gave out fiefdoms to allied militias who had fought the Gaddafi government forces. The Nawasi brigade are a Salafist-led group, and Salafism is likened to Wahhabism – so, it’s an extreme form of Islam. Moreover, it appears to the author, although he welcomes being corrected, that the Central Security Force is rather like an Islamic police because of how “the group mainly focuses on combating drug and alcohol related crimes, as well as other non-Islamic conduct”.

So, the Manchester Bomber’s father was/is an “administrative manager” in a Libyan Islamic enforcement police. Thanks to your tax dollars.

After the bombing in Manchester  it appears that he was arrested while – or not long after – he was speaking to media and denying that his son had anything to do with the attack. He was arrested by the Special Deterrent Force, which appears to be another militia-turned-police force that seems to be more directly attached to the GNC government (explained below). The author is not clear about its authority in relation to the Central Security Force, especially when it sends “masked gunmen” to arrest a “terrorist suspect” (a UK media spin?), but if we think about it in terms of militias nabbing each other’s members then perhaps we can imagine that it might cause a lot of trouble.

Indeed, the situation in Libya is very complicated – did the reader know that even now there rages in that country the “Second Libyan Civil War”. There are essentially two governments (a third, the Government of National Accord, is a UN reconciliation project). Based in Tobruk, the House of Representatives and the Libyan National Army, led by General Haftar, are moderates (and the power that the surviving pro-Gaddafi Green Movement might yet make an alliance with). In Tripoli is the General National Congress (GNC), which is Islamist, and just declared itself the government when it didn’t like the outcome of the 2014 parliamentary elections. Both sides are fighting other factions, including a contingent of ISIS.

The significant thing about all this is that the Libyan connection became overt through the US intervention of leaked material – whereas the British were, and still are trying to make a big thing about supposed ISIS links with Abedi. This does invite suspicion that behind the leaking of the Manchester Arena bombing intelligence was a desire to create a good excuse for more fighting in Libya. Would that be something the US would be looking for? We can’t know for sure, of course. However, there is talk of the Libyan National Army receiving backing from Russia – we know Egypt is definitely on side.

On the other side, the GNC was basically the NTC during and immediately after the overthrow of Gaddafi. This transition came about basically because of an Islamist fix-up. The author wrote about it at the time, and the piece he produced is important because it notes how much the whole adventure by NATO in Libya was ultimately about handing power to the Muslim Brotherhood – a political movement that doesn’t seem to feature these days in the news at all, let alone in conjunction with Libya. But make no mistake – these Islamists in Libya were the US and UK’s men, in the same way that they were in Egypt before they were deposed in the 2013 military coup.  That constituted a defeat for the Globalists, and what has happened in Syria since then looks like it will constitute another. If there is peace in Libya that is favourable to Haftar, the US neo-con, Globalist enterprise might be entirely rolled back there also.