State crime and the Manchester Arena bombing

There is a school of thought that says that one shouldn’t try too hard to lay out the evidence for a false flag attack because, largely, the public won’t even try to look at the data. It is true, and the author agrees with the sentiment. However, when one is in a war, and one does not analyse how the opponent fights the war, then a defeat is certain. In the end, whenever there is a state crime in the form of a terror event (ascribed to a scapegoated section of society for the purposes of building consensus for subsequent acts that the public wouldn’t normally tolerate), it needs to be examined for the intelligence that it imparts.

It is quite clear to the author that the Manchester Arena bombing was a state crime because:

1) the British Intelligence and security agencies (the British Government) were aware of a community of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group terrorists living in Manchester, and allowed these people to swan in and out of the country to and from war zones (where they would be an asset to the British Government in activity that assisted Britain in its stated geopolitical goals). Other evidence strongly points to the British Government being complicit in this activity – namely that the LIFG have a documented history of military alliance with the British Government as a proxy in the overthrow of Gaddafi, and other activity prior to the so-called “Libyan Civil War” (assassination attempts and other terrorism), and also ongoing efforts in Syria to overthrow Assad.

The bomber, Salman Abedi, is the son of a long-time LIFG member, who fought against the Gaddafi government in a unit called the “Manchester fighters”.  This name comes from an account by a fellow combatant in an interview obtained by the Guardian (the corporate-media always have access to terrorists when the security services never seem to be able to find them) who also said

Three-quarters of the fighters at the beginning of the revolution [“Libyan Civil War”] were from Manchester – the rest came from London, Sheffield, China and Japan. From everywhere.

(Interestingly, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, the infamous LIFG commander, was supposedly living in China in 2004 – recruiting?). It could not be clearer from this testimony that what happened in Libya in 2011 was something that was mostly organised from outside the country. But readers of this website would have already been aware of that.

And so, given that it is emerging that the explosive device was made by a professional bombmaker from that LIFG Manchester enclave, and that the British Government has historically been in cahoots with the LIFG, but more credibly for the purpose of making an accusation, has permitted the LIFG to reside in Manchester unmolested, the British Government is ultimately responsible for the Manchester Arena bombing through negligence.

2) With point number 1 establishing the basic fact of culpability as it could be presented to a naïve public, on another level there are problems in the narrative that indicate the bombing was an event of which Government had foreknowledge.

In the first article on this subject (links to all previous articles at the foot of the page), the author discussed something that is very noticeable about an event like Manchester, and how there is a disconnect between what the Government’s liason with the public communicates, and what happens on the ground – as though there is a script – and if things go slightly differently in the field, the public will still, in an official narrative, receive the script.

Since then the author has discovered an article by Paul Craig Roberts: “Cover Stories Are Used To Control Explanations”. This is an extract:

Years ago James Jesus Angleton [chief of CIA Counterintelligence from 1954 to 1975] left me with the impression that when an intelligence agency, such as the CIA, pulls off an assassination, bombing, or any event with which the agency does not wish to be associated, the agency uses the media to control the explanation by quickly putting into place a cover story that, along with several others, has been prepared in advance.

So let’s modify the idea previously stated. There’s not one script, but many to choose from – and so let’s suppose that if anything goes slightly awry in the field, then the script that best fits is picked. The important thing is, there may be some wriggle room at first, but as soon as a script is fixed on, any evidence that occurs thereafter to counter it is completely ignored. Now, Roberts argues that the US intervention with the leaking of intelligence from the scene was an attempt to steer which script to go with – and the author agrees with this.

But this was a problem for the British Government, hence why it was so very angry at the US meddling. The British Government were going to establish a different storyline – and we can see that they were by the early reporting.

It is arguable that British Government were fixing to blame the Manchester Arena bombing on a lone wolf spontaneous jihadi character, using a homemade bomb, with links to ISIS by which he was radicalised. This is certainly suggested by the ludicrous booklet presented to photographers outside the home of Abedi, as discussed in the previous article at FBEL on this subject, which implied that the suspect was teaching himself about chemicals needed to make a bomb. And this narrative of a lone bomber would fit in with attacks, and attempted attacks that immediately preceded Manchester – namely the Westminster incidents. As it happens, the British Government is still pushing the idea that the bomber has links with ISIS when the more substantial relationship is with the LIFG, and events in Libya – and this would indicate that the Government’s intention is to exploit the bombing to escalate against Assad.

This image can be seen in context in the Updates of the “Manchester: the location of the explosion – various accounts” article. Suspect wears a red top.

The story of how the US intervention sealed the course of the narrative is in the “real-time”, completely out in the open, changing of some of the elements of the narrative – changes that were very awkward and revelatory in terms of process. The first thing to notice was the tentativeness with which the British Government approached the issue of identifying the bomber. As discussed previously in these pages, it appears the US intervention forced the Government’s hands when American news not only announced the bombers identity, but also stated that it was known because of a banking card fond on his body. So, the US intervention steered the narrative right from a crucial moment at the start with the identification of the culprit.

And then we saw some details about the incident, that corporate-media had been attempting to institute as facts,  disappear down the “memory hole”.  The first example of this is the appearance of the bomber. There was an initial a report in various corporate-media that a mother collecting her daughter had “seen the bomber”. He was wearing a bright red top. The updated information about the appearance of the bomber is that he was wearing dark clothes:

The Arndale pictures show a man dressed in dark clothing, wearing a hoodie and baseball cap and distinctive white trainers.

It is believed Abedi was wearing similar clothes at the time of his attack, which took place at the end of an Ariana Grande pop concert at Manchester Arena.

Just in case the reader didn’t follow that – police released a number of CCTV images of Abedi (or someone purported to be him) as he visited the Arndale Centre a few days prior to the attack, and the way he is dressed in these images is supposed to resemble his attire on the day of the bombing. Crucially, these CCTV images are supposed to show that he bought a rucksack – the one used in the bombing, no less.

This brings us to a second alteration in the story (and please see the previous articles for the links to the source material) which is how the transporting receptacle for the bomb was, in the final analysis, a rucksack, and not a suitcase – as had been reported in all seriousness. Now, this stuff is very important to consider. It was said that the Times had seen CCTV footage that showed Abedi placing a suitcase down at the scene. After that we had the US intervention, and one of the pieces of information leaked was a picture of a raggedy piece of Karimor rucksack. This image was one of many “crime scene photographs… leaked to the New York Times after being shared with US intelligence, prompting a furious response among ministers” (source). Of course the British Government would be furious because now its supposed newspaper of record, its flagship sleeve for an intelligence arm into controlling the knowledge of current affairs and its received perception, the Times, is completely discredited – if only people would notice. This incident means that we cannot trust government when it says it has CCTV of a terror incident, but won’t show it. This incident forever after means that any unseen CCTV that is claimed as evidence for a terror incident probably doesn’t contain what government says it does, or it doesn’t exist.

Furthermore, we should notice that this CCTV information appeared after the revelation of the rucksack. And so what we can suggest has happened is that the US intervention has produced a storyline of bomber goes rucksack shopping. The purpose of this would be to give the public a hook and eye to link the suspect with the incident (and how many times have we seen this tactic?). But look at the figure in the photos. Is there any way that a member of the public could tell that this was Salman Abedi? And notice that there are no timestamps. These images could have been produced after the event – and more importantly, after the US had produced the intruding intelligence.

Finally, the American intelligence intervention provided evidence by which we could support the supposition made by the author in the previous articles: to wit, we shouldn’t write off the idea of Salman Abedi not even being on site when the bomb went off. Consider the following:

Photographs of bomb remnants found at the Manchester Arena show a trigger switch with a tiny circuit board soldered into the end, which experts say could point to a remote-control or timer built into the bomb to ensure an accomplice could detonate it if Abedi lost his nerve.

(Source)

So, the bomb had remote-detonation capability, meaning that it only needed to be delivered to the location, and it didn’t need someone physically interacting with it to cause it to explode.

Now, consider this (source as above link):

Abedi’s upper torso was found some distance away from where the bomb went off, suggesting it was thrown forwards when the bomb went off on his back. A gap in the circle of bodies around him suggests his body shielded those directly in front of him from the worst of the blast.

An image that accompanies this text is shown below:

Notice that it has Abedi being flung through the doors that separate the exit area from the concourse. There are pictures of these doors in the first article on this subject. Please have a look, and see if you think they would open if hit by a flying torso, or – if they were being held open by people coming through them – would they give enough  room for a flying torso to get through the gaps?

Essentially, what this graphic is saying is that the body of the bomber isn’t in the immediate crime scene. It has been mentioned before, but it becomes very important to know if people can access the exit zone without having a ticket to enter the concert.

What we’ve seen with this event is the same as we have seen with others that are demonstrably not what the authorities say they are. But the really important thing about this event is that, with the intervention of the US intelligence leak, we got to see the process. We saw a script being switched – which brings us to the overall point that we’ve been labouring towards. If there is script switching, then that in itself points to Government (meaning pertinent components of it) having prior knowledge of the attack. In fact, it basically means that Government is embroiled with activity related to the crime – or in other words, is directly involved in it.

 

In Manchester, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group knows its chemicals

Manchester: the location of the explosion – various accounts

In Manchester, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group knows its chemicals

At first the British Government announced that it knew who the Manchester Arena bomber was, but wanted official confirmation, and indeed, according to someone linked to Channel 4 the Greater Manchester Police said that they “won’t identify [the] Manchester suspect until formal ID [is] complete”. They also said that speculation about the bomber would be “potentially damaging to [the] investigation”. Never was the horse more bolted after the stable door had been shut, for CBS had already tweeted that it could confirm the identity of the Manchester Arena bomber. Yet more information flowed up from plentiful founts on the other side of the Atlantic, this time from NBC:

MANCHESTER, England — Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old British man believed to have killed 22 people in a suicide-bomb attack, had ties to al Qaeda and had received terrorist training abroad, a U.S. intelligence official told NBC News on Tuesday as the United Kingdom raised its terrorist threat level to the highest category.

The U.S. intelligence official, who has direct knowledge of the investigation, said Abedi, whose family is of Libyan descent, was identified by a bank card found in his pocket at the scene of the explosion after an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena. The identification was confirmed by facial recognition technology, the official said.

Abedi had traveled to Libya within the last 12 months, one of multiple countries he had visited, the official said. And while he had “clear ties to al Qaeda,” the official said, Abedi could have also had connections to other groups.

Given all the complaining going on, it would be a very good guess that all this forced the UK Government’s hand – there’s no point in speculating about the motive of the Americans – but remember, on the day after the attack, Theresa May said “the police and security services believe they know the identity of the perpetrator, but at this stage of their investigations, we cannot confirm his name”, and there was talk in the same breath in the corporate-media of a coroner’s report pending. However, it looks like Theresa May had to make do with a credit card found in Abedi’s pocket – the old stuff is the best, after all. And maybe the reason that the Government has been slow is the revelatory stuff about his links to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group that the British corporate-media is now being forced to report. But before we get to that serious material, let’s have a look at some more ridiculousness that always tends to indicate state crime.

First up is the idea that the Times newspaper is the only organisation in the land supposedly outside of the security services or intelligence agencies (which of course, shows that it isn’t an organisation seperate from that realm) that can see CCTV footage of Salman Abedi delivering a suitcase bomb‡ to the target.

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.

(Source)

Of course, what this account doesn’t tell us is if Abedi stayed around for the bomb to go off – but why would he, when we’ve already been told by the authorities that he was killed in the explosion (and his banking details discovered)? But then again, we all know by now that just because government says something is so, it doesn’t automatically make it. It would be really handy to see Abedi deliver that bomb, because then we would know that it hadn’t already been secreted at the site well ahead of the incident. The author is thinking of the Manchester United bomb of 16th May 2016, which turned out to be a training exercise dummy, but somehow had been so expertly deployed, not found, and then “forgotten about” until it was discovered (if it had been a real bomb, this discovery would have happened with the explosion).

The next piece of nonsense to impart is the piece of evidence retrieved from Salman Abedi’s house after the police literally blew the door down to gain entry to it – derisible theatrics emanating from the maladjusted psychology of the desperate-to-justify-their-job, surely. The author doesn’t know how evidence is generally collected, but assumes that it is bagged or boxed, numbered etc. However, corporate-media cameras captured one moment when a member of police forensics was gathering one particular example of incriminating material†, and what a farce!

“Know your chemicals!” was the title of this booklet carried by this supposedly serious detective – and held in just the right way so as to make a nice photograph. The implication was obvious, and the author feels that he shouldn’t need to explain. During the Thomas Mair case, police briefed the press to bias public opinion against their supposedly innocent-until-proven-guilty suspect; now they send non-verbal signals.

Now, with the comic relief over, the author asks the reader to notice that the corporate-media is playing up supposed links between ISIS and Abedi in preference to a connection that appears to be much more substantial. Naturally, this link must be overshadowed because it is one that is very embarrassing for the British Government. The author is not going to write in detail about it, because there is an article by Tony Cartalucci at LandDestroyer that explains everything so beautifully, and what a waste of time and resources it would be to duplicate it (and not so well). Please read “UK Government Harbored Terrorists Linked to Manchester Blast for Decades” (link), from which the following is taken:

Thus, astoundingly, according to the Telegraph, a thriving community of listed terrorists exists knowingly in the midst of the British public, without any intervention by the UK government, security, or intelligence agencies – with members regularly travelling abroad and participating in armed conflict and terrorist activities before apparently returning home – not only without being incarcerated, but apparently also without even being closely monitored.

The listed terrorists are the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – the al-Qaeda affiliate who the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, and the SAS and MI6 fought alongside at the start of the current decade to overthrow the legitimate government of Libya. The LIFG – a proscribed terrorist organisation – that the author was observing and writing about in real time during the Libyan fiasco so that he witnessed the close cooperation between these terrorists and a murderous NATO, and then their deployment into Syria as part of the NATO invasion-by-proxy of that country (for a sample of this writing, click on the Archive link in the menu). The nature of the relationship between the LIFG and the UK Government is perhaps best represented by the tender way that LIFG commander, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, has been treated. And so, when we discover its membership living unmolested amongst dark satanic mills, then we shouldn’t be surprised. But what it constitutes is an intelligence or security stand down – meaning the blame for the Manchester Arena attack lays firmly at the feet of the British Government.

The author has no satisfaction in seeing that the corporate-media, which at the time of the invasion of Libya basically collaborated in war crime, is now having to belatedly report a history that has very little resemblance to their current affairs of the time. Here is an example from the Daily Mail, as it finds it now has to discuss the terrorist career of Salman Abedi’s father in order to establish junior’s own credentials (a little emphasis added):

Abedi fled Tripoli in 1993 after Moammar Gadhafi’s security authorities issued an arrest warrant and eventually sought political asylum in Britain.

Now, he is the administrative manager of the Central Security force in Tripoli.

It is understood that Abedi was ‘known’ to the Security Services through his associations to those linked to terrorism in Manchester’s Libyan community.

These are said to have included 24 year-old Abdalraouf Abdallah, who was jailed for nine years after being convicted of preparing acts of terrorism and funding terrorism.

Abdallah, who is partially paralysed after being shot during the Libyan Revolution, is said to have helped men travel to Syria to fight.

Inquiries led officials at the time to believe Abedi was not of significance to that operation.

“Enquiries led officials at the time to believe Abedi was not of significance to that operation” says the last line – which it would, because for the British Establishment, there is never a case of “it’s a fair cop”. Neither will there ever be unless people, at long last, insist on it.

 

† For the record, the corporate-media clearly reported this booklet as having been property that had been residing in a house connected to the bomber:

Sinister book carried out of suspected Manchester bomber’s house

‡ Update 25/05/17: Seemingly forgetting that the Times has seen a suitcase bomb, the Telegraph now reports that the bomb might have been in a rucksack on the bomber’s back – see here.

The following is from the article:

The rucksack bomb that killed 22 people in Manchester was so complex that it could only have been made by an expert, leaked crime scene pictures suggest, as it emerged that an al-Qaeda bomb-maker lived on the same street as suicide attacker Salman Abedi.

It becomes clear that the British Government is upset at the US “leaks” that led to this information becoming public knowledge because they point to that professional terror cell mentioned in this article – and it undermines the narrative set out by British Intelligence in its corporate-media arm. The fact that members of the LIFG hve been allowed to live in the UK, and come and go as they please to war zones, is the big story here, and it is a scandal that would rock the government if the corporate press in the UK wasn’t all state-controlled.

Manchester: the location of the explosion – various accounts

The reader might not be aware, but there is a race going on in Syria. It is between US-backed forces, and Syrian regulars, irregulars and Iranians, and the objective is to control the Iraqi/Syrian border. ISIS is collapsing in the south-east, but the US plan, which had been to control territory vacated by ISIS after US-proxies had expelled them from it, does not look like it will come to fruition. The reader may have heard about the trouble near al-Tanf where US fighter planes attacked an Iranian/irregular advance which came close to actual US and UK special forces that are based there (both countries committing international war crime, incidentally). Now, from the South Front battlefield intelligence gathering outfit, is this:

Since last weekend, the Syrian Army and its allies have made notable gains east of Suweida and along the Damascus-Baghdad highway. These advances posed a direct threat to the US-led plan aimed at building a buffer zone controlled by US-backed factions between Syria and Iraq. Now, the US-led forces are going to use force against the Syrian military in order to achieve their strategic goal.

One gets the feeling that circumstances are such that if push comes to shove – and with no appetite for war at home – the US and UK troops would have to concede what otherwise would have been hotly contested territory if a Syrian-Iranian-Russian-Iraqi alliance wants it that badly – and all the signs are that they do. However – and the picture is confused at the moment – it’s not beyond comprehension that the US and the UK would allow themselves to get dragged into a situation where they would be fighting alongside their “Free Syrian Army” proxies directly – if an appetite for such a state of affairs suddenly manifested itself in domestic public opinion. The most reliable, and well tested trigger for incensing a dramatic war lust would of course be terror; ultimately blamed, in the inverted-reality parallel dimension of Western propaganda, on Assad – he who always must be removed. And so, if this analysis even slightly resembles the actual scenario, then the US and UK governments have this week banked some excellent leverage for their escalation (with more to follow?)

But the author has already found little things about the Manchester Arena bomb attack that bother him. This article will focus on the way that the precise location of the explosion cannot be pinned down. There is a difference between what corporate-media, police, the venue management, and remote experts confidently talk about, and what evidence on the ground has to report when it appears in imagery and one very important witness interview in particular.

First of all, the author found the following two accounts, quite literally propping each other up in the Sun:

According to police, the blast occurred “within the foyer area of the stadium.” Manchester Arena said the blast took place “outside the venue in a public space.”

As it happens, the foyer is the location that all of the corporate-media (as far as the author has seen) cites as being the place of the explosion. [Update 24/05/17: see bottom of article for more images from corporate-media showing the location of the bomb - collectively, the claim of a bomb in an annex building is quite categorical. Note, there are various names for this annex, and the exact location of the explosion is never quite agreed upon]. The image below is out of the Guardian, and shows the foyer as being part of a protuberance sticking out of the main oval construction.

But the author has seen another account from a Will Geddes, CEO of security consultants ICP, as quoted in the Metro, which sounds very much like what Manchester Arena claimed:

They detonated a homemade bomb in the walkway between the stadium and the station…

No doubt they would have carried out some reconnaissance, it will have been very well planned and the individuals might have regarded the security at the stadium as too difficult and chosen the walkway as the next best option…

It was within the walkway between the stadium and the station this would have been an area with a high footfall with people leaving the stadium, they will be looking for somewhere they are going to optimise casualty ratings.

And yet, if the reader examines the two images below (click to enlarge), he or she will realise that the explosion could not have happened in the foyer, or in any place outside the venue, or in any place half way between the venue and public transport [the 3rd Update at the foot of the page clears this up a little. It seems that Will Geddes could have been correct after all]. The two images show some wounded being treated – apparently where they fell.

In the first, to the left of the image, you can see the entrance to the Prime Suite VIP boxes. The second image is looking at the same scene but from the other side of the doors that are visible at the back of the first image (see update at bottom of page for an uncropped version of the 2nd image). On the left of the second image, stairs can be seen.

The location shown has to be where the bombing took place – the evidence available to our own eyes tells us that. But that we can see the entrance to the Prime Suite VIP box tells us that the shot must have been taken inside the main oval body [a misunderstanding by the author - the 3rd update clears this up]. These hospitality suites ring the inner “field” of the complex – they are contained within a concourse running around the inside of the stadium that provides seating access and hosts conveniences and concession stands, etc.

And if we are still not sure, then there is more information that clarifies where this location is. Emma Johnson was waiting to collect her daughter (this is from the same Sun article linked to above – and the author has added emphasis in relation to identifying the site of the bomb):

She told BBC Radio 5 Live: “I was about 15 feet away from the blast. We were waiting for our children to come out and we stood at the top of the foyer – you go up some stairs and we were protected by glass on a barrier [the stairs in the 2nd image?].

“As the doors all opened – it was just before the end of the Dangerous Woman song – it hadn’t quite finished and obviously people were leaving to miss the traffic.

“So we said we’d stand up there so the children could see us. As people were coming out they were wearing the clothes of Ariana – you know the white, the black, the pink, because they all sold the merchandise.

“But for one split second I turned and saw what I can only describe as a bright red – that’s why it stood out – bright red, with a grey panel down the front with risen bits all over it.† [See Update 4].

“It was that that stood out because it was so intense, the colour, in this crowd of people.

“As quick as I saw it the explosion happened.”

The author has never been to the Manchester Arena, but it sounds like the foyer is seperated from the seating access area by a level, and also glass. [It's actually seperated by the doors in the image - see the 3rd Update at the foot of the page - but what constitutes the "foyer" is still unclear].

The following is Emma Johnson’s account as told in the Guardian:

A mother, at the concert with her two daughters, described seeing a man she believes to have been the suicide bomber. Emma Johnson told BBC Radio 5 Live: “I turned and saw [a] bright red top in the crowd with a grey panel down the front with risen bits all over it. It was that which stood out because it was so intense among the crowds of people. As quick as I saw it the explosion happened.”

She said she was 15ft (4.5 metres) away. “It happened near where they sell the merchandise,” said Johnson. “There were dead bodies everywhere. I saw the remains of the torso and the remains of the body.”

The reader can check for him or herself, and examine a map (one here) which shows a floor plan of the Manchester Arena. Notice the symbols for merchandise shops. From Emma Johnson’s account, and the images, we can place the explosion within the complex itself. [In actual fact, the mention of the merchandise shop is very misleading. See 3rd Update below]. Where exactly around the concourse (or seating access area) the incident took place, the author hasn’t the information or the time to discover. But, the explosion clearly took place inside the oval, and not in the extending building that has been  identified as the foyer in corporate-media. [This is true to a certain extent - the explosion took place just beyond the doors into the concourse - see 3rd Update below].

The reader may be asking, what difference does it make? Of course, there is the issue of security – which we know little about except stories of its slackness (convenient). If the foyer is for public who can’t get to the seating access concourse, then it’s something that we should be able to understand so as to try and find out why this incident happened (how did the bomber get beyond it?) [In the context of the 3rd Update, below, what would be interesting to know is if people can get into the City Room exit area without having been inside the arena (i.e. from outside the complex, and without a ticket for a show)].

But the main reason is this: when something – anything – happens in our phsyical reality, then there should be certainty in all the following facts about it. That is how things were in the pre-Post-Normal world, and that is how some of us still expect things to be. So, when we look at this Manchester incident with those expectations, why would it be that there is a bombing, and there are witnesses, and there are emergency services on the ground, but their information and their experience can’t make it up through chains of command, or reporting, to the liason system, and its operatives, that communicates what is supposed to be factual truth to the public in general? Why is there a disconnect? It speaks to the author of the latter group – the people dealing with public perception – having a script, and sticking to it, while the former group reports what actually happened. And when there is this disconnect – which should be setting off alarm bells given the stakes – it means that when empirical data – information from actual experience – gets channelled to the public audience and it is very different to the “script”, then whatever is conflicting is just usually ignored, and the contrariness is not remarked upon. That there is a parlous state of dumbed-down obtuseness in the general population of Britain (look at the way it sends its children unattended to an age-inappropriate concert by artists into Masonic ritual as performance) is of great advantage to the British Government when its agents in the field of shaping perception require doublethink – or more accurately nothink. Fortunately, some of us do have the wherewithal to notice when something doesn’t add up, and when a story stinks like a fish. That’s not to say that there weren’t many terrible outcomes for individual human beings at this Manchester incident, and now unimaginable sadness for other people who lost loved ones. But there is, quite frankly, something globally more terrible at hand (war, no less), and for that reason we tend, here at FBEL, to allow a concern for a greater threatened catastrophe drive us to find whatever uncomfortable truth there is to be discovered.

From smh.com.au:

From the Daily Mail:

From the BBC:

Second Update: 24/05/2017:

The above image is an uncropped version of one that appears in the body of the article. It was obtained from a video by Free Radio Revolution, and the creator of that channel, Jeff C, comments that warnings had appeared on Twitter about this being disinfo, and not real. Indeed, it is very hard to find this image on the internet via a google search. The author thinks that means there is something in it we are not meant to see.

Third Update: 24/05/2017:

New images, but things are only a little clearer as a result. The first is from one of the action comic strip things that the Daily Mail produces so its readership can get the gist:

The second image is a section of the ground floor map that was linked to above (it helps to understand the Daily Mail graphic):

The event, then, seems to have happened in the City Room exit zone, and very close to its northern perimeter. The Box Office is in the direction of the steps mentioned above, so looks like this is where the witness featured in the article must have been located, and there is a distinct seperation between it and where the attack took place. The DM graphic is not being honest – and notice the graphic doesn’t show what is east of the exit area. In fact, reviewing the material, there has been a general vagueness in the naming of the locations by corporate-media – see the variety in the images above.

Notice that a merchandise shop is shown in the DM graphic – this must be the one that features in the witness’ story (which the author now wonders about). Although the location of the explosion has been cleared up in the process of updating this article, it doesn’t change something essential. Although the corporate-media has been vague about the precise location of the explosion, and vague in its naming conventions, the attack didn’t happen in the Box Office – if the ground plan is accurate. And if the Box Office is also the foyer, it didn’t happen there either.

Fourth Update: 24/05/2017:

Today the Independent reports this:

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.

This is the first time the author has heard of a bomb in the suitcase, assuming from Emma Johnson’s witness testimony that the suspect was wearing the bomb (something to do with risen bits and his top). Note, that a more exact location is indicated, and note that somehow the Times newspaper (basically British Intelligence itself) has been allowed to see this footage. So now we are seeing the sort of narrative shifting and/or tightening, and prepostrerousness that we’d expect to see if the event was indeed a false flag attack.

For “Strong and stable” read “Stronger In” (or no UKIP, no vote)

This article is actually the third and last one in the series “The Tory Fake Brexit Candidates” (first two here, and here), but there is a broader point to make, thus the irregular title. It should also be the last article about the general election; this site has worn the subject out, and issued enough warnings. In this article the author wants to remind the reader of the very pro-EU nature of the House of Commons, and point out that that character isn’t going to suddenly undergo a Damascene conversion just because the plebeian and the profane voted to leave the EU. Indeed, the author has in a previous article explained that the Parliament has been captured by the UK Establishment for Globalism against the British Constitution. Based on this analysis, do you seriously think that you are going to be allowed to free Parliament from legal and regulatory harmony with the EU (otherwise known as Fake Brexit) by casting a vote in an election? You will not be allowed to do that, and the means by which you will be barred is the same way the British Government always prevents you from spoiling its agenda: psyching you out. The British Government’s plan to keep Parliament conquered for the EU involves duping you into returning a Tory majority, while simultaneously making UKIP – the means by which you could free Parliament – into a gutted out husk. The author can say this with certainty, not only because he understands, by study, what the British ruling class is capable of, not only because he has actually looked at crucial literature regarding the Government’s approach to “Brexit”, but also because he can foresee the ongoing nature of the Commons just by its components – its numbers – and understand that nothing is going to change with any Tory majority that you create in the mistaken belief that you are voting to construct independence from the EU.

Consider the image, below, taken from a BBC webpage that explains how MPs allegiances were distributed at the time of the EU Referendum.

If one visits the page and scrolls down, there are full lists of names corresponding to the chart. Please focus on the spread of the Tory MPs. At the time, there were 185 that wanted the UK to remain in the EU, and 138 who wanted the UK to leave. The total of these two sets are the number of Tory MPs who declared their position – therefore 7 names are missing. We know this because at the end of the 2015-2017 Parliament, there were 330 Tory MPs, according to the parliament website. It is true that since the 2015 election, the Tories lost Richmond Park, but gained Copeland, and David Cameron also stepped down to be replaced by another Tory: giving a net increase of zero. But did this alter the make-up of the Leave/Remain spread?

Trudy Harrison is the substitute Tory MP from the 2017 by-election, and this is what she has to say about Brexit in some election bumf:

This election is our chance to send a message that the EU referendum result must be respected, and to back Theresa May’s plan…

Robert Courts was the replacement for Cameron: here is what he had to say about the same:

This is a crucial time in our history and it is essential that the Prime Minister’s negotiating hand is strengthened, safe in the knowledge that she has the backing of the country.

So, on the face of it, both of these MPs can go in the pro-Brexit column (equating to +1, because Zac Goldsmith was replaced), and because Cameron was fanatically pro-EU, we can take one out of the anti-Brexit tally. The new Leave total would be 139, and the new Remain total would be 184 – with 7 that we can’t apportion to any side.

But it’s just not that simple. Crucially, both of these new Tory MPs are both of the “Strong and stable” catechism type. The previous article in this series (find link at the top of the page) introduced this idea, but we will deal with the point some more here. This “Strong and stable”† type are just ballast for the Theresa May Fake Brexit torpedo – to keep it hidden under the water until it hits the target. And we know this because they publically declare that they want to be elected on a ticket of giving her carte blanche; to back her unconditionally in her negotiations with the EU. The reader could probably bet the house that most supposedly pro-Brexit Tory MPs, new and old, are of this type. And that’s why it really doesn’t matter how many of them appear on the right hand side of the above chart. We’ll return to this crucial fact by and by.

The numbers in the Remain/Leave spread need to be modified a bit more. There are 8 MPs named in the Remain list who are standing down at this election. All the seats that these MPs are vacating are extremely safe for the Tories. As it happens, four of the incoming candidates have been dealt with in “The Tory Fake Brexit Candidates; Part One”. These are, Neil o’ Brien, Harborough; Vicky Ford; Chelmsford; Alex Burghart, Brentwood and Ongar, and Kemi Badenoch, Saffron Walden. One of these, Ford, is a confirmed Remainer. O’ Brien and Burghart were advisors to Theresa May, and Badenoch was with the Spectator, and is a current London Assembly member. Additionally, another of this ilk, a certain Julia Dockerill, is incoming in the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency. She was a Parliamentary aide who got a lot of unwanted attention when she was photographed entering or leaving Downing street with meeting notes, pitched under arm, but on display to the world. Kemi Badenoch is a black lady, but ditzy Dockerill looks like the one who is benefitting from affirmative action.

So here we have 5 candidates – one of which remains on the Remain side. Two of them are close to the Prime Minister – and so if they are pro-Brexit, then they are surely going to be pro-Brexit in the same way that Theresa May is: fake for the sake of votes. Be that as it may, let us put them in the pro-Brexit column in any case.

In Chichester, another insanely safe Tory seat, the incoming candidate is Gillian Keegan. She has apparently been on the district council in the City, but the author cannot get a firm fix on whether she was involved in the area before 2015. In the general election of that year she was the candidate for St Helens South and Whiston. Her bumf also makes her out to be a bit of a budding globalist “for… 25 years she worked and lived abroad, working in the manufacturing, banking and IT industries.” The author can’t definitively identify her as being pro-Brexit. Tyrie, her predecessor, was definitely not, and the author can’t imagine the Tories of Chichester discriminating for or against Keegan along those lines. In any case, we’ll put her in the pro-Brexit column.

The last two incoming candidates of the 8 are more verifiably pro-Brexit.  Andrew Lewer, an MEP who voted Leave, inherits the Northampton South seat. Esther McVey, about whom corporate-media implies pro-Brexit sentiment, is set to take over George Osbourne’s seat. This means two more for the pro-Brexit column.

So, with these new MPs in place, of the Leave Tories, there would be 146 in the Commons, and of the Remain Tories, there would be 177 – with 7 that we can’t apportion to any side.

The last piece of information we need for this exercise is the projected number of seats for the Tories in the 2017 election; the author picked one that appeared in the Independent at the beginning of May and was based on council election results. It predicted a crop of 349 seats. That is a mere 19 more than the Tories currently hold. Let’s put them all on the pro-Brexit column – which would give us a grand total of 165 pro-Brexit Tory MPs, and 177 Remain MPs – and of course, the 7 unclassifiable extra.

Now, the reader must agree that the author has been conservative, and has placed certain incoming candidates, who we should be extremely suspicious about, in the pro-Brexit count – but even so, all these new additions do not make the number of pro-Brexit  MPs overtake the pro-EU ones. Even if that unassignable 7 was attributed to the pro-Brexit count, it would still mean that there were more pro-EU Tories in the Commons than not. And on top of that, let’s not forget a very important point. It is probably safe to say that most pro-Brexit Tory MPs are going to be of that “Strong and stable” sort who will just go along with anything that the Executive branch of government – essentially the cabinet – wants to do. And with regards the cabinet, the author fully expects May to bring in her newly elected ex-advisors that have been discussed extensively on these pages, and we’ll find out that, like her, they are not so pro-Brexit after all.

Theresa May is a puppet doing the bidding of some people who aren’t publically in power, but who rule in any case, and for whom the EU referendum Leave result was a horrible aberration. Her being selected as the head of the Executive branch of the British Government was about ensuring an outcome that, those who pull her strings, are desirous of in the light of that deviation from their course – an outcome that mitigates the referendum vote. From the literature put out by the Government so far, it is very clear that the Tories are going to deliver what the author has consistently been calling a Fake Brexit – a state of affairs where Britain is in the EU in all but name.

And so ultimately, it doesn’t make any difference if you, being someone who wants to see Brexit fully delivered, and would usually have voted UKIP, instead vote for a so-called pro-Brexit Tory candidate or not. Clearly, you should vote UKIP if you can, and in preference to a Tory candidate. The author does not have a UKIP candidate standing in his town, and so couldn’t vote for a Tory ahead of one even if he were hypnotised by propaganda to want to do such a thing (fat chance of it ever happening). As such, the author is not going to vote, and advises others who want to vote UKIP, but who can’t, to do the same. Let the cards lay where they fall. If the LibLabCon has to form a coalition within itself to fake-deliver Brexit, then let it also expose itself in doing so. Whatever it does, it won’t suddenly announce no Brexit, because there would be hell to pay. But we will get to see the LibLabCon connivers cook in their own mess – trying to fake deliver something that they don’t want – and we, who didn’t vote for them – thus earning some rare credibility – will be on suitably high enough ground from which to direct the attention of pro-Brexit people, and direct it towards the miserable sleight of hands tricks that the Government is inevitably going to have to attempt. The British Government has long had it coming with regards its 40-year project of EU-treason, and that’s the delivery that we are going to make.

 

† After completing this article, the author was searching around for an image to use as a feature, and came across the one below. This image, which is captioned at its source in a way that clearly confirms the fact, shows that a version of the Tories “Strong and stable” general election campaign slogan was used to promote continuation of the UK membership of the EU.

The Tory Fake Brexit Candidates; Part Two

There can now be no excuses. If people vote Tory expecting Brexit, and then find that Britain remains in the EU in all but name, then they can’t say that they weren’t warned. In fact, at that point – having been so wilfully obstinate against receiving any caution -  they will have become part of the problem too: they, in their willingness to facilitate the treason, will have become as fair game as any treacherous LibLabCon politician. Claiming ignorance will be no defence, because David Cameron has now told everyone the truth about Theresa May and any Parliament that the Tories dominate. The author knows that the British people are generally arrogantly obtuse to the nth degree, and think that reading a British newspaper makes them well informed. The author knows that they need the voice of authority to tell them what they should or shouldn’t think, and thus, when a lowly internet “nobody” comes along claiming to have actually read the small print and seen a betrayal ahead, they don’t credit it. So now, when someone who was once the British Prime Minister, no less, has told them outright what to expect, then they have been warned:

[Cameron] said it was vital the Tories win a big majority so Mrs May can “stand up to people who want an extreme Brexit, either here or in Brussels”.

The reader should bear this in mind, then, as we look at more Tory candidates that Theresa May is hoping to load Parliament with in order to fight “extreme Brexit” – which means not delivering Brexit at all. Soft Brexit means No Brexit. “What?” the pro-Brexit reader asks, “how can this be when the Tory election motto is ‘Strong and stable’?” Well, the intention of that motto is to inspire a big Tory majority – that senario supposedly being preferable to any coalition that a less than decisive turnout for the Conservatives might create. The author explained the reason for the fear of having to form a coalition in the first article in this series “The Tory Fake Brexit Candidates; Part One”: in short, it’s about sparing the public from the reality of the LibLabCon as one entity – rest assured, Theresa May would never form an official coalition with UKIP, not when she can’t even afford to have UKIP in the Commons showing the Tory Party up for what it really is. However, Brexiteers who see “Strong and stable” are supposed to imagine that this is about having the capacity to deliver Brexit – which it is, but just not in the fashion that they imagine. As Cameron admitted, “Strong and stable”, or a “strong hand” in relation to the EU is about delivering Fake Brexit. It’s all explained in previous article.

As all this has been emerging, the reader might have noticed the Brexit pressure group, Leave.EU, still engaged in a campaign to ask voters to “put country before party” and elect what it calls Brexit candidates. The idea generally seems to be about encouraging UKIP voters to vote Tory, because the campaign’s organisers cannot be so naïve as to imagine that confirmed Tories would ever stoop to lend a vote to UKIP (they should try delivering UKIP election material to these people). Now, to be fair, this frenzy of surrender is not confined to Leave.EU, for UKIP itself has decided that in a lot of seats it will not stand a candidate on the grounds that it would risk the unseating of a so-called “Brexit candidate” from another party.

The big problem with this spirit of self-sacrifice is, as mentioned above, the failure of the Tories to reciprocate. Did the reader, know, for instance, that of the 120 seats that UKIP achieved a 2015 second place, 44 were won by Labour. The author hasn’t checked, but there’s a distinct possibility that most of the Labour candidates standing in these seats this year are for remaining in the EU. Therefore, under the “Brexit alliance” strategy, surely we should be expecting the Tories, who came third in the seats, to withhold their own people, and ask their support to vote UKIP. Of course, this isn’t what is happening, and it’s not happening because a big majority, and no UKIP, is required so the Tories can deliver Fake Brexit – or no Brexit at all (these things do need to be repeated over and over again). So, in this article we’re going to look at some of these seats, and who the Tories are putting up in them as the UK Government tries to convince Britons they will be getting Brexit, when they are going to see no such thing.

First up is actually a constituency that isn’t in the list of UKIP 2nds because it is the one seat that UKIP did win in 2015 – Clacton. It still counts to be included in this analysis, because the Tories are trying to deny UKIP in a seat that the latter has more support in. The Tory candidate is Giles Waitling, a man who doesn’t appear in the corporate-media very far away from a mention of his role in whiny 80s sit-“com”, “Bread”. Most LibLabCon politicians pay lip service to principles that they dangle to win support, but here is an actual actor – someone who is paid to pretend to be something he is not -  and should we be surprised to learn that he doesn’t think that the UK should leave the EU, but wants Brexit delivered anyway? A local paper reports:

I voted remain in the referendum, but above all I am a democrat…

A Conservative government delivered the referendum, the referendum delivered a result in favour of Brexit and we now must leave the EU – and we must manage it well.

Actually, the truth of the matter is that the referendum result was a big surprise to the Conservative government – and indeed a shock to the Tories who led the official Leave campaign, if their stunned demeanour in the days after is anything to go by – delivered under pressure from a growing UKIP threat, and actually won by the UKIP national network that has been in place for years – all that time campaigning for withdrawal from the EU. Indeed, it appears that Cameron is routinely upbraided for what Remainers see as a dreadful error in allowing the referendum in the first place. So Waitling deploys several layers of deception, which shouldn’t need explanation to an astute reader. Instead, let’s concentrate on another line attributed to the actor:

The 27 countries of the EU are lining up against us as we knew they would. It is essential that Theresa May is given a strong hand to deal with the EU.

Notice the appearance of the word “strong”. This is the Tory Party talking point “Strong and stable”. Waitling wants Theresa May to have a “strong hand”, in the same way David Cameron wants it for her.

This “Strong and stable” talking point naturally features in the bumf of other Tory candidates. In Dagenham and Rainham, Tory Julie Marson as the following on her website:

We need a Conservative Government to be elected on 8th June 2017 to ensure that we have a strong and stable Government to deliver the best deal for the UK in negotiations with the EU.

Here’s the 2015 results from the constituency:

Labour             Jon Cruddas                 17,830 votes                41.4%
UKIP                Peter Harris                 12,850                          29.8
Tory                 Julie Marson                10,492                          24.4

From West Bromwich West, Tory Andrew Hardie had the following written about him:

He sees the Brexit negotiations as central to this, as the Prime Minister will need solid support behind her when she enters negotiations to gain the best possible result for the country.

The results from 2015:

Labour (Co-op)         Adrian Bailey              16,578 votes            47.3%
UKIP                          Graham Eardley          8,836                       25.2
Tory                            Paul Ratner                 8,365                        23.9

While this example reminds that there are many cases where it perhaps wouldn’t really matter if one party stood down for another, it serves to illustrate that the “Strong and stable” talking point is pervasive – and more importantly, it is flexible. It doesn’t need to be linked with leaving the EU explicitly; a candidate less happy with Brexit, and there are many – in fact, a majority of Tory MPs voted to remain (as reported here) – could just leave it to the electorate to make the association according to their expectations, and happily omit any overt commitment to enabling or supporting Brexit.

Hartlepool is a seat that UKIP has a great chance of winning, even with a Tory element competing for it too. The result at the 2015 election was:

Labour            Iain Wright                  14,076 votes              35.6%
UKIP              Phillip Broughton        11,052                         28
Tory               Richard Royal              8,256                           20.9

For this election, the Tories have parachuted in a man who lives in Buckingham, Carl Jackson. Consider this case, reader, as illustrative of the brutal reality. The Tories would risk handing the seat to Labour by parachuting a candidate into the constituency. This is how much they want to deny UKIP. The author couldn’t find much on this character, but did manage to discover that he’s claiming affinity with Hartlepudlians through Brexit:

 One thing is getting Brexit right. I campaigned for Brexit so I’m very much in step with 70% of Hartlepool residents.

It occurs to the author that Carl Jackson is a “Sodoff Baldrick” candidate – meaning that, like the character in Blackadder, who had a vegetable lodged in his gob throughout the hustings, is a front who isn’t meant to make much noise. In other words, he’s there to spoil against UKIP. Indeed, the gossip column of Establishment politics Order-Order.com, reported that the Tory group leader on Hartlepool Council formally requested UKIP stand their candidate down using spurious-looking polling data (otherwise known as gaslighting).

Bethan Sian Eddy looks as though she is another “Sodoff Baldrck” Tory spoiler. She is standing for the Rother Valley seat. The author can’t find anything on her apart from the following extract from a blog by a fellow by the name of Tim A Wells, who must be a local. He has nothing to say about her either:

Lives in Nuneaton.  A parachuted candidate.  Know nothing about him or her, can’t find anything when I google.  I understand they last stood in Nuneaton as a Conservative.

The situation in Rother Valley in 2015 looked like this:

Labour             Kevin Barron              20,501 votes            43.6%
UKIP                Allen Cowles               3,204                         28.1
Tory                 Gareth Streeter         10,945                       23.3

Tim A Wells says that Barron campaigned for Remain, although we should be careful what we claim about this character (at least if we do it without having convicting evidence) because he is one of the Rotherham MPs that Jane Collins, the UKIP MEP, owes damages to after a particular infamous case of slander and libel. The author wonders how much local appreciation of this business will come into play in this election, for the author is sure that local people have an ear to the ground in a way no distant analyst can – not to mention any High Court judge.

In the Rotherham constituency, the incumbent Labour MP is Sarah Champion – another Remainer according to our man on the ground. She is also one the MPs who brought suit against Jane Collins and so, again, the author wonders if there will be local sensitivities that will affect the outcome in an uncommon way. One thing is for certain, the Tories have very little to no chance of winning, as the 2015 results suggests:

Labour             Sarah Champion          19,860 votes                52.5%
UKIP                Jane Collins                 11,414                            30.2
Tory                 Sebastian Lowe           4,656                             12.3

Despite the long shot, the Tories have put up a man going by the name of James Howard Bellis to spoil against UKIP’s Allen Cowles, who could bring the fight very close given Rotherham’s specific circumstances. Now, the author could find nothing about James Howard Bellis – so another “Sodoff Baldrick”. He did, however, discover that a man going by the name of James Bellis ran for the Tories in Vauxhall in 2015.

The final example, for now is Heywood and Middleton. This was the 2015 result:

Labour             Liz McInnes                20,926 votes                43.1%
UKIP                John Bickley               15,627                            32.2
Tory                 Iain Gartside               9,268                             19.1

Once again, the Tories are way off winning the seat, and must have hubris up to the eyeballs if they imagine that the UKIP vote is going to collapse to such an extent as to put the Tories first over the finish line. This case really speaks to the author of the Tories deliberately spoiling against UKIP.

At least the Tory candidate, Christopher Clarkson, is a local man (and this explains his visibility in the local press?). He is reported as campaigning along the following lines:

If I am your MP, I will back Theresa May’s plan for Brexit and beyond – pushing for the best possible deal for Britain, with access to free trade with Europe, but without giving up control over our borders or our right to trade with other countries around the world.

However, I’m also clear that, if the EU won’t negotiate fairly with us, then no deal is better than a bad deal. People have voted for Brexit, not a half-measure.

This Tory candidate does indeed go beyond minimum requirements, because he talks about walking away from the EU without striking a deal – and on the surface this might look impressive to a Brexiteer. But it is just rhetoric. Whether the EU is fair or unfair depends on what the British Government will accept. The bottom line is that it doesn’t need to accept any deal – please read the many articles on FBEL that explain this. And yet, the British Government will accept many impositions, which will be framed as compromises, so that the UK stays in the EU in all but name – this too was predicted in many FBEL articles. The key piece of information in what Christopher Clarkson has to say is the commitment to Fake Brexit: “I will back Theresa May’s plan”.

If the reader would normally have voted UKIP in this 2017 election, but were tempted to vote Tory because of the “Strong and stable” hypnotism, don’t do it. Don’t worry if it causes a coalition where “labour will hold Brexit to ransom”. What is more important is forcing the LibLabCon relationship out into the open. And there really is nothing to lose. If the UK Government suddenly announces that there is no longer going to be a Brexit, what do you think is going to happen to its fake left-right control paradigm when a vast majority of EU-hating English all get extreme? The British Establishment doesn’t want to find out – that’s why it’s soft-soaping you. It sounds obvious, but in all the talk of cynical tactical voting the purism of voting on principle can be obscured. Electing UKIP MPs is about getting people into the House of Commons who genuinely want the country to leave the EU. These people are needed to provide a core around which any real pro-Brexit opposition to Fake Brexit will coagulate from other parties. If, as it turns out, the electorate fail to deliver UKIP MPs, it certainly won’t be the end of the game – although the Establishment will be declaring UKIP dead. The Tories are on course to being found out in their Fake Brexit, and the backlash will be dreadful. The Establishment is going to get what’s coming to it with regards the whole EU deception, but why on Earth do we need to wait any longer than necessary, or suffer any more heart ache before it does?

The intelligence media battleground: the Alt-Right

“Jeff C”, of the FreeRadioRevolution YouTube channel, is doing some very interesting work exposing the so-called Alt-Right media. Generally, the author finds YouTube to be idiotic, but has been listening to this particular media analyst and event sceptic for a while – although always in a guarded way. Media is an intelligence battle ground (and those of us who have a go soon find out). One should treat information as a fuller package: the data, and who is saying it. Then it can be fetched out later to make a bigger picture when the jigsaw allows.  The immediate beef that the author does have with Jeff C is his propensity for letting the blame for the world’s ills end with Zionism and Israel. This always invites the charge of anti-Semitism, and it’s a trap that is completely avoidable.

Jeff C postulates that what is loosely called “alternative media”, which is a huge and diverse genre of communication, is being concreted, in the public consciousness, into a limited grouping that is not representative across the board, but will nevertheless be identified as “alternative media”. In other words, someone is trying to create a perception that alternative media means one thing alone – and that thing is the Alt-Right – so that people can’t visualise “alternative media” outside of what is actually a false left-right paradigm. The installation of the Alt-Right, then, has in fact been the establishment of a “right-end” of a new political-media landscape – with the left being mainly corporate-media. The author must admit, the scheme has Globalist endeavour written all over it, and has indeed noticed that certain big names in big alternative media, who once warned consumers of “full spectrum dominance” (meaning one entity controlling left and right – which is indeed how things work) now likes to talk in terms of left versus right. The reference is to Infowars, but there are other main components, including Breitbart, and The Rebel Media – together with a new and recent blossoming of alt-right celebrities that have come out of nowhere during the Trump election campaign.

One doesn’t have to be very observant to perceive that a common feature of Alt-Right media is its virulent and tireless opposition to Islam. Now Islam has problems, this can’t be denied, and these problems need to be addressed. Indeed, they could be tackled easily – if western Government really wanted to. However, UK Government (let’s deal with our own case) prefers the state of tension that comes about through the continued incongruity of resolutely medieval Islam within a philosophical system that can’t accommodate it. In short, the UK Government needs the thorn of Islam in home territories in order to stoke support for foreign wars in Muslim countries. It really is a simple as all that. If people want to deal with Islam, they might start by refusing to react to provocation: the so-called attacks by Muslims which, when scrutinised beyond the corporate-media narrative, reveal themselves to be false flags; the psyops generated by intelligence agencies in their corporate-media arms and stories designed to stir hatred (the author believes the story about a Muslim who was in a pub and was accidently served pork could be a recent example). If people didn’t allow themselves to be wound up, the UK Government wouldn’t find Islam a very useful tool, and no one would notice it was a problem. However, when one looks at the history of Islam, and realises that expansion sometimes comes through its very backwardness (this will have to be explained in an FBEL “newsletter”), it cannot not be noticed. The solution is to deal with the British Government – to cut the head off the snake. That so many people don’t want to admit the real problem is a sign of a classic persecution system in operation.

Also in operation in Britain (and elsewhere, but we’ll stick with home) is the classic Hegelian Dialectic: the UK Government has created a problem with Islam, and it uses a reaction to it to further its agenda: to execute a “solution” to the problem. Well, war in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else one might care to mention is not the solution, and of course never fixing that which is broken means the Hegelian dynamic for war is never ending. But it does need feeding, and that is what the co-optioned “alternative media” – the Alt-Right – has been cultivated for. Now, Jeff C says that the ultimate benefactor is Israel, and thus the Alt-Right is “Zionist-controlled”. This outlook, in small alternative media in general, needs modification because it is not correct.

A proper and detailed examination of “Sionism” – it’s proper name – is planned in another future FBEL “newsletter”, but suffice it to say, the source of the phenomenon is British Israelism, and a Freemasonic concern for the capstone to be placed on the pyramid: symbolism for the completion of what is known as the Great Work (in fact, a Globalist socialist “utopia”). The building of the Temple of Sion is another metaphor for this – but somewhere along the way it developed a branch where it took on a literal dimension, and turned into physical Israel (which perhaps should be thought of as being more like another attempt at the Medieval Outremer than the Mosaic promised land). In short, Israel is a tool of some rich and powerful people – undoubtedly adherents of the Luciferian philosophy – who are using the Brotherhood network that is inherent to and has spawned from that belief system to create global circumstances that benefit them. This is what it basically boils down to, and the author can grasp it because he has invested time in, and understood William Cooper’s Mystery Babylon series; the reader is recommended to do the same.

But there is an opposing side to the paradigm that, on one flank, Israel occupies, and this is, of course, Islamic expansionism – a bug bear extraordinaire for the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right’s opposition to Islamic expansionism is the very essence of its anti-Islamism. So we clearly have a full spectrum dominance situation, and it cries out for scrutiny. Thus the author was inspired to unpack and re-examine intelligence revolving around, and regarding Breitbart/London.

The chief figure at the London version of Breitbart is Raheem Kassam, and what struck the author foremost, after a first perusal of Wikipedia entry for this fellow, was how Kassam had been “involved in an attempted foundation of the UK version of the Tea Party movement”. Now, this happened around 2010, and, frankly, it was an attempt by the Tories – the infamous Daniel Hannan being most prominent – to undermine UKIP. If Kassam was involved in this, then he’s off to a bad start in the author’s book. The following is also very interesting to anyone who suspects that ISIS is US/UK-intelligence led:  “[Kassam] attended the University of Westminster at the same time as the ISIS executioner known as ‘Jihadi John’, and has called his alma mater a ‘hot bed’ of fundamentalism”.

Wikipedia says that Kassam set up Breitbart/London with James Delingpole – who infamously called on his readers to vote for “my mate Dave” in the 2010 election (“they are… our least worst option), which was activity that the author categorizes alongside Hannan’s Tea Party as anti-UKIP. Indeed, the author was quick to notice that Breitbart/London, in its first outings, would have liked its audience to perceive UKIP as a right-wing little brother of the Tories – an idea that would have already been rejected by a majority in the party (UKIP described itself as being libertarian), but of course the Establishment will always try to dictate perceptions.

Other important data: the launch of Breitbart/London was in February 2014; Kassam became a UKIP voter in 2013 – according to his Wiki entry – and it wasn’t long after the launch of Breitbart – the 23rd October 2014 to be precise – that Raheem Kassam became Nigel Farage’s “senior aide” with his role described as being “to lead on advising Mr Farage in developing party messaging, strategy, fundraising and publicity.”

At the risk of making the reader wonder what this tangent has to do with anything (bear with it), before this appointment, in March 2013, Nigel Farage had a meeting with Rupert Murdoch, and the Telegraph speculated that the two talked about a political pact with the Tories at the 2015 election – as long as David Cameron stood down as leader of his party. Farage didn’t comment, and the Telegraph was probably engaged in diversionary tactics – or mischief. The author (who thought the meeting inappropriate) always wondered if there wasn’t any political tradecraft going on – Farage doing something in return for something that Murdoch wanted. Could it have been media related?

Well, things started to happen for UKIP. There was the big win at the European elections. And then there was the Douglas Carswell defection. This happened a week before another meeting between Farage and Murdoch in September 2014. According to Farage, Murdoch was “generally interested in hearing about the Carswell story”. Of course, there was the Great Cheat of 2015 (the general election), where UKIP had who-knows-many seats stolen off them on a night of dodgy counting, after which Kassam rejoined Breitbart. Notably the piece that announced the move foreshadowed the trouble that would be ahead for UKIP from these quarters…

Stephen K. Bannon, Executive Chairman of the Breitbart News Network said: “If UKIP’s Patrick O’Flynn thinks that he’s seen aggressive, Tea Party, American-style politics, he ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Kassam said, “It’s great to come home after a gruelling election campaign. I intend to give the left wing of UKIP — the people who tried to push tax raises and didn’t want to talk about immigration — the attention they deserve. I’m sure Louise Mensch will be delighted.”

It wasn’t long before there was indeed a so-called “Right vs Left”, Farage vs Carswell internal UKIP spat that seemed to live most vividly in the pages of Breitbart/London. That Breitbart/London loved to insert “right” and “left” into a party that was trying to swear off the concept always struck the author as oddly tenacious, and he has long held suspicions that infiltration of UKIP through the Carswell period had taken place at both ends to foment disruption throughout the party, although he feels that Farage had been played, rather than had intentionally run anti-UKIP disruption.

So, bringing things up to date, Kassam ran for the leadership of UKIP in 2016, and one of his campaign pledges was “to end the blanket ban on former members of groups like the English Defence League and BNP from being allowed to join the party.”

The PoliticsHome article continues:

Such a move could make the likes of Tommy Robinson, the controversial former English Defence League leader and friend of Mr Kassam, eligible for Ukip membership.

If you go to Breitbart and search for Tommy Robinson, you’ll find 7 result-pages worth of articles about him. Not least, there is an interview of Robinson – or Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, to give him his proper and full name – by Kassam himself, from which the following is taken:

[Robinson] also attacked the fascist elements that he claimed had infiltrated his former organisation, blasting the BNP and its former leader Nick Griffin, and remembering the first EDL march, where “we had placards that said… National Front go to hell.”

The author assumes (because he didn’t go to the trouble of watching the video) that what is being referred to in the text is Robinson’s EDL – with the implication given that it had started free of “far-right” intrusion. What this fails to convey is the fact that Robinson was himself briefly in the BNP, as he himself has freely admitted. Of course, Griffin had his own opinion of Robinson, and in a YouTube video, which can be viewed here, he appears to think that it was in fact Robinson who had been an infiltrator:

He came along, he’s been puffed up, hyped up by the Zionist backers, by the mass media, now by these fake moderate Muslims… they’re certainly fake, they’re either run by the British government, or they’re in fact hard liners wearing a soft mask – one way or another, yet again he’s a tool for someone else.

(The author finds it very interesting that Griffin’s hostility to Robinson drew a counter attack from the Establishment opinion-former, the Spectator, which attempted to ridicule crticism of Robinson as “Zionist puppet, Neocon fraud, and Wahhabist stooge”. This speaks volumes. Additionally, please note that the current BNP gives Robinson heroic treatment).

Well, we’ve already examined where the finger of blame should ultimately go when Zionism is evoked, and notice that Griffin talks about Muslim fundamentalists who pretend to be moderate, and who may or may not be controlled by British Government. Griffin, whether he understands it or not, is talking about the model for ultimate control in relation to Tommy Robinson and Muslims: the full spectrum dominance. In fact, there is rumour that the British so-called “far-right” has long been infiltrated, and is riddled with British intelligence for the purpose of tarring real national sovereignty movements with the same racist brush. The following is from the History of the BNP Wikipedia page:

[in 1993] the BNP proscribed membership of the group and claimed it had been infiltrated by MI5. In September 1995, Tyndall maintained that in response to the BNP’s victory in Millwall, C18 [Combat 18] had been ‘created’ by the State security services in order to wreck the BNP and its electoral support.

The author thinks that this is completely feasible, and in fact feels that, just to be safe, one should assume “Far-rightism” is an intelligence operation – in the UK it’s too idiotic to be anything else. And so this is why Raheem Kassam’s stated intention, while running for the leadership of UKIP, to open up the party for his “friend” Tommy Robinson and others of his ilk was of great concern. It should still be for anyone paying attention.

As we begin to tie things together, it should be no surprise to learn that Tommy Robinson, become a correspondent for The Rebel Media in February 2017. The author has also noticed that he does feature on Infowars quite an uncommon lot these days, appearing in interview with Paul Joseph Watson – another who coined the sarcasm “cultural enrichment” in conjunction with Muslim immigration into Europe, Britain and North America. And of course, Robinson continues to be receive coverage from Breitbart, which has also started pushing another character who should be treated with nothing but complete suspicion.

Anne Marie Waters is from Dublin (note, both of Tommy Robinson’s parents were Irish). She is somewhat at the centre of a new bit of trouble for UKIP because, as Paul Nuttall puts it, her views about Islam go “way above and beyond party policy”. Previous to her not being selected as a UKIP candidate for the 2017 election, there was a push by an element of UKIP (probably just a genuinely misguided one – people have been whipped into a frenzy after all) to make hers a prominent voice within the party. It seems that the UKIP leadership is cannier than its enemies give it credit for: the incursion failed, as it deserved to. In 2015, Waters tried to get selected as a Labour candidate, standing in the seat of Brighton Pavilion – she lost out, and anti-Muslim sentiment was also mooted as being a reason. At the time, she had very different feelings about UKIP:

I will undermine UKIP by addressing the issues they address and I will do so in plain English and listen respectfully to people’s concerns, no matter how taboo.

This alone, in the author’s view, is disqualifying. But then, additionally, one has to ask, is the anti-Islam thing coming from genuinely held ideas, or is it purely about undermining UKIP? Is it anti-UKIP activity? As we might by now have come to expect, Kassam weighed into the affair with a story headlined thusly: “If UKIP Ditches Anne Marie Waters, the Party Is Over”. In fact, he’d also been kicking up a stink when UKIP dropped Waters from their selection list for London Assembly candidates in 2016 – so we get the picture: Breitbart/London doesn’t like UKIP excluding an anti-Muslim agitator. Kassam presents the rejection of Waters as indicative of a failing UKIP leadership. The author suggests that, in the light of the evidence, and thanks to the revelation of the method, the reader should be able to see just exactly what is going on.

This brings us to something that is supposed to provide an overall summarising lesson, and it started as being quite the amazing coincidence. While the author was preparing this piece he started to see mention of something that he’d never seen before – to wit, Genie Energy Ltd.

Genie Energy has been granted oil exploratory rights in those parts in Syria that Israel captured in the 1967 war:

Last month Afek, an Israeli subsidiary of Genie Energy, a US oil company, announced that it had found considerable reserves of oil under the Golan. Genie’s chief geologist in Israel, Yuval Bartov, said the company believed the reservoir had the “potential of billions of barrels”.

International law experts say any proceeds from such a find in the Golan should revert to Syria, but Israel has so far indicated it will ignore its legal obligations.

Central to this enterprise, therefore, is an unstable Syria, as an article headlined “Israel exploits Syrian chaos to plan looting of Golan oil” explores (here), and central to an unstable Syria is the continued ISIS psyop, and Western-backed mercenary invasion.

That being said, we won’t just let it rest at “Israel exploits Syria”; who are the individuals behind it? Well, amongst the major shareholders of Genie Energy are a certain Lord Jacob Rothschild, and one Rupert Murdoch, and a fellow going by the name of Dick Cheney (see here and here). Investigating further, the author was pleasantly surprised to find out that Genie Energy’s logo is a lamp. Of course, this must be referring to Aladdin of the Arabian Nights – or perhaps ‘Alā’ ad-Dīn Muḥammad III, who was a leader of the medieval Nizari Ismailis, or the Order of Assassins – basically Mystery School adherents – who were intrinsically linked with the spread of the Crusader-era wave of Gnosticism into Europe via the various orders of monastic knight. This isn’t an idea that the author has invented. The reader should obtain a copy of the “Man who would be King” (John Huston’s film version is excellent) by Rudyard Kipling. Two Victorian Englishmen venture into “Kafiristan” to find that the High Priests are fellow Freemasons. The fiction represents real ideas, history, that the Brethren had, by the 19th century, cultivated about themselves. As it happens, we don’t have the space to go much further than that into the similarities between Islam and Christianity in terms of Luciferianism, but the Islamic Djinn, or Genie, is what one might refer to as a Lucifer Spirit in Freemasonic (Templar) mythology. He is a carrier of the fire of knowledge – hence the rays coming off the lamp in Genie Energy’s logo.

And so this Genie Energy company is a perfect emblem to remind us that the Islam vs West culture war is controlled from both ends by the same people, and in exactly the same way that all the full spectrum dominance scenarios covered in this article are. It’s the modus operandi of the people who rule, and rule exclusively for their own benefit. They won’t be stopped until people abandon their control systems, and stop buying into and being exploited by the fake confliction of deliberately exaggerated or fabricated divisions.

 

The Tory Fake Brexit Candidates; Part One

Remember the Tory 2015 battle bus? It has been alleged that it was a get-around whereby, coming under national expenses, it could be inserted into a constituency campaign without incurring a local overspend. Well, although it looks as if they are going to get away with this, it won’t do anything to dispel the notion people have about the lowdown sneakiness that the Tories, the Government’s right-hand puppet, would resort to to win an election. The issue was covered at FBEL recently; please read here and pay attention to the idea of the Government/Tory overlap, and decide for yourself just who is really pulling the strings (it isn’t Theresa May).

In 2017, the Tories are pretty sure that they are going to win the General Election, but they still need to turn their criminal cunning to the task of making sure that a lot of Tory/Government apparatchiks get elected to law-making capacity on the back of a delusion that lots of British people are currently suffering from – that being the idea that Theresa May and her pack of jackals will properly respond to the will of the British people as expressed in the 2016 EU Referendum.

Any modicum of investigation that the reader might want to do on his or own behalf will only confirm that the Tories are intent on delivering a Fake Brexit. Indeed, while the author was researching this article, he noticed that some Tory candidates don’t even mention Brexit in their publicity. Their main selling point is strength of a majority versus a coalition government. They really are leaving it for people to assume that they will deliver Brexit. What they are doing is like not giving a straight answer in court, and it’s for not being caught later in a perjury – but it’s lying by omission, and the author suspects that a tactic of omitting Brexit in candidate literature has come down as an order from the same people who gave you the Tory battle bus.

And why wouldn’t it? After all, all prospective Tory candidate selection lists have been dictated to local associations by the Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ). This is a change to the (supposedly) usual practice where the members at each constituency coal face do their own thing. There appears to have been relatively little Conservatroid (grassroots Tory membership) pushback to the “emergency rules” – which is not a surprise in the least to the author. What the new situation means is that the CCHQ can foist a placeman into a seat. Yes, the local association does, in most cases, get to choose a final candidate from a CCHQ-imposed list, but we all know how it would work in reality, don’t we? Pompous selection committee Chair gets phone call from CCHQ: “do what you can, eh, Medford, there’s a good chap?”; provincial heads get turned by Etonian schooling, spad to George or Dave career history – and Mrs Leadbeater insists; winks and nudges (and other things) between Roger and Gerald down at the lodge or at the tennis club – a favour owed by one legend-in-his-own lunchtime Fred Perry to another; et cetera, et cetera, and so on and so forth. Even for an astute child, which the author was at the time, how things worked in the hierarchy of Tory suburbia was pretty much spelled out in lots of seventies sitcoms, and nothing much has changed – not for lots of hereditary Tories, who really need to be rocked out of their time-warp-protective-bubble – and not only so far as joining the Liberal Democrats.

This article is hopefully going to be the first of a few looking at who is being selected by the Tories so that, if voters do choose to elect them, the author can say that they have been warned. What you’ll find again and again as we look at these people is that they come from the same political class. All but two in the lists below are in “strategic advice”, Public Relations & Public Affairs – much the same thing except one might just call the latter government propaganda, “communications”; and so they are experts at using psychology to exploit people. They “consult” or “advise”, so it’s safe to say that there is not a real wealth-creator to be found in the whole list. Most of the candidates that will feature in this article will have been special advisors to Ministers or connected to governmental departments; and with their ties to industry, they really do prove that corporate-government does not stem from the imagination of conspiracy theorists. It’s not difficult to understand that their own best interests would lie in the continuance of corporate-government (or fascism). Because they make careers of globalist “science” – the art of confidence trickery – we can tell the direction of these candidates from where we can see they are coming from. Some of them might believe that they want to represent their constituencies – even the ones who have been parachuted in (and the author will indicate where this has happened as far as he knows) – but their deployment and task is for to shore up Parliament against those it is meant to represent.

The first group of candidates are standing in constituencies where the Tories came behind Labour or the Lib Dems in 2015. In order to win this time, they will need to steal from that percentage of the electorate who voted UKIP last time. These candidates should serve as a warning to people who think that lending a UKIP vote for the sake of Brexit is a noble thing to do. The author’s advice is just don’t do it, in these cases or any other. Do not vote Tory under any circumstances.

In the following list the candidate’s name is followed by the constituency he or she has been selected to stand in, followed by some biographical information (which in most cases has been copied directly from the sources here, here, here and here).

James Wild; North Norfolk.

A former public affairs manager at T-Mobile, and account director at Hanover Communications (dealing in “reputation, communications and public affairs”). A one-time special adviser to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon

(Incidentally, it appears that Leave.eu’s dubious “Brexit Alliance” campaign has asked UKIP voters to back James Wild, and without really explaining Wild’s Brexit credentials – indicating that it is not to be trusted, and starts to resemble a sly way of creating a Tory majority. We’ll be looking at it in an upcoming article).

Mag Powell-Chandler; Birmingham Northfield.

One time special adviser of Business Secretary Greg Clarke; also worked as a special adviser in Downing Street under David Cameron

Anthony Calvert: Wakefield.

In public affairs; “Calvert Communications”

Clark Vasey: Workington.

Head of corporate affairs (Public Relations) for Fujitsu UK

Daniel Hamilton; Stockport.

FTI Consulting; previously worked as a senior lobbyist at Bell Pottinger (“political, government and public affairs consultancy services”).

Caroline Squire; Birmingham Edgbaston.

Previously in a political and regulatory team at the well-known City-based lobbying firm Finsbury (“provider of strategic communications in crisis, financial, public affairs, reputation building and digital”); was also a public affairs adviser at Sainsbury’s.

Joy Morrissey; Ealing Central and Acton.

Worked for MPs Will Quince and Angie Bray, and is with the Think Tank, Centre for Social Justice.

The next list is of candidates who have been selected to stand in seats that are extremely safe for the Tories.

Kemi Badenoch; Saffron Walden.

A parachutist who failed to get selected Hampstead and Kilburn. A current London Assembly member, and previously with the Spectator.

Alex Burghart; Brentwood and Ongar.

Parachutist. Mrs May’s social justice policy adviser.

Neil o’Brien; Harborough.

Parachutist. Advises the Prime Minister on the northern powerhouse and industrial strategy.

Bim Afolomi; Hitchen & Harpenden.

A parachutist on account of being a Northampton-based HSBC banker, old Etonian, and once worked for George Osborne

Vicky Ford; Chelmsford.

An MEP. On the record as voting Remain. Interestingly, Vicky Ford’s statement about why she voted Remain has been removed from the internet.

(Note, Stephen Parkinson, the Prime Minister’s political secretary, and Chris Brannigan, Number 10’s director of government relations who liaises with businesses – both men known to this site through “battle bus” fame – were also on short lists. Parkinson for Saffron Walden, and Brannigan for Aldershot. Obviously, Parkinson failed in his endeavour, but  FBEL will monitor any further attempts to beknight this character. No news can be found about Brannigan).

Finally, and perhaps as good as won, is the seat of City of Chester, where Labour hold a slender lead over the Tories. Standing in this is Will Gallagher who was a former special advisor of Transport Secretary Chris Grayling at the Ministry of Justice. Gallagher is originally from North Wales, but qualifies as being parachuted on the basis of being a onetime Ministry staffer.

To finish for the time being – and this could be a Richard Littlejohn “you couldn’t make it up” column footer – is the story of the selection of a candidate by Exeter Tory Association. At first there had been complaints about candidates being parachuted in. Eventually a James Taghdissian, who had been a candidate in 2015 for Cardiff West, was selected – at a meeting in the town’s Masonic Hall.

Apparently, Taghdissian also appears to work in Exeter (a lawyer), but this case reinforces an impression that the author has gained from the study that led to this article: CCHQ has probably always, from election to election – and in a far-ranging way – done its utmost to get a favourite from a cabal of the preferred parachuted in to a constituency to have them selected above local candidates who genuinely and rightly feel that they would be more suitable (and have had the support of local associations). Sometimes there might be a happy accident whereby the parachutist comes from the constituency, but he’s still imposed. The electorate, in its individual parts across the nation (and the author included), doesn’t notice the bigger picture of control, but it would indeed be naïve to think that the Establishment, whichever LibLabCon party it had had installed in office, would chance its retention of a grip on power to any randomness like local association candidate selections. Representation in Parliament, like so many other aspects of the freedom you are told you have, is only an illusion.

GE2017: a manoeuvre to deliver Fake Brexit; Part Two: the EU still rules

Let’s cut to the chase: the contention put forth by the author is that the General Election to be held on June 8th has been called to shore up Parliament for a continued fudge of the Britain’s exit from the EU, or to deliver a Fake Brexit†. Once again, the Establishment is relying on the seesaw political model that it has installed in the imaginations of the electorate. As such, people “understand” that when one side is elevated, the ascendency of the other side is always a mechanical likelihood, and perhaps even a physical certainty, and so the voter is fixated on raising or grounding one side or the other. In the meantime, behind the theatre that compels voters to choose a side (rather than a new course), there is a shadow government, the British Government in its fullest sense, that is always making sure that events proceed in the direction of its own agenda.

To keep this LibLabCon system alive, the parties have to appear to have political differences to maintain the illusion of a democratic choice, however in office these parties will implement the shadow government’s agenda because they are each but one aspect of the same multi-faced creature. As such, if the Tories maintain a minority government, or rule as part of a coalition, the LibLabCon will cooperate in spite of perceived party lines for the aforementioned common purpose. However, in such circumstances it would be difficult to maintain the impression of party distinction (which ultimately leads to the end of the grand deception). This is why the British Establishment has always preferred an election-winning party to have a very good majority.

As far as all this applies to a Parliament whose main task will be to give the impression of delivering Brexit to the electorate, there is a sub-component assignment to achieve. This is the marginalisation of any Tory MPs who would oppose Fake Brexit. And so Theresa May needs that big and foolproof majority, and what she desperately has to avoid is a Tory rebellion which leaves her Cabinet, and the main body of the Tory Parliamentary Party, working with Labour and the Lib Dems. This would not be good for optics – as previously explained. It also goes without saying that UKIP can’t be allowed to form a kernel of opposition around which dissenting Members of all parties can coalesce. And so, this is why ahead of the election, in order to try to create the desired Tory majority, the public are hearing about how Labour will deliver a “soft brexit”, but not about how the Tories would do exactly the same thing.  With talk of the Tories selecting staunch Remainers in winnable seats, it looks as if the assemblage of fake Brexiteers for Fake Brexit is being realised. When the author gets a better idea of the scale of this, there will be an article.

Moving on, and the focus in this particular series of articles is on how the General Election of 2017 is about manoeuvring to get the electorate to choose a Tory majority by deception. This article is going to look at revelatory material in the Great Repeal Bill White Paper, published without any fanfare at the end of March 2017, that confirms that the Tories aren’t going to deliver what people think they are; the Great Repeal Bill White Paper should be treated as an indicator of Tory intention regardless of what is in the party’s election manifesto.

Much has been made, in the last week or so, of Theresa May’s apparent back-sliding on Britain remaining a signatory – or not (more to the point) – to the ECHR. Incidentally, in case there’s any confusion, the ECHR refers to the European Convention of Human Rights, which established the European Court of Human Rights – and it is probably the court that most people think of when they come across the acronym. The difference matters hardly, because the court is for testing cases measured against the convention. The court is not an EU body, but the European Court of Justice, the EU’s supreme court, “refers to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU’s legal system” (from Wikipedia).

Back in 2016, just before Britons voted to Leave the EU, and before Theresa May had been selected to become Prime Minister, she had the following to say about the ECHR:

The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights…

So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.

However, May’s earlier forthrightness has now been retracted, as the following extract, from a very recent and unsurprisingly devious Telegraph article, demonstrates:

[Theresa May] was expected to write the commitment into the Conservative manifesto meaning that Britain would be committed to withdrawing [from the ECHR] by the end of the next parliament, in 2022.

However, senior Government figures have told The Telegraph they expect Mrs May to drop the commitment because it would be a major distraction for her Government from the Brexit negotiations.

The spin being given, as the reader can see, is that leaving the ECHR might be considered as something less important to worry about for now, and to be dealt with after 2022. It’s all incredibly disingenuous, – and that’s leaving aside the dishonesty in the article to imply that somehow Britain won’t be bound by the ECHR after 2022. The Great Repeal Bill White Paper reveals that the issue of leaving the ECHR is not a major distraction, because it isn’t even being considered:

2.22 The Charter is only one element of the UK’s human rights architecture. Many of the rights protected in the Charter are also found in other international instruments, notably the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but also UN and other international treaties too. The ECHR is an instrument of the Council of Europe, not of the EU. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU will not change the UK’s participation in the ECHR and there are no plans to withdraw from the ECHR.

Why has Theresa May had such a change of heart? Let the author suggest something: the EU Referendum result. The ECHR provides a basis for ECJ law. It would be hard then, would it not, to be subject to the ECJ if the convention that it upholds is not recognised? The point is this: the British Government plans to maintain the supremacy of European law as a protection for EU-derived law on the British statute books against what is arguably legitimate domestic law that contradicts it. It’s quite clear from reading the White Paper:

(From paragraph 2.14)

The Bill will provide that any question as to the meaning of EU-derived law will be determined in the UK courts by reference to the CJEU’s case law as it exists on the day we leave the EU.

EU-derived law will be the EU law that we are led to believe is “going to be converted” into UK law. And so…

2.20 If, after exit, a conflict arises between two pre-exit laws, one of which is an EU-derived law and the other not, then the EU-derived law will continue to take precedence over the other pre-exit law. Any other approach would change the law and create uncertainty as to its meaning. This approach will give coherence to the statute book, while putting Parliament back in control. Once the UK has left the EU, Parliament (and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures) will be able to change these laws wherever it is considered desirable.

It occurs to the author that Brexit doesn’t have to be like this. The British Government is clearly making decisions in line with an agenda to maintain compatibility with a foreign power – to the detriment of real independence (and thus it isn’t Brexit that we are seeing, it is yet more treason).

Additionally, the supremacy of the ECJ will be maintained by the preservation of EU-derived law. The following extract (from an article on an LSE website) explains so that the author doesn’t have to:

The ECJ may retain jurisdiction over Britain well after Brexit day. The degree is a sliding scale: the softer the Brexit, the greater the ECJ jurisdiction. This is because as long as a state reaps the benefits of EU membership, above all freedoms of movement, it must give up a portion of sovereign control over the governance of those benefits. This is why any transitional period, currently floated to last 3-5 years, would need to include ECJ competence.

It occurs to the author that the writer of this extract thinks that free movement into the UK is a benefit. And it further occurs that ECJ competence would be sustained as long as EU-derived law demanded it. That’s why we’re seeing stuff like the following out of Breitbart:

Brussels is expected to demand that EU citizens in the UK should keep all the rights they presently enjoy as part of the Brexit deal, thus keeping them subject to the ECJ.

Now, understandably, the reader is probably asking, how long would EU-derived law require ECJ competence. When the author looks at the following extract from paragraph 1.22 of the White Paper, he has to think that it would last as long as Parliament wanted it to:

 We will introduce an immigration bill so nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether already resident in the UK or moving from the EU, without Parliament’s approval. This is in line with our overall approach to the Great Repeal Bill – not to make major policy changes through or under the Bill, but to allow Parliament an opportunity to debate our future approach and give effect to that through separate bills. New legislation will be required to implement new policies or institutional arrangements that go beyond replicating current EU arrangements in UK law.

And also consider this:

2.7 Our approach of converting EU law into domestic law maximises certainty and stability while ensuring Parliament is sovereign. For the purposes of this paper we are calling this body of law ‘EU-derived law’. The Government considers that, unless and until domestic law is changed by legislators in the UK, legal rights and obligations in the UK should where possible be the same after we have left the EU as they were immediately before we left.

Of course, if the UK Parliament was set on maintaining coherence between Britain and a Global model being instituted in the rest of the world, so that there was no independent development for Britain – which is what it is doing, and which it will be doing if the Establishment manages yet again to deceive the sheeple at the upcoming election – then we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for that Parliament to get around to legislating the end of ECJ supremacy – unless the author is very much mistaken.

 

† What the author understands Fake Brexit to entail has emerged through own research, and can be traced in the following FBEL articles:

Fake Brexit and the Sleaford by-election; the British continue to be duped (link)
Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism; Part One (link)
Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism; Part Two: the Modern Industrial Strategy (link)
The Lords’ Amendment and pseudo-citizenship (link)
A Fake Brexit fait accompli to be punched home during Great Repeal? (link)
GE2017: a manoeuvre to deliver Fake Brexit; Part One: the resurrected “wasted vote” meme (link)

Just to show that the author is definitely on the right track with his analysis, consider how he has consistently told you that leaving the EU amounts to repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and that the Article 50 negotiations are superfluous (and in reality, about conceding by stealth to the EU). Look at the following paragraphs from the Great Repeal Bill White Paper (emphasis added), with the authors comments inserted after them:

1.11 The Article 50 process gives effect to the UK’s withdrawal as a matter of EU law. However, new primary legislation is needed to ensure that the domestic statute book reflects the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and to ensure an orderly transition from EU membership. We need to be in a position to repeal the ECA on the day we leave the EU.

Article 50 is EU law, but on the repeal of the ECA (to use the above abbreviation), EU law is not supreme – unless the Government insists upon it. Leaving the EU does not have to be subject to Article 50 negotiations – and that fact is reflected in the next paragraph:

1.20 The Government is confident that the UK can reach a positive agreement about our future relationship with the EU in the time available under Article 50. However, we have also been clear that no deal for the UK is better than a bad deal for the UK. The Great Repeal Bill would also support the scenario where the UK left the EU without a deal in place, by facilitating the creation of a complete and functioning statute book no longer reliant on EU membership.

This flat out admits that the Great Repeal Bill will anticipate the complete failure of Article 50 negotiations. It is recognition that no Article 50 deal is required. The UK can leave the EU without a deal, and this is because the UK’s exit from the EU is brought about solely by the repeal of the ECA. The next paragraph alludes to this fact:

2.3 As a first step, it is important to repeal the ECA to ensure there is maximum clarity as to the law that applies in the UK, and to reflect the fact that following the UK’s exit from the EU it will be UK law, not EU law, that is supreme. The Bill will repeal the ECA on the day we leave the EU.

But here, in this last paragraph, does the Government use the trickery that this Brexit process is riddled with. The last line implies that the repealing of the ECA is a consequence of leaving the EU – and this repeats the deception in the last line of Para 1.11. But this is not correct. What this line is telling you, albeit in a heavily and dishonestly disguised manner, is that the day on which the ECA is repealed will be the day the UK leaves the EU. The author has been proven.

 

GE2017: a manoeuvre to deliver Fake Brexit; Part One: the resurrected “wasted vote” meme

Not so long ago the Establishment would tell voters that their support for UKIP was wasted. Of course, this was at the same time that it was conceiving the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which was for protecting minority governments and coalitions in the context of an extra-LibLabCon challenge. Moreover, for a long time before the 2015 General Election, the Establishment’s think tanks signalled each other in corporate-media about a Grand Coalition between the Tories and Labour as a response to expected UKIP progress. In the end the Establishment opted for another solution, one that was more of its form (it doesn’t matter how much high-falutin public thinking it does, nor what fancy titles, nor what airs and graces it awards itself, it’s still populated by the criminally minded) which was to cheat and to steal who-knows-how-many Parliamentary seats from the UKIP electorate.

The point is, the Establishment told you that a vote for UKIP was a wasted vote because it was frightened of you voting for UKIP.

And its fear was proven in the end; UKIP – and no organisation other than UKIP – forced the referendum in which Britons then voted to leave the EU. A wasted vote? Of course not.

And yet, with a snap General Election called for June 8th, the author has already noticed, in comments sections in various places on the internet, the old myth and lie being resurrected. Astonishingly, and indicating the perpetual and contemptible frightened-sheep mentality of the British (it shouldn’t keep surprising the author as it does), these bleating noises are emerging in to the collective consciousness even without prompting from the Establishment; it’s just as if a pathetic nomadic and elements-bedeviled prehistoric people are recalling the genetic memory of a sabre-tooth tiger, or a great crocodile that no longer exists – because, and this memory is abandoned with the onset of ever new self-conjured imagined fears so that any progress is not capitalised upon, a band of their own number took it on and slew it. People are saying things like this: “I would vote for UKIP, but only the Tories will deliver Brexit”.

The next article in this series will deal with this delusion; the notion that the Tories will deliver Brexit is nothing but a fantasy. Suffice to say for the time being, the election of June 8th is about finally shooting the UKIP fox on one level, and another it is about stuffing the Commons with no-principle conservatroids (a know-nothing-know-it-all tribally slavish automaton whose idiocy is politically useful) who will do what they are told, and will marginalise those elements already extant in the Tory Westminster Party that might be provoked to opposition by the British Government during a critical time in the Nation’s history – and the sheeple, as we can see from above, are more than ready and willing to oblige.

In the meantime, we’re going to look at how the British Government has evidently been planning this election for a long time – as part, the author suspects, of the long and sneaky game of Fake Brexit  – and we’re going to point out that the crucial issue for voters to consider regarding this election isn’t about who they give power to, but from whom do they deny it; thus we realise the vital importance of as many people voting for UKIP as possible.

To begin, then, the following is an extract from an FBEL article written in November of last year:

It is not guaranteed, and actually unlikely, that Parliament will legislate to open the way to Brexit before a General Election. As for that contest, a meme is emerging whereby the crisis is seen as being beneficial for the Tories, and it was expressed again by Rees-Mogg:

“The Conservative Party has nothing to fear from a general election. I think we would win it quite comfortably and the electorate would very likely carry out a purge of pro-Europeans.”

If we look at some facts on the ground. Parliament is overwhelmingly pro-EU. This means that most Tories must be pro-EU, and indeed they are. ConservativeHome reported that they thought 185 Tory MPs voted for Remain, and 128 for Leave. How could a purge of “pro-Europeans” (notice the choice of language) happen without mass de-selection first, which isn’t going to happen. The leadership of the Tory Party is pro-EU (see the ConservativeHome article). What Rees-Mogg reveals is probably the hoped-for outcome of a scheme to exploit the crisis and have the Tories sit in that insulated-from-constitution Parliament pretending to be anti-EU and leading the electorate by the nose until it’s too late.

Despite what the reader might think, the British Government still hasn’t legislated to “open the way to Brexit”. Article 50 is a decoy – this site alone has pages and pages on it describing why this is the case, please find one here. What matters – and it’s all that matters – in the goings-on and workings of Parliament in order for the UK to leave the EU is the repealing of the European Communities Act 1972. So, take note: the author remarked in November 2016 that it would be likely that there would be an election before any real significant progress on leaving the EU had been made. And it’s really important to appreciate what this means. With this General Election in June, the electorate are being asked to judge the pie in a pie-making contest before it is baked and they have tasted of it. Now, the sneaky thing that the Tories have managed to pull off is this: because of the Article 50 deception, the electorate now thinks that they know what the Tory pie tastes like. On the contrary, only a few who have seen the Tories roll the pastry know what their pie will taste like – too many sticky fingers. As for baking, the Tories have not been any where near an oven.

Now it has to be said that Rees-Mogg is quite well known for his “euroscepticism” – not that the author ever fully buys into the truth of Tory “euroscepticism”, as the reader might be able to tell. However, the official narrative has it that Rees-Mogg would be one of those Tories that might be provoked into opposition by Theresa May. His sayings, now and in the past, would reflect an understanding the public would have of him as a “eurosceptic” – hence he would say that an election would return a pro-Brexit Tory Party. This doesn’t make it true, and the author doubted it very much, for the reason that de-selection of pro-EU MPs just wouldn’t happen, not even so much because of who was revealing the information, although it wasn’t lost on the author that Rees-Mogg, as an inadvertent conduit through which the idea of the election as a good thing could be dripped to the public, would also serve the purpose of jogging the “wasted UKIP vote” memory.

The important thing is this: the author was made suspicious about the use of an election to scupper Brexit even in November of 2016. He did make one obvious error, however, for it appears that a Tory selection process has been underway for some time. Yes indeed, for it was on February 1st that the Guido Fawkes gossip column (it’s actually even worse than that) made itself useful and reported that the Tories had started candidate selection for 44 “urban constituencies”, or Labour strongholds. The writer at GF would have his or her readers believe “A fascinating move that will help prepare the Tories either for a snap election or for an unprecedented assault on Labour seats in 2020…” Of course it wasn’t for 2020.

In addition, on March 16th the author saw a tweeted report that read as follows:

What do you think of suggestions that snap election is now on the cards? Lynton Crosby spotted around Conservative Party HQ.

The author retweeted this with his own comment:

If faced with 20-30 by-elections, quite likely Conservative Party HQ would prefer GE instead.

Now, the whole Tory election fraud is either going to be a wild card, or it’s already dealt with by the British Government – whichever, it wasn’t the prime motivation for the Establishment in having an election. This quote is to show the reader that in March the conditions and the signs were such that we perhaps should only have expected an election.

Then there was the defection out of UKIP by Douglas Carswell at the end of March. It has been reported that Carswell was going to get ejected from UKIP, and that this was the reason for his timing. However, right up to the point he left, Carswell was saying this: “I am 100 per cent Ukip and will be staying with Ukip”.

Additionally, senior Tories were cited as sources in parts of the corporate-media, and apparently saying that Carswell would be more useful to his old party by staying put and being disruptive in UKIP. Carswell could have stayed and been at the centre of a big fight about his membership, and that would have been a feast for the corporate-media, and an upset for all the people in UKIP who worry about bad media coverage – and there are many. Well, we’ve seen that the Tories were manoeuvring for an election in February, and it was the end of that month when these sorts of headlines emerged:

Ukip’s only MP Douglas Carswell in secret talks to rejoin Tories

To the author, this episode appears to have been about the recalling of an operative to other duties. Carswell’s mission in UKIP was over. It was by no means a success – after all, the British people had won the EU Referendum in the face of agitation and disruption and propaganda thrown at them by the Establishment, of which Carswell had been but a small part. Even so, the act of taking Carswell out of UKIP showed us that the British Government was very confident about what it wanted to do next.

And what is it, exactly, that the British Government wants to do? The answer is to defy the will of the British people with regards the EU, and their taking their country beyond the grasp of one particular set of gangsters in Brussels (and therefore effect a disempowering of British collaborators and vassals). Why do we know this? Because the British Government operates by a philosophy whereby it knows better than the people. If you doubt this, review the many years of being sucked ever further into the EU despite the opposition that finally made its voice heard in 2016. The British Government doesn’t want the UK to be an independent country for independent people, and the latest scheme to prevent this is a plan to fudge Brexit with a General Election. Moreover, it has evidently been plotting this scheme for quite a little while now, so although this election may well be “snap” for the public,  who don’t get much time to get used to the idea, it is not a new thing for the British Government – which has everyone, therefore, at a major disadvantage.

The way to combat the Establishment at this election, and prevent the British Government getting what it wants, is to vote UKIP.  Of course, when the author was reading “UKIP wasted vote” comments (as referred to at top of the page), he also saw objections to voting for UKIP on principle. These were variously as follows: UKIP is disorganised, UKIP has no leader figure, UKIP doesn’t have policies etc etc. Very briefly the author would respond like this: UKIP’s national grassroots network won the referendum; UKIP isn’t like the other parties, and when you’ve been in the party for a while, you see that UKIP is pushed not pulled; it has the one most important policy of any: independence. Even if UKIP were in complete disarray, it is absolutely crucial that is should be the target for votes because that would mean those votes weren’t being given to the LibLabCon, and in support of a scheme to deliver a fake Brexit. UKIP should get votes without trying. For it doesn’t matter if a Tory gets in to Parliament ahead of a Labour MP. It makes not a blind bit of difference because it would be more likely than not that this Tory candidate had been hand-selected by pro-EU Conservative HQ (more on this in the next article). Which means that it doesn’t even matter if UKIP stand down candidates to have “eurosceptic” Tory MPs elected. If those Tories are marginalised in their own Party, then they won’t make the slightest bit of difference. In fact, any MP in that situation would have more impact if he were in a recognisably oppositional party, and how many Tory MPs are going to leave the Tory Party when push comes to shove? I’ll tell you. None.

It’s not nearly as simple as all this, but it’s not far off the mark either: 17 million people voted for Brexit. If they all voted for the real Brexit party, UKIP, they’d get it. If half of them voted for UKIP, when all the calculations were done, they’d very likely still get it. If less people vote for UKIP than they did in 2015 – just as the manipulation coming out of Westminster is requiring of them – then they’ll only get Fake Brexit instead. It should be very simple.

US operation to remove Assad’s Russian protection ends in fabulous failure

Amongst the analysts, corporate-media or otherwise, there is still quite a lot of puzzlement about Trump’s attack on Shayrat airbase. Of course the state controlled apparatus is convinced that it was a response to a chemical weapons attack – or rather, it wants to convince its consumers that that was the purpose. This crowd, as certain as it is now will nevertheless grow confused. It is fearless of Russia on behalf of the readership that its masters want to have die in a war, and undoubtedly as the months go by, and Trump does nothing else to stand up to the “evil” Putin and depose the “dictator” Assad (which is what we should expect will happen unless certain circumstances change), then puzzlement – or perhaps frustration – will come. In the alternative media, in those parts where there is either denial for an agenda, or, less likely, denial by cognitive dissonance, the attack was a message to China, or a deliberate pulling of punches, or an attempt to destroy those chemical weapons that Assad had not yet surrendered (this last one an especially fanciful whopper from a certain competition-averse giant-of-an-organisation that punters have foolishly allowed to dominate alternative media). Naturally, there is an element that rushes to blame Israel (Trump was just pulled on a string), but there is also a sensible element of alternative media that can see that the act was disjointed, and erratic, coming out of nowhere – at least according to Trump’s genesis as a president – but also going to the same place. Just what is Trump’s strategy – does he even have one?

The answer is surely this (and people need to adjust to what it tells them about the MAGA President): the US Government – now under the stewardship of Trump, but still the same old lying and cheating crook – was hoping to lop the Syrian branch away from the protective Russian bough so that, isolated from its life-giving roots, it would wither up, dry and become tinder wood that Trump could throw on the dwindling PNAC bonfire. Unfortunately, for Trump and the US Government, it turned out that the axe wielded to perform the surgery wasn’t the sharpest tool in the box – which is not only a metaphor for a humiliating military failure, but also for the apparent stupidity of the people who planned the operation and who thought that getting the White Helmets to stage yet another catastrophe to blame on the Syrian Government, despite the uncommonly common knowledge about their particular role in the war against Assad, could fool or shame the Russians (indeed, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov made an especial post-attack reference to them as “infamous swindlers”).

There has been a big development since the attack on Khan Shaykhun, and the subsequent retaliatory cruise missile strike, was first dealt with at FBEL (read here). Previously the author agreed with a theory that the Russians had proffered, to wit a Syrian air plane had inadvertently hit an al-qaeda chemical store which had then created a dispersal of poison to kill a large number of civilians (70). More evidence, and events of the intervening period, have altered the author’s thinking, and not just on one aspect of the episode as a whole (as this article attests to). Thanks to the work of Professor Theodore Postol of MIT, it begins to look like the chemical agents at Khan Shaykhun had been released on the ground to coincide with a Syrian air attack with the intent to make it appear as if there had been an airborne chemical weapon assault.

That the aftermath of a Syrian air raid was a fabricated event provides a very neat explanation for the Trump administration’s rush to retaliation (as it does for the possibility that Trump dismissed evidence that didn’t support the action he wanted to take – as speculated upon here). A fabricated scene of barbaric savagery implicating Assad meant that there could be no delay in which to have an investigation to prove Syrian armed forces’ innocence. Most damingly, it also suggests there was Trump administration involvement with the creation of the pretext. Indeed, if a plan to alienate Russia from Syria was executed, as the author suspects it was, then it would have specifically required a horrific and inhuman element that would put pressure of Russia to distance itself from Syria – i.e. the supposed chemicals weapons attack. This “attack”, then, would indicate initial motivation coming from the US.

Furthermore, we can detect that something was going on in the coordinated rhetoric being used by the Trump administration; this constituted phase three of the plan by the author’s reckoning. For instance, this is what Trump’s National Security Advisor, Lt General McMaster said on 9th April during an appearance on Fox News:

Russia should ask themselves, what are we doing here? Why are we supporting this murderous regime that is committing mass murder of its own population and using the most heinous weapons available … Right now, I think everyone in the world sees Russia as part of the problem.

On the 11th April, the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, attending a meeting of foreign ministers from the Group of Seven industrialized nations, was reported as saying that Russia must “choose between aligning itself with the United States and other Western nations or Syrian President Bashar Assad, Iran and the militant group Hezbollah.” Here’s some more from Tillerson, from the same event:

We want to create a future for Syria that is stable and secure… Russia can be part of that future and play an important role or Russia can maintain its alliance with this group which we believe is not going to serve Russia’s interest longer term.

Then on April 12th, during a press conference after a meeting with Lavrov in Moscow, Tillerson said this:

The world’s two foremost nuclear powers cannot have this kind of relationship.

If the reader can detect a note of desperation in this last example, it shouldn’t be a surprise; by the time it was uttered, the Trump administration should have understood that Russia was not going to desert Syria.  Already, at the G7 meeting, the UK and US (although the prime mover on the surface was the UK) had failed to garner a united front to push for more sanctions against Russia. This was characterised as “leaving the US-UK plan to pressurise Vladimir Putin in tatters”, and it was very significant because this pressure was supposed to arm Tillerson when he met Lavrov in Moscow. Moreover, before the  G7 meeting (9th April), Boris Johnson’s withdrawal from his own Moscow appointment – apparently done in protest – had drawn scorn and mockery from Russia.

The final proof that Russia had not been hectored into submission was evidenced by a veto of a UN draft resolution introduced by the UK that assumed Syrian guilt, but was superficially about instigating an investigation so that Russia could be demonised if it did apply its veto. As he introduced this resolution, Matthew Rycroft, the former Private Secretary to Tony Blair and the sitting UK envoy (these people never stop being dangerous), applied the same tack as seen above, accusing Moscow of siding with “a murderous, barbaric criminal… rather than with their international peers.” Moscow vetoed the resolution all the same, with the Russian ambassador basically implying that Rycroft, who was addressed as if he were a child, was a trouble-making coward. Boris Johnson was suitably dismayed.

What is very clear amongst all of this is the psychology employed by the USA and the UK government(s) – one could call it a grand confidence trick – in order to try to get Russia to capitulate. The completeness of the failure of this conniving was represented by the united front shown by Russia, Iran and Syria when their respective foreign ministers met and demanded that the US carry out no more strikes on Syrian forces.

So, what had gone wrong for the US/UK – and most importantly, for Trump? The simple answer is that the Russian government now seemed to fully understand its own peril – this is shown in the way the Russians have started openly calling out the US and UK for their mendacity. It’s quite amusing, actually, that it’s at the very point that the US and UK are using the “we come in peace” promise to ferret out their enemy (a la “Mars Attacks!”) that the Russians have cottoned on to the fact that it would be more dangerous to give Syria up than not to.

Additionally, the Russians were undoubtedly encouraged by the cataclysmic failure of the second phase of the Trump administration’s grand plan – which was the cruise missile attack. While the first phase – the chemical weapons atrocity – and the third phase – the diplomatic confidence trick – was meant to shame and browbeat Russia, the second phase was meant to physically intimidate.

Before we get on to that failure, let’s look at how we can understand that the military strike and certain ramifications prove the plan that the author thinks was attempted. It all hinges on the way that Russia suspended the Memorandum of Understanding whereby it and the USA can operate militarily in Syria without any accidental or mistaken engagement.  The US must have anticipated that the Russians would react by cancelling the agreement – they would have been supremely arrogant and stupid if they had not accounted for it. This means that the loss of the accord as a consequence of the US attack didn’t matter for a US vision of Syria going into the future. And indeed the absence of a “deconfliction” accord would not have mattered if the Russians had decided to leave Syria hanging in the breeze. In addition to this, we have a good idea that, as things transpired, Rex Tillerson had to go to Lavrov and Putin with cap in hand to try to get the Memorandum reinstated. And we get a very good idea that the US have been stymied by the new circumstances via the comments of a spokesman for the US-led coalition operating in Syria:

You know, we have made adjustments to our operations to account for the, you know, the potential tensions that resulted from the strikes that were conducted because of the Syrian regime’s chemical attacks…  I’m just not going to be able to get into the day to day reporting of the status of deconfliction. We’re just not going to do that.

So, all this is would be very humiliating for the Trump administration, and it must surely be safe to say that Russian backbone was not anticipated. The people who launched the cruise missile strike on Syria, with much hubris and delusion, thought it would make the Russians keel over – and they certainly didn’t think they would be pleading with Lavrov and Putin so that they could cling on to their little foot hold.

Therefore, the Trump administration plan would have had to have been relying on a very impressive demonstration of fire power. But for some reason this did not materialise beyond the firing tubes on a couple of boats in the Mediterranean. The Russian Defence Ministry had this to say about the effectiveness of the 59 cruise missiles that were launched at Shayrat airbase:

If 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were not launched from hundreds of miles away, but instead dropped on Shayrat in one pile from air balloons, the effectiveness of such a ‘strike’ would be equal in cost (over $100mn) and strike accuracy.

Stop for a moment and appreciate the level of mockery being offered here. The Russian Ministry of Defence is saying that the US might as well have deployed World War I technology for all that was accomplished. To rub it in, the Russians also reminded of their own previous extremely effective cruise missile attacks on terrorists – one example written about here under the headline “Russia Is Really Just Showing Off in Syria at This Point”.

After the American missiles had been launched, the Russians had been quick to tell the world that only 23 of them had reached the Syrian airfield, and the fact that it was operational again only hours after the event seems to lend credence to the claim. Moreover, it now appears, as far as the author can see, that rumours of the base being evacuated ahead of the strike first appeared in American media – perhaps as early excuse making.

The following is an extract from a report that has a timestamp of just past midnight Eastern Time on 7th April – so on the Friday morning a few hours after the attack was launched, and it is extremely dodgy.

Dozens of Tomahawk missiles struck the air base near Homs, damaging runways, towers and traffic control buildings, a local resident and human rights activist living near the air base told ABC News via an interpreter.

It would certainly make sense for the US Government to start introducing elements into the story that would rationalise an ineffective mission as “shooting at an empty field” if that mission had indeed been the unmitigated disaster that the Russians claimed it had been. But look how early this rationalisation is being rolled out. It would suggest that the US Navy knew of its ignominy quite soon. The popular explanation in alternative media for any failure of these missiles is Russian electronic jamming technology. Conventional air defences might risk an escalation, but surely unconventional weapons would go unreported by the US military because it wouldn’t like to admit a very significant inferiority in capability that had very wide reaching implications.

What a shock, then, had been received by for Team America on the 6th April? We can well guess. Phase three of the plan – the diplomatic psychology – would already be dead in the water, and yet it was still executed; we should never underestimate the hubris of the globalist cabal in London and Washington. However, it wasn’t long before the Trump administration started to make noises that indicated a reversal of its position: “we’re not going into Syria” (although Assad was still very evil).

All in all, a spectacular failure, with buckets of humiliation collected along the way – but of course, all unfailingly and masterfully covered up by the arm of US and UK Intelligence that constitutes the corporate-media. However, any respite for Syria won by Trump’s set back will surely be temporary and fleeting. Trump is a globalist – a vampire, and his administration will want to suck on Syrian blood; expect more deceptions, more scheming, more mercenaries into Syria, more terrorism in the West. The Russians and their allies still have a long fight ahead of them.