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’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.

MOAB: mother of all betrayals

In Trump’s latest militaristic spasm, the nearest thing to a nuclear bomb that the US military possesses in its arsenal, a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, or the MOAB, costing a casual 16 million dollars apiece, was dropped on Afghanistan. When the ground stopped shaking, and when the local folks’ were able to hear again (the Afghan government said that civilians weren’t affected – naturally), it was discovered that 36 militants had been killed. Could this, then, make ISIS-K, or ISIS in “Khorasan”, the most expensive terrorists to kill ever, with each one “worth” nearly $450,000? This disproportionate blood/treasure equation was also spotted at the Guardian and declared to be “baffling”. Trying to be fair, though, the target of the bomb had been stated as being an underground complex of tunnels used as a military operations base – (funded for the Mujahedeen by the CIA, as it turns out). But does the reader see the flaw, and did he or she see it as quickly as the author did?

If these tunnels were only sheltering 36 fighters, they actually can’t as much a significant tactical target as the US military’s public relations made out. Indeed, the Nangarhar Offensive of 2016 reportedly all but cleared ISIS out of the province in which these tunnels are located – except for one district, which the group is apparently confined to. Delving deeper into the history of ISIS-K, or ISPK (Islamic State in Khorasan Province), it appears that they were originally well armed Pashtun “refugees” from Pakistan who the Afghan government welcomed “hoping to use them against Pakistan”, and to act as a bulwark against the Taleban. It looks for all the world as if these foreigners became political masters over the resident population without the Afghan government raising an eyebrow, or a finger to a trigger – this kind of invasion where the ruler of a country lets aliens reign over a portion of his territory is all very Biblical, and very odd for someone used to Western national boundaries. It certainly shows that the Afghan government can’t hold much sway in  Nangarhar province – and bear this in mind. As it happens, there was a pro-Taleban popular uprising, followed by a decisive ISIS-K counter offensive – and then the Afghan national armed forces got involved, i.e. the operations abovementioned. It might be worth knowing when considering this history that the Taleban proved consistent in its famous dedication to eradicating poppy cultivation and drug sales while holding power in Nangarhar.

The US bomb strike is very much the stroke of a combatant who doesn’t have the manpower to repress an enemy on the ground – and thus could be said to be an indicator of weakness. That being said, the ISIS-K appeared to have already been contained. There are two options, then, to choose from in terms of understanding the meaning of this strike. Firstly, it was an effort to destroy amenities that facilitate military control of the region – but then, from whom would the US be trying to deny this, the Taleban, the traditional poppy-crop burning power, or ISIS? Secondly, the strike could be empty of military significance, and for purely psychological purposes. After all, how does a public, without any access to the target, and having no other than the US or Afghan military’s say-so to go on, know that the bomb destroyed any underground labyrinth? Indeed, not very long after the strike, in some quarters of the corporate-media - as if sensing a need to be apologetic and excuse-making – the bombing started to get called a message to North Korea. If this is the case – if the bombing was indeed a message – then the author doesn’t think it was one directed at North Korea, but instead one intended for Trump’s domestic audience; a message felt needed after last week’s cruise missile debacle on Syria that went so badly wrong and came nowhere near accomplishing what the US government had high, and delusional, hopes for it to attain (that topic is the subject matter of an article to follow this one).

To put it all very succinctly, Trump appears to be reneging on promises of domestic policy that got him into office*, and big bombs, even dropped into wide open and empty regions of the Afghan mountains and the tundra wilderness of deepest central Asia , seem to have a power over a particular kind of American who would have voted for Trump, and who think (undoubtedly helped to that understanding by alternative-media whose disgrace is double because it promoted Trump on what are turning out to be lies) that dropping a bomb is exactly the right sort of thing an American President should do, so that in the minds of these people, the betrayal is worth putting up with, and the damage dealt by Trump a sacrifice worth making. If the reader has any doubts, regard the following text from a tweet that the author somewhat casually found by searching for the term “MOAB”; it’s bound not to be an isolated incident:

36 ISIS savages were killed. And zero civilians. #MOAB #MAGA



*There’s not much coverage of Trump’s backsliding in corporate-media, but look at this tweet by David Knight – a one-time Trump supporter, and a high profile one, who condemns the dangerous cultic, no questions asked support illustrated in the tweet text at the foot of the body of this article, and who – much to his credit – is going against the grain of his Infowars employer. He identifies three areas in which Trump’s betrayal has shown itself – the modified stance on China, thus globalism, is the one less obvious. Moreover, he actually calls out Trump’s militarism as a strategy of distraction.

Art of Deal: China can continue to screw America if Trump can bomb NK to distract voters from his failed #Obamacare repeal & tax reform Yeah


Update 15/04/2017:

Afghan officials are now saying many more ISIS fighters were killed by the MOAB. A spokesman for the Nangarhar provincial governor said: “We pulled out 90 dead bodies of fighters who lived underground in those tunnels and caves for years, operating and planning attack across the country.” If the information presented in this FBEL article is true – to wit, ISIS-K were considered confined to one district in Nangarhar – then this governorial spokesman is lying. This increase in the number of casualties should perhaps be considered a sign of sensitivity to the criticism and analysis that the bomb strike has elicited.

Did Trump dismiss and misrepresent intelligence that disproves Syrian chemical weapons attack narrative?

In recent days there has been some revelatory material published on the internet about the decision making process leading up to Trump’s Syrian “spasm” which resulted in a shower of cruise missiles hitting an airfield in Homs province last week. When this material is pieced together, it paints a picture of a pig-headed and arrogant Donald Trump knowing better (by TV?) than real-world intelligence gathering, and all for the petty sake of an upgrading of his standing with the US media. Now, Trump’s motivation as just stated could, of course, be interpretation, and if anyone has a preconceived idea about Trump’s vanity and stupidity, they might believe him capable of being influenced by neocon advice and pressure to come around to the thinking of the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham – not to mention Hillary Clinton. The author thinks that underestimation is a terrible mistake, and we shouldn’t make any excuses. In any case, Trump’s motivation is not really the important issue under discussion. The big news is that Trump appears to have been told that the incident at Khan Sheikhu was indeed due to a Syrian plane inadvertently striking a terrorist chemicals store (as the Russians said it was), but decided to ignore the advice, and worse than that – if it is true – may have down played or disguised the advice in a top-level meeting about US reprisals.

The trail starts with former CIA officer Ray McGovern, who appeared on RT and explained that his intelligence and military contacts (former colleagues) are convinced about the inadvertent Syrian airstrike scenario (see the video here). He expressed a desire that this truth find its way up to the President without hindrance by any who would like to see disruption “to get rid of Assad”.

We learnt a little bit more from Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, in a radio interview with Scott Horton (hear it here). The show notes are reproduced here so that the author can save time transcribing huge tracts (which Robert Parry’s “Trump’s Wag the Dog Moment” article does contain):

Philip Giraldi… says that “military and intelligence personnel,” “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a “sham,” instead endorsing the Russian narrative that Assad’s forces had bombed a storage facility. Giraldi’s intelligence sources are “astonished” about the government and media narrative and are considering going public out of concern over the danger of worse war there. Giraldi also observes that the Assad regime had no motive to do such a thing at this time.

Again, the certainty, of a pertinent section of the intelligence community, as to the blamelessness of the Syrians is reiterated – so much so that we are given to understand that people are being driven to some drastic measures. As dramatic as this all is, the most important quote of all from Giraldi is not mentioned in the above extract.  Giraldi said “Trump completely misrepresented what he already should have known, but maybe didn’t” – and this is appears to be the root of the deep concern held by certain intelligence and military personnel who are familiar with what is meant to be “very clear” intelligence.

So, the claim is that if Trump knew about the intelligence, then he misrepresented it. To whom he may have done this isn’t established in the Giraldi interview, but this might become apparent later. First of all, Trump’s knowledge of the intelligence – or not – must be established.

Colonel W. Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets), serving in the Department of Defense for many years. He wrote an article that appeared at Global Research that implied that Trump did know that intelligence gatherers were certain of the accidental chemicals release scenario. He wrote:

There are members of the U.S. military who were aware that this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack… the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

This is a confirmation of Giraldi’s information, and it starts to explain how military intelligence operatives would know the true nature of the Khan Sheikhu incident. The author infers that the US military knew about a terrorist store in the locality. Lang continues:

This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will eventually come out. Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with chemical weapons.

And so here is an implication that Donald Trump had been given information pertaining to the true situation at Khan Sheikhu – and he had rejected it. Notice that Lang expresses astonishment at Trump’s staff allowing him to proceed on the basis of faulty intelligence. Well, McMaster is characterised as an “old-line neocon” and so, if we go by stereotypes, we might not imagine that he would try very hard to stop Trump. Mattis has reportedly been at odds with Trump over the range of his power in the role.

As for Pompeo, there is a theory that he actually didn’t agree with Trump’s reaction to a briefing in which Pompeo had set out the true facts of the matter as discussed above. This is all explored in a number of articles by Robert Parry (the following quotes are all from “Where Was CIA’s Pompeo on Syria?” – to be found here), who noticed that Pompeo and other top intelligence officials were missing from a White House-released photo showing President Trump and advisers meeting at Trump’s estate in Mar-a-Lago after his decision to attack Syria with the 59-strong missile strike. The image chimed with information that Parry had had regarding a “discordant Pompeo-Trump meeting”.  This is what he writes:

A source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA’s belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier.

He continues:

As strange as the Trump administration has been in its early months, it was hard for me to believe that Trump would have listened to the CIA’s views and then shooed the director away from the larger meeting before launching a military strike against a country not threatening America.

Parry’s source could explain:

Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision.

The author infers from this that Trump not only may have rejected Pompeo’s briefing before, but then left him out of the top-level meeting (the larger meeting) to decide on reprisals against Syria. Moreover, according to the source:

The other officials [in the larger meerting] didn’t get the direct word from Pompeo but rather received a second-hand account from the President.

Could this be the misrepresentation referred to by Giraldi? If this is all true, and Parry says that it still remains uncertain that Trump didshunt.. Pompeo aside to eliminate an obstacle to his desire to launch the April 6 rocket attack”, we get a picture of Trump being quite a dangerous and conniving character – and for the sake of what? To win the support of the corporate-media (while risking his base; showing contempt for it, in fact)? Or is Trump just conforming to type to get what he wants, irrespective of any remembrance of any election pledge or regard for Constitution that might otherwise dissuade him?

Parry finishes his article thusly, and it provides a perfect note to end this one:

Such a dangerous deception more than anything else we’ve seen in the first two-plus months of the Trump administration would be grounds for impeachment – ignoring the opinion of the U.S. intelligence community so the President could carry out a politically popular (albeit illegal) missile strike that killed Syrians.


Trump’s neo-con spasm wasn’t a freak aberration; the old story of oil and gas

In an interview he gave this week on The Liberty Report, Ron Paul chuckled as he talked about the possibility of Bashar al-Assad ordering a chemical weapons strike on Syrian civilians. He chuckled because the idea was and remains ludicrous. The Syrian Government, Paul pointed out (and to paraphrase), has had winning momentum since the Russians became involved to repel the invasion of its territory, and was poised to win a peace deal in which Assad’s position could only be assailed by voters. Why on earth would he do something to snatch military defeat out of those particular jaws of victory? He wouldn’t do it, said Paul: there was zero chance that he would do it. Later Peter Ford, the ex-UK ambassador to Syria, was also perceptibly incredulous in every fibre of his being as he was interviewed by the BBC. It was inconceivable that Assad would be so “self-defeating” given his prospects.

The version of events of the 4th April that seem most plausible to the author have been given collectively by the Russians and Syrians: the latter bombed a facility being used by “rebels” to store chemicals. Previously, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, Idlib had been a centre for “produc[ing] toxic land mines intended for use in Syria and Iraq”. It’s well documented that chemical weapons are available to the forces ranged against the Syrian Government forces – in fact, for an example see the last time there was a huge potentially war-provoking furore when a chemical weapons attack was also attributed to Assad in 2013. That time (and this is famous), a UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that “testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters”.

On the other hand the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal has long since been surrendered and dismantled under supervision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). This inconvenience won’t be allowed to get in the way of a particular story that the world must be told; the American Vice President basically accused Russia of failing to “fulfill its obligation under a 2013 agreement to eliminate chemical weapons from Syria”. So it was Russia’s fault too, and Pence confirmed to many interested observers that the Trump Administration was all-in on a pivot to globalism even before the President ordered a cruise missile strike.

This is all the page space that we’re going to expend on pondering whether or not Assad was responsible for a gas attack – and all the space the idea deserves -  except to wrap the subject up and reinforce the only conclusion we can make using some words spoken in reaction to the US missile strike by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov; words which reminds that American disdain for the sovereignty of other countries has sunk to a new low under a president supposedly very concerned about the sovereignty of his own:

This time, they didn’t even care to provide any facts, just referred to some photos, speculated on the photos of kids yet again, and of course speculated on the testimony of various NGOs, including the infamous swindlers from the White Helmets, who stage different situations to provoke activities against the Syrian government.

(The observant amongst our readership might have noticed that Lavrov forgot to mention the bloke in Coventry, the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights). The hurry to strike, stemming from the absolutely single and primary reliance on emotive propaganda,  without even any pretence at due process (including the need for Congressional approval) is in itself evidence – and very strong evidence – that the Syrians did not intentionally attack Khan Sheikhoun with chemical weapons. What need is there for an investigation when it is not going to reassert your narrative (and instead undermine it)? Do the deed before an excuse to do it exists no more. The hurry also suggests that there was some pressing strategic issue, and we’ll come to that shortly.

There was some other interesting reaction from Russia and Syria, and actually this is much more important than whether or not Assad bombed his own people with chemical weapons. Even if Assad did order some heinous act, would military action in retaliation by a seemingly disinterested outsider be worth the risk that the Russians are now offering? (Perversely, if Syria were committing atrocities, and if that meant they wouldn’t enjoy the protection of Russia, then it would be easy to get at them. It’s because Syria and Russia are convinced of their being in the right that the situation is so dangerous). The following extracts are all from a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry (source). It was very interesting to read this document because it had everything in it – meaning through it the Russians made very clear their position concerning the US’ activity. It also helps an English reader appreciate the determination and clarity with which the Russians are approaching the menace of the Globalist West; one wonders if there would be so many Twitter Trigger Pullers in the UK and US if the Western corporate-media reported Russian communiqués directly, or at all. The block quotes are from the aforementioned text, and the author’s notes accompany them.

The US could not have failed to grasp the fact that the Syrian government troops did not use chemical weapons [in Khan Sheikhoun].

What this tells us is that the Russians think that the Americans know that their pretext for bombing is a crock of horse manure.

It is not the first time that the US chooses an irresponsible approach that aggravates problems the world is facing, and threatens international security.

The Russians are saying that they view the US as a persistent and aggressive threat to peace, and it doesn’t matter who the president is..

The very presence of military personnel from the US and other countries in Syria without consent from the Syrian government or a UN Security Council mandate is an egregious and obvious violation of international law that cannot be justified. While previous initiatives of this kind were presented as efforts to combat terrorism, now they are clearly an act of aggression against a sovereign Syria.

This is extremely interesting. The Russians are saying that the rationale that the US uses for breaking international law and having a military presence in Syria without the Syrian Government’s consent will no longer be tolerated. Any US presence in Syria is an act of aggression. There are other comments from the head of the Syrian armed forces (chiming with things said by Lavrov) which remind that the US isn’t just at criminal fault because of overt illegal military presence, but because of how its support of terrorists – previously known as al-qaeda – is now out in the open.

The attack makes the United States of America a “partner” of ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist organizations that have sought since day one of the unfair war on Syria to attack points of the Syrian army and the Syrian military bases.

So, rather than be the peacemaker that he told voters he would be to get voted into office, Donald Trump has exacerbated a big rift in American-Russian relations, and is at risk of cementing a unified international front (Russia, Iran and China being the main players) which is convinced that the USA is a threat to their territorial integrity and their very existence.

There is no doubt that the military action by the US is an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul, where the campaign carried out among others by US-led coalition has resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties and an escalating humanitarian disaster.

The author isn’t up to speed with the state of affairs in Mosul, but now is inspired to take a look. The knowledge we can extract just by comprehension of the statement is that the Russians think that the missile attack had nothing to do with the stated reason. Moreover, the Russians are letting it be known that a catastrophic mess in terms of human suffering caused by US military activities in Iraq are not going unnoticed, and US actions in Syria are the height of hypocrisy. Indeed, it’s quite possible the Russians are hinting at a charge of war crime: look closely, the accusation is clear; the US-led coalition has caused a humanitarian disaster.

It is obvious that the cruise missile attack was prepared in advance. Any expert understands that Washington’s decision on air strikes predates the Idlib events, which simply served as a pretext for a show of force.

What the Russians means here is that a cruise missile attack would require more preparation time than would have available had it been a reaction to the event of just two days previous. As such, we discover that Russia thinks that the US had been waiting for a pretext to attack Syria. A pertinent question to ask is when did this wait start?; was an opportunity to hit Syria being looked for while the Trump White House’s official position was for no regime change? This might imply that the “no-war” stance commonly attributed to the Trump administration (an election promise) had lately become purely for show – if it hadn’t always been that way.

The exact reason for the show of force seems to have already been mentioned – as a diversion. But are the Russians letting on about the true nature of this decoy? It turns out that ISIS launched a “powerful” offensive in the vicinity of the Shayrat base – only twenty miles away according to a Daily Express article. The target was a military base at Al-Furqlus; the Express cited pro-Syrian news site Al-Masdar. Some good journalism from the Express, but it would have been even better if it mentioned that Al-Furqlus is the site of a state gas company, and ISIS had been contending for it in 2015. This place has also been on the front of roaming battle lines in the fight for Palmyra. So this offensive must be the same one referred to in an RT article “to gain control of strategic oil areas near Palmyra”. The Governor of Homs had been cited by RT that the attack had been unsuccessful, but the Express article could not be so sure.

This information becomes extremely interesting when you know that of the 59 missiles launched at the Shayrat base, only 23 landed there. 36 disappeared. Russian reports claim not to have any information†. The author wonders if they had been fired to support the Al-Furqlus offensive – even the missiles fired at Shayrat would have had a part to play in this to fend off counter air cover (there is talk that the base had been evacuated). Was some urgent need to get ISIS into a place to deny the Syrian Government a supply of gas the real reason for the US “show of force”? Would the missile strike have been about getting bargaining chips as a possible peace settlement looms? Or about controlling territory for claiming ownership when the final buzzer sounds*; finding the chips lying where they fall, so to speak. Trump did always talk about how the US should have better exploited its Iraqi adventure and “taken the oil”. Maybe his off the cuff remark about getting another chance while addressing the CIA wasn’t a joke after all.

Finally, the Russian Foreign Ministry statement ends abruptly with this:

Russia suspends the Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the course of operations in Syria signed with the US.

This is quite serious, is it not? Obviously this means that it might not be so easy, and decidedly more dangerous, to meddle in Syria on another occasion – in fact, it might already affect US operations;  the author doesn’t have any information to tell if that would be true or to what extent. Apart from that, it tells us that the Russians think the US abused a concord between them, and we can imagine it would be very difficult for them to trust the Americans again.

This subject of the Memorandum of Understanding, which was in force at the time of the missile strike, brings us to something that must be mentioned: a rather fantastical sounding story very recently conceived by a certain (stubbornly) pro-Trump (and now pro-war) “news” organisation which would like you to believe that the missile strikes were designed to impress the Chinese leadership as it visited Trump in Washington – the reader may have heard about it. This story relies upon the idea that the US selectively withheld information about the strike from China, while it did inform Russia so that the event could go ahead without casualty to any Russians, and it would be a surprise for the Chinese – who would know that the Trump regime meant tough business in their dealings with them. We know that the USA informed Russia because the US Defense Department confirmed it in a statement. However, this notification would surely have been related to requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding‡ – and nothing to do with somehow plotting with the Russians to put the willies up the Chinese. We’ll leave it right there.


Updates 09/04/2017

* In a tweet thanking the military involved in the strike on Syria, and in a letter to Congress promising further action, Trump has since doubled down, and apparently is not ashamed that he has engaged in flagrantly naked aggression against Syria. We should now realise that his administration was serious when it talked of regime change in Syria, and thus any military activity by the US in concert with its proxy terrorist army will be to that end. There is a feeling abroad on the internet that Trump must be impeached.

The following items are sourced from the Saker’s “Syria US missile strike Naval Brief NB 05/17 April 08, 2017″, here.

† Claims are being made that the missing missiles may have been due to the electronic jamming wonder-technology that the Russians are rumoured to possess (we may have seen a demonstration of this in the infamous case of the USS Donald Cook).

‡ “Russia was ‘informed’ by the US, prior to the missile strike by being given a ‘deconfliction’ note.” This implies that notification was per Memorandum of Understanding requirements.


Westminster Bridge jump woman rescued (a week later), and Fire boat on drill shock

And so, as reported at FBEL in the previous article, since the Westminster Bridge incident – where we are told he sustained an injury to his foot/leg – Andrei Burnaz has been seen in public; and the author hopes that the reader is as glad as he was to see him looking in rude health. Unfortunately, there is still no news of Andreea Cristea, Andrei’s girlfriend, and the woman who we are told fell off of Westminster Bridge. Naturally, because a whole nation was encouraged to be touched by this couple’s predicament (what with their impending nuptials, and all), and to be concerned for her well being, FBEL too is wondering about her injuries, and the state of her recovery (especially since discovering she was in a coma – see abovementioned article). In fact, such was the unease that it has prompted a revisit to a topic initially broached in the first article at FBEL about the Westminster Bridge incident (which can be read here).

Let’s start with a few facts, and for many people the BBC is the authority (and not Fake News), so let us measure by its gauge. On an infographic published by that august body of integrity, it tells us that at 14:40:18, on the 22nd March 2017, the car supposedly driven by a man named “Masood” that “sped” northbound across Westminster Bridge “hits [a] group [of people] and [a] woman falls”. Fortunately this plunge is captured by a camera that, by the direction of its scope, must have been placed on the Millbank Tower* situated further west along the river.

The author was looking for tide timetables, and could only find one for Putney Bridge, which said that on the day of the incident, at the time stated above, the river was minutes away from the fullest extent of the low tide, meaning that the woman in the river would have been carried downstream, and to the location from whence she was eventually said to have been rescued. The author doesn’t have enough information to understand the strength of the current.

It seems that this woman was unconscious in the water pretty much from the start of her misadventure – a witness told RT (source) that he saw a body floating face down, and the impression he gives is that it was one of the first visual prompts he received to tell him that something abnormal had happened. We could definitely understand this state of affairs had she been struck by the vehicle, but the author previously concluded that the best explanation for what is shown in the footage is a person, we are told a woman, who had climbed over the rail, and then had leapt of her own accord. This conclusion was arrived at by noticing how the descent appears to begin after the car has driven past the point of its commencement, and how there is a horizontal force component in the trajectory of the woman as she plunges into the river below. It has to be said, the corporate-media has never committed to a definitive explanation, but instead when dealing with the matter often presents two options: either she was pushed by the car, or she leapt in to avoid it.

There is a clue in the video footage that confirms the time for the specific moment of the fall given by the BBC, and this is the appearance of the Thames Clipper apparently moving between the Westminster side of the river and the London Eye. The company timetable (the October 2016 version, now superseded from April 2017, but still available on the web) states that the westbound service had a 14:39 departure time for the Westminster Pier, and a 14:45 departure time at the London Eye pier, where the service terminated. The eastbound service had the same times at the same places, suggesting that the westbound turned into the eastbound to then depart from Bankside at 14:55. This could be important information, because in a film that purports to show the woman being rolled out of the river by a Fire Rescue vessel (please view it on the Mail page in which it is embedded: here), the Thames Clipper cannot be viewed at the London Eye pier. In other words, this rescue is taking place after 14:45, meaning by the time it is being recorded on film the woman has spent nearly 5 minutes in the water.

There were other images (also viewable on the abovementioned Mail article, as well as the first FBEL article) that showed that it was the City Cruises flag ship, Millennium Diamond, involved in mounting a rescue in the first instance. This was confirmed by the river cruise company in question:

Kyle Haughton, Managing Director at City Cruises said: ‘City Cruises’ Millennium Diamond was in the area of the incident at the time and worked alongside London’s emergency services to support in the rescue efforts of a woman in the water: once alerted by people on the bridge, the ship’s Captain reacted fast on spotting her, he halted the boat in order to hold her out of the water and stop her from being carried any further by the current.

‘The emergency services were called immediately and arrived within minutes to take over the rescue operation.

From this we discover that the Millennium Diamond spotted the woman first. The City Cruises timetable (Sep 2016 to May 2017) suggests that a boat was due to depart the London Eye pier at 14:50, so if the flagship of the fleet is used in such a routine way (rather than purely being a charter boat, which is the impression that the author gets), the timetable suggests that the boat came across the woman as it was adhering to this departure time. And in that case, it could be that the rescue did not begin until minutes or seconds approaching 14:50.

City Cruises reported that it took “minutes” for the Fire Rescue boat to arrive – which then appeared to take quite a lot of trouble to manoeuvre the woman into a scoop. Please look at the images of this in the Mail article. At first the Fire boat is parallel to the river bank – we can tell because of the white cruise boat in the background, which is on the Westminster side of the river. When we see the Fire boat crew positioning the woman into a scoop on the side of the vessel, it has been turned across the river so that it is perpendicular with the bank. In the first frame of the film, the boat is again parallel, and notably, the woman is in the scoop. The author has seen a report that the woman was finally retrieved from the water “just before 3pm”, and can well believe it from observing the palaver performed by the crew of the Fire service boat – which is discussed below.

From the still images already mentioned we can tell that the woman is unconscious at time of rescue, and written reports in corporate-media bear this out. This means that the woman may have spent nearly 20 minutes in the water, and may have been unconscious for all of that time. We can probably definitely say that she spent at least 5 to 10 minutes in the water until efforts were afoot to rescue her. We can very likely say that she spent a matter of minutes after that being unconscious while the Fire Rescue boat arrived. If the author has to be frank, he was surprised to hear that this woman had been taken out of the water alive. Indeed, the following is a caption from one of the pictures in the above linked-to Daily Mail article (emphasis added): “A fire services boat is launched to help a City Cruises crew rescue Ms Cristea’s body from the River Thames”. Then there’s also this in the main body of the article: “But despite her harrowing ordeal she managed to survive the attack after a City Cruises crew spotted her body floating downstream”.

Bear this in mind as we now look at the effectiveness of the rescue. Guidance to civilians for rescuing people from water talks about a necessity for a rescuer to enter the water to extract an unconscious victim. This seems to be intuitive as there would be an urgent requirement to perform CPR. Delays to doing this are crucial in terms of determining whether or not a victim suffers serious injury, and by what degree, and it occurs to the author that messing about with poles and scoops might not provide as timely an intervention as a man on a rope would. Having looked into similar cases before, the author very much suspects that company and government regulations adhere to the “stand-on-the-bank-let-them-drown” culture that seems to have been cultivated in the British emergency services these past 30 years. Be that as it may, there is a Lifeboat on the Thames, and it has a low deck so that crew can reach into the water to extract people from it. The author was also concerned to notice that when in the scoop, the woman’s head is drooping backwards and clearly not supported, and also wonders if it is feasible for the unconscious state of the woman to have been caused by an impact with the water whereby an injury was also sustained to the neck. Admittedly, the author can’t judge whether or not the equipment used for the “rescue” might not be adequate in terms avoiding the exacerbation of any injury, but can’t help but wonder, generally, if the equipment is actually meant for retrieving dead bodies.

It is important to notice that we don’t have an image of the woman being positioned exactly in the scoop, and thus there is no visual conformation that the object on the end of the poles in the still images is the body in the scoop in the film of her rescue. In the first frame of the film she is already in place, and seemingly not submerged but resting on top of the water. Furthermore, there is a point in the film where the camera operator, after zooming in on the body as it is lifted clear of the water, inexplicably pans away from the rescue attempt and the screen is filled with the Thames and some of the hull of the boat. Previous experience suggests that when, during coverage of events which count on sleight of hand to fool an audience, this “cameraman’s droop” occurs, then there is something going on that we’re not meant to see. The author did notice that there is something very odd with the hair on this rescued body. Long hair, when wet, sometimes sticks to the face, but in this case it all falls neatly and vertically downwards. Of course, the accidental way that hair falls when lifted out of water is no indicator of anything. But, the author also noticed that the hair doesn’t appear to hang down from the head in the same kind of abundance when the body was raised so that it shifted to lay on its side. While, the author remains reluctant to jump to an accusation that this Fire Rescue boat had a dummy in its scoop, and was filmed emulating a rescue – which could have occurred at any time; note the City Cruises vessel is not in the film footage – there is a crucial piece of information that now comes to light to tempt it (actually, the information was sitting in the corporate-media reports unnoticed by the author until now). This is from the same Daily Mail article from whence comes all the other material previously cited (again, note the tendency to refer to a body rather than a person):

The staff, on the Millennium Diamond pleasure boat, could not fish her body out of the water but thankfully managed to alert a fire service boat on a ‘realisation exercise’ nearby.

This is very significant. The Fire Rescue vessel was in the vicinity doing a drill. And so, it was presumably sent to the scene by a central controller that had received the alarm from the crew of the Millennium Diamond and, with proximity being the rationale for doing so, sent instead of any other vessel, including a Lifeboat, to deal with the object in the water, so that the civilian vessel could hand over to the authorities without thinking any more of it. Crucially for the conjurors who stage false flags, people observing this rescue through corporate-media reports could potentially be fed imagery of this boat on exercise and conflate it with the story of the rescue of the woman who had fallen from the bridge. It is a remote possibility, but it is much too early to declare it anything more than that.

In the meantime – and to finish – we’ll content ourselves with covering another story about a woman who was fished out of the Thames on the 29th March. This happened a few hours before there was going to be a commemoration of the “terror attack” of the week before. A Daily Mail article informs us that a Lifeboat (see above image) was on hand to extract the woman who would be “dealt with under the Mental Health Act” – interesing in itself. The report also tells us that the police were not treating the incident as suspicious, but that shouldn’t stop us from doing the same. Terror incidents are to be exploited by the Establishment as fully as possible, and this includes hitting the same nerve over again. And then sometimes there might be a need to tie up loose ends by encouraging the forging of associations in the public consciousness between the terror incident and what might seem to the alert and awake to be totally unrelated events. The very least this new incident can teach us is that, if they want to, the authorities can get the Lifeboat on scene at Westminster Bridge to whip someone out of the drink before there are any tears.


*Coincidentally, this footage appears to have been generated by the BBC, or it obtained some kind of right of ownership, because when other outlets have used it, the state-broadcaster receives an attribution. It appears to have been taken from the roof of Millbank Tower, and the author would like to know if the BBC has a camera permanently stationed there, or has to assign a cameraman to the location whenever it needs footage.

Burnaz revisits Westminster Bridge, Cristea “remains in a coma”

In the past week the corporate-media, from at least two of its orifices (as far as the author wanted to discover), ran stories that appeared at first glance to tell of how Andreea Cristea, and her boyfriend, Andrei Burnaz, posed together for pictures on Westminster Bridge the day before they supposedly became victims of the supposed terror attack that supposedly took place at the same location on 22/3/17. “Couple pose on Westminster Bridge just hours before terror attack that left girlfriend ‘critical’ after plunge into Thames” was a headline on the Mirror site on the 29th March. “Smiling snaps of Romanian woman and her boyfriend on Westminster bridge just hours before London terror attack that left her fighting for life”, said the Sun on the same day.

The reader must agree, this language appears to ask an audience to expect certain imagery – indeed, the Sun article even insinuates that the same certain imagery was taken on the very day of the “attack”. And yet on investigating the articles under the banners, one discovers that there is not one picture of Burnaz and Cristea together on the bridge. Granted, there is a photo of Burnaz, on his own, with the London Eye in the background – but for all we know that could have been taken at any time, and he could have been there, not for a holiday experience shared with a girlfriend, but rather like some of his countrymen before him (the Daily Star reported this, so follow the link at your own peril), to pick pockets, or run a Ball and Cup (shell game) scam on tourists (or even to sculpt a dog out of sand). But this is unfair; after the negative experiences people may have had, now, through Andrei, everyone should know that Romanians can be engineers and worthy immigrants too. There’s much more to a false-flag than being a way to persuade voters to acquiesce when Government makes particular, otherwise objectionable policy – for instance, there’s the opportunity that arises to take money from suckers as if candy from babies. Additionally, false-flags can be tools of social engineering by exploiting emotional responses, and in these days of Brexit, perhaps the Powers-That-Be think there are certain new attitudes that the sheeple need to be nudged into. Bear this in mind.

To continue: on perusing the abovementioned articles, one also discovers a photo (a “selfie”?) of Burnaz and Cristea together in what appears to be an underpass. What can the “journalists” who defecated this material into the world be thinking of as they try to pass it off as people posing on Westminster Bridge? That we’re all too stupid to grasp the attempt to deceive, perhaps? And why should these “journalists” be looking to deceive their audience, rather than convey facts to them? The answer is – and it’s always the same old answer – that the facts of the case are too damaging for the corporate-media to relate.

With suspicions thusly further aroused, the author was also very interested to see another development which can only be described as “festivities” that are being framed by corporate-media as being acts of defiance to terror. They seem to have culminated in a “thousand-strong” hand-linking across the Thames a week after the supposed terror incident. There was one particular story in the Mail about stuff that happened on and around Westminster Bridge a day after the incident. Notably, the said Mail article contained an image of a woman in a wedding dress, see below, and also the following image, accompanied with the caption “a couple makes a heart sign with their hands after the cordon was lifted on Westminster Bridge, the day after a terrorist attack rocked London”.

Who could it possibly be that we are being asked to recall by looking at these images?

Now, if you’ve been observing this sort of thing for any considerable amount of time, you might begin to figure out why we had previously been constantly reminded, at every possible opportunity, that Andrei Burnaz was to have proposed marriage to Andreea Cristea on the very day of the supposed terror incident. Romeo would have pledged his troth had Juliet not plunged into the Thames. The author wonders if we should have seen this great act of love publically performed as part of the aforementioned week-long celebration of the Churchillian-blitz-spirit, but for the fact that Cristea was discovered to have spent too long in the water to make a too speedy recovery (indeed, inspiring the throw away manner in which it is here introduced, a Sun article has now slyly announced that Cristea “remains in a coma” after her mishap – presumably the first that any of us has heard of such an important detail).

Notably, although Andrei Burnaz hasn’t been turned into a Morning TV minor celebrity, nor even appeared in the pages of the newspapers to tell his heart-rending version of events (as precedence might suggest he would be), he was literally wheeled out during the course of this pageant – and by Queen’s-Equerry or Army looking types, wearing lanyards with what looked like id badges on them, so that it looked for all the world as if he was being minded, and the Government was taking good care of him (incidentally, in what looks like the only statement coming from camp Burnaz-Cristea via family and since the Romanian Embassy stopped acting as spokesman for the couple, someone had this to say: “‘our family is so grateful for the first responders, the medical personnel and the assistance of the UK Government agencies”).

A cast on his left leg, and wearing the same cap so that we’d be certain to recognise him from the solitary photo in which he had so far appeared with Andreea, Burnaz looked suitably grim, and in one particular image, like he was grieving for someone he knew personally. We await developments…

In the next instalment in the FBEL investigation of the Westminster Bridge incident we take another, closer look at that plunge by Andreea, and the time she spent in the River Thames, and wonder, given the Sun’s propensity to show pictures of her in a bikini (citing a Facebook page the author can’t find), if she should have been a good enough swimmer, and what could have happened whereby she was rolled out of the water in a scoop as if a corpse.

The odd tale of the woman who fell from Westminster Bridge

When we have begun to have seen it all, the most unpredictable and surprising thing about a Ter-ror incident in the UK now must qualify as either one of the following possibilities: 1) Ex-EDL anti-Islam agitator Tommy Robinson apparently instantaneously on the scene with a budding millennial Youtube personality, only 4 or 5 videos into his career (just in time for the latest big opportunity), doing professional-looking pieces to camera for an “alt-right” channel, to tell everyone in no uncertain terms that they were at war with the Muslims (see criticism here), or 2) the apparent falling into the Thames, off of Westminster Bridge, by a woman from Romania, her then being scooped out of the river as if dead after a life-threatening delay, and the subsequent information of her being alive albeit very unwell. If we had been imaginative, we could probably have seen the first option coming a long whiles off. On the other hand, even if Ter-ror was to become a way of big city life, as the London Mayor insists it already has, and we were confronted on a daily basis by familiar turnings of legend (e.g. “the suspect was known to Mi5” and “spent some time in Saudi Arabia/Syria/Pakistan” and “was radicalised in prison/by hate-preacher so-and-so-also-linked-with-Mi5”), as the old narrative is chiselled out again and again, we might never in a million years have predicted the plight of Andreea Cristea.

If the reader does not know, there exists on the internet certain film (the author understands that it might have been released via corporate-media) showing Adrian/Khalid (take your own pick for a surname) attacking pedestrians in a 4×4 across Westminster Bridge. Andreea Cristea is said to have been the object that can be seen on this film plopping into the mud-coloured river much nearer to one of the bridge stanchions than you might have imagined she might, given that she started more central in the particular span of the bridge in which she had started her descent. This is the first thing you notice if you watch the footage a few times – she definitely describes one half of a parabola as she falls – meaning that horizontal force had been applied on leaving the bridge (otherwise she would have just dropped down and landed underneath her point of departure). There are two possible options to explain this: she pushed herself off the bridge, or she was nudged off by the vehicle.


1) The first time we see the falling object. It is left of centre in the red ring. The car is supposedly within the grey area, and has already passsed.
2) The object appears to begin to fall.
3) The object lands in the river. The trail of black is probably an issue with the resolution.

The author has seen it written in the corporate-media that the vehicle was motoring along at 35mph, and his own time/distance estimations and calculations approximate the same figure* (33mph). Without doing complex maths without any meaningful input to do it, let’s just say this is probably enough to ping and lift Andreea over the side of the bridge – and perhaps we should have expected to see more black specks being flicked into the air than we do see on the footage. However, there is an anomaly. Andreea doesn’t appear to start to fall until the vehicle has gone past her. This is actually hard to see when one zooms in on the frames. Even in the BBC version, where the progress of the attack is highlighted, the vehicle looks misty. Be that as it may, it does look like Andreea has potentially climbed over the side of the bridge to avoid the oncoming car, which is something that at least one other witness said that he had to resort to (a clip on Youtube, link to follow). The footage suggests that only after she has made herself “safe” does she take a fall – and this would be understandable, as hand grips and secure footings might not be found to suffice in a hurry. The footage does show that her descent looks surprisingly plumb as it straightens up – there doesn’t look like a lot of tumbling or flailing, but of course, the resolution is very low, and it could be that we just don’t see it. Obviously, if you are a thinking person and you are presented with this data, you start to ask if Andreea actually dived, or leapt into the river without having to. Why should she do that?

When one has been looking at this sort of thing for a while, one is suspicious that there will be a conjuring trick to spot. Look at the daddy of all false flags – 911. Lots of people were killed, but how? Not by airplanes, as we are meant to believe, but by placed charges (and something else at the Pentagon). Making this distinction enables us to contemplate the real culprits. So, when you look at the video of the Westminster Bridge attack, and the car being driven by “Adrian” appears very ghostly, and at times completely invisible, while all the other vehicles on the road are just not as phantom-like, then the natural and right thing to ask is are we seeing what we’re being told we’re seeing, or what we think we’re seeing? In short, is the offending car of the same reality shared by everything else in the film, or is it separate and added by modification of the film? Then the following might occur: if a vehicle didn’t plough into pedestrians on this video, but we were meant to be made to think it did, then someone leaping into the river would talk directly to our reasoning faculties to tell is that it must have. Don’t forget, we’re not talking about other knowledge we might have of the event: how other images seem to show injured people, and  how  witnesses have told of how these injuries were caused by a car. We are talking about what we can see with our own eyes in one particular film, and what those eyes are telling our brains. The one detail that we can see that suggests that pedestrians are being attacked by a man in a car is the “woman” “falling” of the bridge.

As it happens, Nick Kollerstrom reports (in the comments) acquaintances who themselves report being on the bridge at the time of the attack, and also of sustaining injuries. The author trusts this information, and it appears that there definitely was an attack on Westminster Bridge – but who did it? We’re being made to think that it was a radical Muslim with all the information we’re being given. But is the information trustworthy? After all, this is what “event cynicism” must be all about: sifting the trustworthy from the untrustworthy in the certain knowledge of corrupt and unscrupulous government that self-admittedly doesn’t let a good crisis go to waste.

So, in this seam of thinking, consider the apparent fact that a member of public managed to get into the parliamentary compound through front gates to attack a policeman. How likely is this, given armed guards bar the entrances? There are two possibilities that explain how such a thing could occur: 1) security stood down to make it possible, or 2) when the car crashed into a perimeter of the compound, this caused a diversion to enable a second person to get past the security. Now we are looking at two people being involved in the attack, and indeed there were initial reports of an accomplice. It’s a sure sign of something fishy when the authorities are satisfied with having nabbed (rubbed) only one of them – with the other one disappearing completely from history. It is an old sign of the other being a facilitator for the State.

Likewise, there are good reasons why the story of the falling woman doesn’t make sense. Firstly, consider some nonsense that appeared in the Daily Mail that looks like the typical sort of thing the Daily Mail does; i.e. builds the sort of padding into a narrative that no one else seems to discover (or over-eggs the pudding – source):

[Andreea’s] fiancé, engineer Andrei Burnaz, who celebrates his birthday tomorrow, suffered a knee injury but has been discharged from hospital…

One witness, bus driver Michael Adamou, 25, said he believed at least one woman had jumped into the Thames to escape.

‘The first thing I saw was the two people laying lifeless on the floor,’ he said.

‘I heard one guy come running behind me shouting his wife had jumped into the river to avoid getting knocked down.’

…The couple were due to meet a friend, retired surveyor Patrick Tracey, 64, from Derby, at the London Eye.

Mr Tracey said: ‘I realised that my friends were over at Westminster Abbey coming to meet me and I got a telephone call from him.

‘But I couldn’t hear anything because of the din… That was when he said he had lost Andreea. I don’t know how seriously hurt she is. He was injured on his leg. I imagine it’s the vehicle.’

What we see here is a technique that does two things: 1) establish that Andreea and her fiancé are real by quoting someone who claims to know them, and 2) establish confirmation of what happened to them through a witness on the ground. Haven’t these witnesses been ever so convenient?

But seriously? The bus driver claims that the man who lost his “wife” in the river ran behind the bus. With a wounded leg. Not likely, is it? Unfortunately, we can’t judge how likely it is that Andrei Burnaz, while he was being admitted into hospital – and somewhat reluctantly being taken from the scene, one should imagine -  would have the presence of mind to give their old pal a tinkle to let him know they couldn’t make it on account of his fiancé falling into the river.

The other aspect of the narrative that raises doubt about the story of Andreea is the matter of her “rescue”.  Consider the following extracts:

The couple were on the bridge at about 2.40pm when the terrorist waged his manic attack in the London tourist hotspot.

Mr Burnaz suffered a fractured foot during the attack as the pair walked in the direction of the London Eye.


Her boyfriend suffered a foot fracture. It’s understood she was rescued just before 3pm London time.


Putting aside the difference to the Mail version regarding the exact nature of Andrei’s injury, collectively this tells us that Andreea sent a long time in the water – too long, the author supposes, to come out of it alive, or in any shape whereby there could be a happy ending to a story. As far as that story does go, it was a pleasure boat that came about to intercept her against the tide. However, the crew could not get her out of the river (despite the Mail reporting this: “miraculously, the Romanian architect was plucked to safety by a passing cruise ship”). The pleasure boat was joined by a “nearby” fire and rescue boat. This is shown in images hooking an object in the water and manoeuvring it into a scoop. When this object is hoisted out of the water, it does tend to look like a body. But read this (from the Mail, link above):

The staff, on a City Cruises pleasure boat, could not get her out of the water but a nearby fire service boat came to her rescue.

A witness told the Sun: ‘They tried to fish her out with a pole but she was not responding. Then a rescue boat came and took her out.’

We should take this to mean that Andreea couldn’t help herself to be rescued by the City Cruises crew – that she was incapacitated; unconscious. Of course, it occurred to the author that what everyone was trying to receive had already become a corpse, or had already irretrievably started to drown to death.

The Fire dept rescue craft: moving the object into place for scooping.


What looks like a body in the scoop.


City Cruises had reached the object first, but had been unable to fish it out of the river.

Despite this, we have been told in the corporate-media previously cited here that Andreea is currently in a stable condition; after having had an operation to remove a clot, the main concern has been the damage to her lungs. And so, if we find it difficult to believe this information after seeing the images of her retrieval, the right and natural question to ask is did those pictures show Andreea being pulled out of the water, or someone, or something else? There are no answers to be had as yet. We wait to see what happens to Andreea – the reader must surely join the author in hoping that she recovers to be able to tell all for herself, although we might not hear anymore even then – “her family.. have asked for privacy as she recovers and [the Romanian embassy]… would not issue more statements on their behalf”. Notably, the fiancé Burnaz has been remarkably silent too. Usually the corporate-media likes to promote a survivor/witness into a kind of celebrity for a few months after this sort of thing. If we don’t see hide or hare of this story from hence forth, then we’ll renew the asking of the above question.

As it happens there was a drill that took place on the river on the Sunday ahead of the same week in which the Westminster Bridge incident happened. To wrap up, let’s pick a bone with regards Ter-ror drills as part of the overall security apparatus that perpetually gets so much taxpayer money poured into it. The truth is, the point of this sort of stuff, with the blank firing going on (or sound effects) – for the drill on the Thames involved mock terrorists hijacking one of the river’s pleasure boats, and the authorities engaging them in warfare – is to scare the sheeple. Evidence? Consider how the head of the operation says that Government had no specific intelligence about what a future terror attack would look like (source):

Commander BJ Harrington, head of the Met’s public order command, said “It’s important to point out that the exercise has not been designed in response to any specific threat. There’s no information that we have that we’re preparing for.

“Of course, we have seen a number of incidents abroad in the past few years: Nice, Berlin – we have seen different methodologies developing, and, of course, the river runs right through London, so why wouldn’t we prepare for that.”

Summarised: although we’ve noticed that the fashion in Ter-ror is to have someone (supposedly) mount a kerb and kill pedestrians, we’re actually going to practise to contend with something entirely different (because it’s not about fighting terrorism, it’s about scaring the sheeple). Yes, there has been a spate of man-in-car/truck violence against pedestrians, and this time, just to make sure that everyone knows it was Ter-ror to blame, this rampant 4×4 also crashed vaguely in the vicinity of parliament (so that Theresa May could find herself being bundled out of the building in cinematic thriller style) and a knife wielding man was somehow allowed to run into the grounds of the palace. The awful shame is that now, more money will be spent on security apparatus that evidently fails – and we’re talking about complete failure: the drill mentioned above even had an element where it had to rescue a person from the Thames, but in the real ter-ror attack, it couldn’t even do that properly. A private boat was first on scene to try to hook the fallen woman on board – but even then it could have already been too late. So much for Ter-ror drills and security apparatus.



*Four and half spans in 11 seconds. The main spans of the Westminster Bridge measure 37 m