SHOCK: District’s ‘critical thinking’ assignment led at least 50 students to conclude Holocaust never occurred
An eighth-grade English assignment that was meant to develop students’ critical thinking skills has, instead, created some 50 new Holocaust deniers.
In May, Rialto Unified School District leaders came under intense criticism after it was revealed the district’s roughly 2,000 eighth-grade students were given an in-class essay assignment in which they were asked to consider if the Holocaust was “an actual historical event” or if it might have been “a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.”
Students were directed to “research” the issue and take a position on it, supporting their conclusion with “textual evidence” – printouts of information culled from three websites, one of which was a Holocaust denial site.
When news of the assignment broke, Rialto Unified school officials attempted to soothe angry community members by stating that none of the students actually argued that the Holocaust did not occur.
But an investigation by Los Angeles Daily News proves otherwise.
The Los Angeles Daily News asked for and received copies of the student essays, and had staff members read through them. The staffers found “at least 50 essays (that) denied or doubted the Holocaust occurred.”
“Even many students who agreed the Holocaust occurred said there were good reasons to believe it had not or that elements of the historical record were actually hoaxes,” the Daily News reports.
The paper provides several chilling excerpts.
One student declared there was no way the Holocaust occurred because the Nazis “would have had to have killed 187 people an hour in order to kill 6 million people. Therefore it is impossible.”
Another flatly asserted that the Holocaust is “a profitable hoax made by the Jews to obtain land, money and power.”
One student concluded: “With the evidence that was given to me, it clearly was obvious” that the Holocaust never occurred “and I wouldn’t know why anyone would think otherwise.”
Several students based their skepticism on arguments put forth by discredited Holocaust denier Fred A. Leuchter, who has argued the Nazis never used gas chambers to kill Jews.
One student wrote that if the Nazis “would have even experimented these so called gas chambers the Nazis would have died also, so I do not believe in gas chambers.”
Another made a similar argument: “if gassing would have occurred everyone (nearby) would have died, because the floors had cracks in the floor and holes in the wall.”
Still another asserted “there is no significant cyanide traces in any of the alleged gas chambers. So any open minded person can easily be persuaded to believe that the gassings were a Hoax.”
Some students even used the “evidence” provided by their teachers to declare that “The Diary of Anne Frank” – the first-hand account of Nazi atrocities that students had been assigned to read earlier – was a fraud.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this assignment is that some Rialto teachers praised Holocaust denying students for their well-reasoned arguments, as determined by comments found on the student essays examined by Daily News staffers.
“You did well using the evidence to support your claim,” one teacher wrote to a student who had concluded the Holocaust “was a fake” and a “hoax.”
Even though it has now been exposed that several dozen Rialto students were turned into Holocaust deniers by this assignment, district officials are still refusing to identify the educators responsible for creating the lesson. Officials won’t even say whether or not the responsible parties have been – or will be – disciplined.
Rialto Unified officials have apologized for the assignment and pledge that it won’t be used again. The southern California district also attempted to undo some of the damage by sending its eighth-graders to the Museum of Tolerance.
But Neal Fialkow, a Pasadena attorney who has reviewed the students’ essays, is still troubled by the entire incident.
“When you took a look at the way the assignment is created and written, it causes all of these impressionable children to start their essays with ‘in my opinion, the Holocaust did exist,’” Fialkow told the Daily News. “So it puts in the seed of doubt.”
Privilege has its perks. For instance, the privilege enjoyed by Max Mosely, a former barrister and president of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile.
On Wednesday, A French court ordered Google to remove several embarrassing images of Mosely from its search engine. The images in question show the Formula One boss engaged in sadomasochistic acts during an orgy held in 2008. The now defunct British tabloid, News of the World, posted the images alongside an article describing the incident as a “sick Nazi orgy.”
“Although we initially thought it was the world’s zaniest April Fool’s joke, we were wrong,” Wes Siler wrote for the website Jolopink in March, 2008. “Sick and wrong. During the five-hour video, which the tabloid also has in possession… Mosley appears to be both dominated and submitting to the five hookers, who NOTW alleges were dressed both as Nazis and concentration camp prisoners. The 67-year-old, who has been married for 48 years, was at one point whipped so hard that the orgy had to be halted while a bandage was applied to stop his bleeding.”
A shamed Mosley, the youngest son of Sir Oswald Mosley, former leader of the British Union of Fascists, has admitted paying five women £2,500 ($4,000) for the escapade, but said the Nazi theme reported in the tabloids was off the mark. He earlier won a lawsuit against the tabloid in France and England.
Mr. Mosley may, however, have an affinity for all things Nazi. In 1936, his father married Diana Mitford in a ceremony in Germany attended by Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler. His parents were interned during the Second World War for collaborating with the Nazis.
It will be impossible for Google to remove the images from the internet as ordered by a French court. Although it can delete links from its search engine listings, it will prove virtually impossible to prevent links pointing to the images from reappearing.
Google released a statement saying in order to follow the court order it will have to engineer a software filter to find and remove new links to the naughty images.
Bid to keep No10 files secret halts Iraq report: Cabinet Secretary blocks attempt to declassify 130 conversations between Blair, Bush and Brown
- MPs last night voiced fears that the Chilcot Inquiry may never conclude
The long-awaited report into how Britain went to war in Iraq has been delayed indefinitely by a row over new transcripts of conversations between Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and George W. Bush.
Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot has revealed that he has asked for ‘more than 130 records of conversations’ between the three men to be declassified.
His demands have been blocked by Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, Britain’s most senior civil servant.
In a letter released on the inquiry website, Sir John says the snarl-up has led him to delay the ‘Maxwellisation process’, which requires him to inform senior politicians and civil servants if he plans to criticise them in his final report.
MPs last night voiced fears that the inquiry may never conclude and that it is ‘beyond a joke’ to let the costs to taxpayers spiral further than the £7.4million it has already cost.
The Chilcot Inquiry was established by Mr Brown when he was prime minister.
But senior civil servants are blocking the publication of private communications between the two Labour premiers and the former US president on the ground that it might prejudice future relations between leaders.
The hold-up also involves whether to make public ‘25 notes from Mr Blair to President Bush’ and ‘some 200 Cabinet-level discussions’, Sir John said.
In his letter, Sir John said he and his colleagues ‘have agreed that the inquiry should not issue those provisional criticisms without a clear understanding of what supporting evidence will be agreed for publication.
‘The inquiry has therefore contacted the relevant individuals to notify them that the Maxwellisation timetable has been delayed and that we are not yet able to confirm when we will be in a position to provide them with the material they expect.’
In a letter of reply to Sir John, David Cameron said he was ‘aware of the scale of the task declassification has presented to a number of government departments’.
He added: ‘I appreciate consideration of the disclosure requests for the remaining sensitive categories of information must be handled sensitively and carefully but I hope that consideration of the final sets of papers can be concluded as soon as possible.’
A senior Tory MP, who has taken a close interest in the Chilcot Inquiry, said: ‘You do wonder whether the Chilcot Inquiry will ever report.
‘It gets to the point where you wonder if there will be any point publishing the conclusions.’
Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid Cymru leader in the Commons, said it was ‘absolutely unacceptable’ for the documents not to be published.
He said: ‘This is preposterous now – it has got beyond a joke.
‘It would be in everyone’s best interests for all the available evidence to see the light of day so the inquiry can come to a measured and proper conclusion on all the available relevant evidence.’
Neither Mr Brown nor Mr Blair was prepared to comment, but allies of Mr Brown said he had no objection to the publication of the documents.
DOMINIC SANDBROOK asks: So what is it that Blair has to hide?
Increasing numbers of people – especially the young – believe our political system is a closed circle: secretive, impenetrable and corrupt.
If you want to know why so many feel alienated, just take a look at a story that speaks volumes about the unaccountability of our political masters.
Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into Britain’s participation in the invasion of Iraq, it turns out, has ground to a halt.
The inquiry wants to release the details of some 25 notes that Tony Blair, who was prime minister during the 2003 invasion, sent to the then US president George W. Bush.
He also wants to publish 130 conversations that Blair and his successor, Gordon Brown, had with the American president, as well as information relating to 200 Cabinet discussions about the invasion and its aftermath.
Quite understandable, you might think. For such an inquiry must shed light on these murky matters. Why bother having one at all if you are going to suppress vital information?
But the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, has dug in his heels and is refusing to release the documents.
As a result, even though Chilcot and his team have seen them, and have drawn on them when writing their report, you and I are barred from reading them. Thus there is no way for us to weigh up Chilcot’s conclusions, which means that whatever he may decide, the origins of the Iraq War will probably remain as controversial as ever.
Alas, none of this is very surprising.
Whitehall has long been engulfed in a culture of secrecy, and the lamentable urge to block, obfuscate and cover up is deeply engrained in our political culture.
At one level, all this merely confirms the general pointlessness of public inquiries.
The Chilcot operation is in fact the third inquiry into the Iraq imbroglio, following the Hutton and Butler whitewashes. As usual with inquiries of this kind, it has ballooned into a grotesque and vastly expensive circus, and is unlikely to shed any new light or to change anybody’s opinion.
When Gordon Brown set it up, he promised it would take about a year. That was in June 2009. We are now in November 2013, and still we are no nearer to discovering the truth.
As for the costs, they have so far come to a whopping £7,474,400 – with plenty more to come.
The astonishing thing is that, by the standards of public inquiries, Chilcot has not proved especially expensive. The Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday took 12 years and cost a staggering £200million.
It would have been cheaper just to apologise and give the bereaved families £10million each. But no: the Government thought it was better to give the money to the legal profession instead.
Yet there is something particularly galling about the Chilcot impasse, because the invasion of Iraq left a permanent stain on our political culture. Although it is now more than ten years since Tony Blair sent in British troops, the scars of the conflict have yet to heal.
Iraq itself is still cursed by regular car bombings, while 179 British families are still mourning their fallen sons and daughters.
A decade on, it is clear that the decision to invade was a defining moment, not merely for Mr Blair’s premiership, but for a generation’s attitude to politics. Quite apart from its other costs, it fundamentally altered the way many people thought about the political process, and not for the better.
While some two million people marched against the war, many more were profoundly disturbed by the suspicion that our government had lied and dissembled in order to please the Americans.
For young people in particular, the controversy seemed to confirm that politics was inherently corrupt.
In this context, the ludicrous farce of the Chilcot Inquiry is even more damaging. To many people, it will inevitably appear that the Whitehall establishment is protecting its own.
The more you hide, the more people suspect and fear you – and the more you play into the hands of juvenile nihilists who prattle about revolution without really understanding what it means
My own suspicion is that these messages that the Cabinet Secretary won’t make public will probably turn out to be less exciting than we think. Much as we love to believe in stunning revelations and smoking guns, the reality is usually muddier and more mundane.
But as the popularity of conspiracy theories suggests, people always like to believe the worst.
What, they will wonder, do Blair and Brown have to hide? What did they tell President Bush? What promises did they make, and what secrets are lurking in the documents?
The great irony, of course, is that the Chilcot Inquiry was meant to shed light on the dark corners of British foreign policy, to heal the wounds of the Iraq invasion, and to restore public faith in the political process.
Yet all of this is so unnecessary. For decades, successive governments have come to power promising to roll back the culture of secrecy, yet none of them has done it.
Why the mandarins and their political patrons are so frightened of openness is simply beyond me.
Their American friends, for example, are much quicker and keener to open their archives and to air their dirty linen in public, and it never does them any harm.
Truth and openness are the building blocks of any successful democratic society. The more you hide, the more people suspect and fear you – and the more you play into the hands of juvenile nihilists who prattle about revolution without really understanding what it means.
It was President Richard Nixon, of all people, who put it best. ‘What really hurts in matters of this sort,’ he told an aide during the Watergate scandal, ‘is not the fact that they occur… What really hurts is if you try to cover it up.’
Alas for Nixon, he did not take his own advice. But our politicians really ought to learn the appropriate lesson.
When John Key wants to duck for cover, he sets up a Government inquiry to bury an embarrassing issue.
As a young MP in the British House of Commons in the late 1970s, I rapidly became aware that half the political stories in Fleet Street originated with the Press Association’s indefatigable political correspondent, Chris Moncrieff.
I was regularly buttonholed by Chris as I crossed the Members’ Lobby and asked to comment on the latest mess made by the government. “So you’re calling for an inquiry?” he would demand, pen poised above notebook. I would say “yes, I suppose so” and there was the next day’s headline – “Opposition demands inquiry”.
Calling for an inquiry into a matter that embarrasses the government is always a favourite Opposition tactic – in New Zealand as in the UK. But, in New Zealand at least, the tables have recently been turned. Here, it is a Government keen to run for cover that increasingly resorts to setting up an inquiry as a means of escape.
It is more and more often the case that, under pressure, John Key will kick for touch by setting up a Government (formerly called a ministerial) inquiry.
Leaks of a report about the GCSB, the Government’s security agency? A Government inquiry will calm things down. The long, drawn-out and hugely expensive mess made by Novopay of paying teachers’ salaries? An inquiry will take it out of the headlines.
A government inquiry is a strange beast. It operates in practice only with the approval of the Prime Minister but under the aegis of the minister whose difficulties are the subject of investigation. The person conducting the inquiry will be selected by the minister and will be someone who can be trusted to stick to the brief and not to embarrass the government unduly.
Some ministers, it seems, have a greater predilection to setting up such inquiries, perhaps reflecting a greater tendency to get into trouble. Murray McCully, for example, has been responsible for two inquiries into his department over the last year or so – the first into the leaks concerning his proposed restructuring of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the second into the bungling of the diplomatic immunity claim by a Malaysian diplomat.
Government or ministerial inquiries are often described as the “poor cousins” of the inquiry family. They provide the illusion that something serious is being done to address an important issue, but all too often they are merely a means of burying an issue far from public scrutiny.
The reports themselves have often been unsatisfactory. The inquiry into the Mfat leaks provided no answers, other than to imply without any justification that two senior and well-respected officials had been responsible. And in the case of the leaked GCSB report, the inquiry failed to address, let alone answer, the question that most people wanted answered – did Peter Dunne leak the report to his journalist friend?
Yet in both cases, the setting up of the inquiry served its – or at least the Government’s – purpose; it took the heat off the minister involved and directed it somewhere else, usually on to a hapless official or two. We can almost write the report now of the inquiry into the handling of the Malaysian diplomat; it will find that the fault lay with officials and that ministers were blameless.
These manoeuvrings might be dismissed as merely the stuff of party politics, but there is a more serious point involved. It has, until recently, been a primary feature of parliamentary government that ministers are accountable to Parliament for the policies and actions of the departments for which they are responsible.
Today, however, ministers duck out from under any such responsibility. Murray McCully, for example, can assert – as he did in respect of the calamitous restructuring proposals for Mfat – that he had no responsibility for the plan that was eventually abandoned. His responsibility, it seems, was limited to setting up an inquiry into who had leaked it. Parliament, and ministerial responsibility, did not get a look in.
The trend towards using inquiries to cover tracks and save embarrassment has reached ludicrous proportions, however, with the Malaysian diplomat case.
John Key, recognising the bungling that had taken place, promised that he would apologise to the unfortunate victim of the alleged assault by the diplomat, if only he knew who she was. It now seems that he had no intention of actually doing so, and had never expected that she would have the courage to reveal her identity,
We now understand that an apology is not required, because the matter was not important enough, and that it is in any case inappropriate because the matter is the subject of an inquiry. The benefits of such an inquiry apparently have no limits. They extend even to saving the Prime Minister from having to apologise, not just to the victim, but for not keeping his word.
Bryan Gould is a former UK Labour MP and former vice-chancellor of Waikato University.
Here is the situation,
I am told that if I do not upgrade again for the THIRD time this month, I will be offline by close of play tonight.
I have also had many people offer to cover or offer to willingly contribute towards the £150 per month package that I’m told is needed to keep me going.
Never the less, whilst that is extremely generous, I dont see why people should have to pay for something that even I, as a computer savy retard can see shouldn’t have to be paid.
Let me explain.
This month, visits to this site are going to be somewhere around the 400,000 mark.
To keep the site online to accommodate that figure I have had to upgrade TWICE this month already, taking me from 350 gb per month to first; 750 gb per month and then, 1000 gb per month – which I am now told will still not be enough to keep me on-line till the end of the month.
That means the site will be inaccessible until November the 1st when the monthly gb allowance is again set to nought, as it is every month… Unless of course, I agree to paying the £150 per month package.
Now, compare this months projected viewing figure to April, May and June of this year where for those 3 months running I had more visits each month than I will have this month – the highest (April) was over 507,000.
Yet those 3 months were all managed on a 350 gb allowance with no threats of going over that limit.
And as such, you don’t need to be a tech wizard to work out that the problem isn’t the amount of visits that the site attracts.
Therefore, there has to be another problem.
So far this month I have thrown £600 at the problem to keep the site on-line and I am not prepared to throw any more at it especially not to the tune of £150 per month or £1800 per year when it shouldn’t be necessary to do so… Regardless of whether that money is mine or yours.
I haven’t a fucking clue what the problem is and without wishing to be unkind to Gary – the site looks the bollocks – neither has he.
Therefore, I have to have the right people around me to keep this site going.
I am under enormous pressure as it is and I cannot afford to be getting bogged down with the technical side of things of which I have no understanding what so ever.
By enormous pressure, I mean that it is blatantly obvious that I now have the full attention of TPTB.
Course, that has always been my full intention ever since it became apparent to me that people were taking notice of what I write, but in order to take the cunts on, I need people who are on top of their game covering me.
And that means a tech wizard who can FIX the problems, as opposed to DEFLECT the problems by me throwing money around.
If I havent got the right people covering my back, then I see no point in carrying on with the site because they will crush me as easy as they would swat a fly.
It is obvious that the problem with the gb is coming from a very sophisticated, government generated attack – most likely a “denial of service”.
Never the less whatever the attack is, it needs fixing not thwarting with short term expensive defensive measures.
TPTB are also using the tactic of threatening 123-reg (I think they are my service provider but I cant be sure) with legal action because of my articles content.
This means that in turn, 123-reg blackmail me with the order to remove the articles or they will remove me meaning that the site is again off-line if I don’t comply.
Clearly that is unacceptable and I need someone to sort me out a host – or whatever 123-reg are – who are not going to blackmail me.
Once again, I see no point in spending hour upon hours writing articles that are not going to see the light of day.
I mean, I am happy for them to drag me into court, but they wont do that, and in fact they have no need when they can bog me down with technical and host problems.
If that isn’t enough to make me go bald when I have enough on my plate already, I now have the Detective Chief Inspector from Essex Police writing to me, requesting the pleasure of my company to “discuss the contents of my website”.
The letter carry’s a threat of alternative action should I not meet him and comply.
The fact that I get approached by a DCI requesting a meeting as opposed to being dragged down the cop shop by a couple of bods in uniform speaks volumes and to me suggests that the police are unsure of their territory.
In fact, I know they are by the very fact that a couple of bods in uniform haven’t kicked my door in and dragged my arse down to the station.
Moreover the absence of any quoted laws in the letter re-enforces my belief.
Any attempt to remove content from my website will be opposed by myself, but if they are able to do it without dragging my arse into court or they are able to do it by taking me offline via attack then to be frank, I see no point in spending countless hours writing articles in the first place.
I do have a fella with legal training looking at this matter but it could well be a case that I need someone with vastly more experience to help me as the pressure is cranked up.
But one problem at a time for now.
I cannot attack a huge, extremely powerful machine if I do not have solid back up.
Neither do I see the point in putting myself in grave danger if I do not have a solid safe haven to fall back on.
Now, I appreciate that people mean well, but there is no point in contacting me to suggest that I try this and that to fix the problem.
I need someone who can fix the problem to tell me to fuck off out of the way and get on with the writing while they go about the job of ensuring the site continues.
Fuck me, once the immediate problems are sorted the tech side runs itself anyway, so I am not asking for a major commitment here. Moreover, anyone who does throw his/her hat in with me is not in any real danger.
It is only me and my family who shoulder that burden.
After all, it would be pointless bumping off someone who can in theory be instantly replaced.
Therefore, if no tech support is forthcoming before this site goes offline, I’m afraid it will stay that way, and I will go back to tattooing and content myself with sending articles written at my leisure to other sites for them to publish, should they deem fit.
With this being the case, I see no point either in updating this site further until the right tech support is on hand.
The Independent has an article about the new FCO sponsored Mitchell and Webb “comedy”, which was made with FCO co-operation and is openly an attempt to bolster its image – and to make light of, and acceptable, the disgraceful British alliance with the dictator of Uzbekistan. The argument that this series is based on – and is an attempt to counter the effect of – Murder in Samarkand – is overwhelming.
Not least because the producers of Ambassadors, Big Talk, attempted to buy the rights to Murder in Samarkand. They invited me to, and I attended, a meeting in their offices and they had several copies of Murder in Samarkand in their office. They also had access to the original unpublished (and much longer) manuscript of the book, under its original title Should Not Be Known. For them to pretend their “Tazbekistan” comedy is unrelated does not just make them lying bastards, it is ludicrous.
I did get solicitors to write both to Big Talk and to the BBC, but unfortunately the lawyers wanted money amounting to tens of thousands to apply for a copyright injunction, and I just don’t have it.
The Independent article takes the opportunity to recycle ten year old slurs against me by the FCO, without mentioning that they were disproven.
I wonder if one of my talented commenters could design an online “poster” for Murder in Samarkand, showing the book, Mitchell and Webb or the Ambassadors logo, and the slogan “Murder in Samarkand – Now a Major TV Series”. Then we can get it everywhere we can on the web, and the bastards can try and sue me! That would turn the tables nicely.
The other extraordinary thing in the Independent article is the contention that New Labour had an ethical foreign policy, as though the tabloid humiliation and marginalisation of Robin Cook- and the dodgy dossier and invasion of Iraq – had never happened.
It appears the fabled TV detector vans, striking fear into homeowners who may consider evading the licence fee, could be nothing but a myth.
Mention the UK and most of us imagine fish and chips or a decent pint rather than the Orwellian levels of online censorship about to be imposed on Brits at the end of 2013.
A new law will require ISPs block objectionable online content by default. Although there is an option to opt-out, anyone wanting the filter removed will need to contact their ISP to ask that it be switched off.
Censorship proponents argue that the filter isn’t a bad thing – keeping ones family safe from dodgy online content can only be a good thing right? The filter can also be turned off – even if that does mean an embarrassing call to your ISP.
Sadly it just isn’t that simple. Although there’s lots of examples of objectionable online content, the term objectionable is so hopelessly broad that it could encompass all manner of seemingly harmless content. Already reports are surfacing that the filter will block way more content than just the adult content that was originally talked up by the UK government.
Worse still, the arbiter of what is objectionable appears to be the UK government, which scarily has the potential for some nightmarish Orwellian form of social control.
This may all sound like the stuff of nutty conspiracy theories, but the reality is that it wouldn’t be too much of a reach for the Brit government to legislate for the removal of the “opt-out” component of the filter, or to deem anti-government websites as objectionable.
While there is little disagreement that some truly nasty stuff exists online, and that most people would rather they and their families were not exposed to it, there is another line of argument that this form of censorship is a slippery slope and that one of the key strengths of the internet is its ability to provide unrestricted access information.
The political wisdom of online censorship is also questionable given the global outcry against Prism as the NSA’s information gathering shenanigans came to light. Voters have long memories and a fondness for their freedoms. Will this be reflected in the next UK general elections? Already 10,000 outraged Brits have written to their MPs demanding the issue be debated. Clearly this isn’t going away any time soon.
Political and societal considerations aside, the UK government have also created an un-winnable scenario given the speed of technology compared to the near glacial pace of politics and public sector bureaucracies.
Others argue that history is already repeating. When the UK government blocked access to torrent search sites such as the Piratebay, a raft of sites sprang up offering workaround access. The UK government was forced into the digital equivalent of whack-a-mole, blocking sites as even more popped up. So far the battle appears to have been a losing one for them, as it is still pretty easy to bypass the UK government’s anti-pirate blockade.
Making matters worse for an already beleaguered UK government, a new service has been launched called Immunicity which is designed to bypass the censorship filters (including the torrent search sites blocked in the UK).
Immunicity works by routing blocked sites over its own servers. It also works in any country, not just the UK and is free. It isn’t terribly difficult to imagine that Immunicity won’t be the only service to bypass censorship filters which begs the question be asked, how well prepared is the government to deal with a proliferation of Immunicity-like offerings that could quickly render online censorship useless?
If a losing battle in a digital arms race wasn’t enough, some UK ISPs are also refusing to implement the filters, with UK ISP, Andrew and Arnold, posting this in a press statement “Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea,” in a press statement.
Even though few would argue that much of what is deemed objectionable is unsuitable for family viewing, using filters to censor content is also likely to only lead to a raft of new and unanticipated problems such as connection slow-downs, and the rise of unofficial “black” data networks as well as the increased use encryption, making it next to impossible to track criminals and terrorists. The question a growing number of people are already asking however is where will it all end?
Why has the outcry over Edward Snowden and surveillance been so limited? Is the public simply not interested?
At a wedding last week, I was sitting next to a novelist who was writing about the cold war, so I told her the story of how the Secret Intelligence Service thanked all its agents in East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is a moving story from another age and I know it to be true.
As Germany approached unification, Her Majesty’s government authorised payments of – I believe – 30,000 DM (£10,200) to all the agents who had risked life and liberty to help MI6. A team of intelligence officers was deployed to track down former agents, or their families, and present the cheque with the government’s gratitude. It was a long and emotional job, for the young officers heard many agonising stories about loss, sacrifice and years spent in prison.
At length, there was one individual left on the list. He arrived at MI6’s office on the main thoroughfare of Unter den Linden, in the old East Berlin, but instead of taking the money, he rushed out back on to the street, pursued by one of the spies with the cheque. He rejected it for a second time, gesturing frantically towards the Brandenburg Gate. Didn’t the British government understand that he’d done it all so that his children could walk through the gate as free citizens?
This captures a lot about the times that formed my political beliefs, as well as the miracle of the 1989 liberation. During the cold war, we valued freedom and privacy because we compared our lives to the tyrannical conditions in the Communist bloc. Whatever the faults of western societies, we knew we were better than those societies and we knew that we were right .
The story has been playing in my mind recently, because all summer I have been puzzling over the lack of reaction in Britain to the Snowden revelations about US and UK communications surveillance, a lack that at some moments has seemed even more remarkable than the revelations themselves. Today, apparently, we are at ease with a system of near total intrusion that would have horrified every adult Briton 25 years ago. Back then, western spies acknowledged the importance of freedom by honouring the survivors of those networks; now, they spy on their own people.
We have changed, that is obvious, and, to be honest, I wonder whether I, and others who care about privacy and freedom, have been left behind by societies that accept surveillance as a part of the sophisticated world we live in. Even so, the neglect of the Snowden story by the British media does seem remarkable.
Last Friday, the order on the Today programme’s 8am news bulletin, usually a reliable guide to developments at home and abroad, was as follows. Putin remains adamant on Syria at G8. Blair on Syrian intervention. The plight of Syrian refugees. Nursing regulator calls for checks on nurses. Former BBC DG accuses BBC trust of dishonesty. A phone recording from the recent Spanish rail crash. Parliamentary committee accuses civil servants of incompetence. China discovers that many Chinese cannot speak Mandarin properly. Water voles in the UK are in drastic decline.
Not a mention of the story leading two of the world’s most influential newspapers – the New York Times and the Guardian – which revealed that the British and American governments have compromised the encryption used by internet companies to protect consumers’ information, their banking details, medical records and every form of communication. The Mandarin and water vole items apparently count for more than the news that the NSA and GCHQ have secretly collaborated with technology and internet giants to gain near total access to our online lives.
Even though the BBC seems more timid and subservient to authority than it has for decades, it’s surprising that its journalists did not understand the enormous implications of this story. Were they obeying government requests that it should not be used? Or did they ignore it because it seemed unimportant? Whatever is the answer, we can be in no doubt that it was journalistic fecklessness for the corporation only to acknowledge these significant revelations in a down-page item on its website. Today plays a huge role in setting the daily agenda, but as far as the programme was concerned, this important story did not exist. And that gave succour to the newspapers that also ignored the revelations, almost certainly at the government’s request.
The BBC may have succumbed to the chill surrounding the Snowden story. Three weeks ago, after the partner of one of the principal journalists writing about Snowden in the Guardian was detained under terror laws at Heathrow, I did four or five interviews with the BBC. In most, the interviewer displayed not simply a remarkable lack of knowledge about the Snowden affair, which had been going on for over two months, but a kind of reserve or squeamishness about discussing these matters on air. It’s hard to put your finger on it, but that’s what a chill feels like.
The debate has been stifled in Britain more successfully than anywhere else in the free world and, astonishingly, this has been with the compliance of a media and public that regard their attachment to liberty to be a matter of genetic inheritance. So maybe it is best for me to accept that the BBC, together with most of the newspapers, has moved with society, leaving me behind with a few old privacy-loving codgers, wondering about the cause of this shift in attitudes. Is it simply the fear of terror and paedophiles? Are we so overwhelmed by the power of the surveillance agencies that we feel we can’t do anything? Or is it that we have forgotten how precious and rare truly free societies are in history.
Complacency is a big part of the failure of the response to Snowden and the fact that no senior politician has raised concerns and no political party has provided any leadership is worrying. It is true that the whole elaborate apparatus seems like a phantasm and few can attest to experiencing the intrusion, because when it happens it is as painless as a mosquito bite.
But this does not stop these developments representing a fundamental threat to our society, one that all those brave agents in East Germany would understand in an instant. They would tell you that this is not about the much-denigrated quality of privacy, but about political power. What the Guardian-New York Times stories of last week tell us is that we are much less free than we supposed and that unrestricted surveillance will become a menace to us all. That should be a vital concern for journalists, even at the BBC.
Gilad was a key part of accelerating that disenchantment – he has taught me so much and cost me so much…… I love him like the birth brother I am prevented from loving – although I have only met him a few times and we are in no sense close friends….. we too have political differences but at least we can try talking about them – and sometimes we even resolve them. Sometimes we tackle issues together – for most of the time I remain connected to him through his writings, which I read often – I must have read most of what he has written by now, and there is lots of it.
I understand that truth too is myth – even what we have seen with our own eyes, and experienced with our own lives, and which seems blatantly true to us, changes when we come to understand the motivations and reasons for the parts that other actors played in the event. It shifts as we learn more, and as we realise that our own issues have clouded our interpretation. Our culture, our upbringing and our personal pain all affect how we experience the world, and how we perceive it. I know this but Ali Abunimah, it seems, has yet to learn it….. as have others.
So, this is how I see Gilad and understand his work. It is part of an evolving view and it is possible that in time I may see it all completely differently. Gilad himself may identify with parts of it, and disagree with other parts. He may even help to change my view of him…… and maybe I can help change his view of him – all things are possible.
Like me, Gilad was born in an Apartheid society – in his case Israel. I should tell you that one of our key differences is around whether or not Israel is an Apartheid state – I am an Aye – he is a Nay. Unlike me, he bought into it as a kid. It was only when he was coming to the end of his time in the misleadingly named Israeli Defence Force, where he was a medic and musician, that he had cause to go to Lebanon and see the conditions that Palestinian prisoners were kept in. This led him to start questioning all that he had learnt and the society in which he grew up.
He left Israel and moved to Europe where he developed his music and also studied philosophy and did some training in psychotherapy. He found himself profoundly influenced by Otto Weineger, a disturbed and brilliant soul who wrote some disgusting stuff and killed himself at a very young age.
Influenced by Weineger, Gilad began examining himself – a process of looking into the mirror, and examining what he didn’t like about himself in minute detail. He came to think that Jewish identity was a part of his problem, and his study of this aspect of himself was further developed when he expanded his navel gazing to include a small but influential group of Jewish anti-Zionists, centred mainly in London where he also lives, and whom he publicly attacked after they (JAZ) started attacking a group whom he discovered were also critically exploring the issue of Jewish ideology, often in an very offensive and unpleasant way. The group included Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir. I am not very clear on how close they were, or the interactions between them, but it does seem that they were all influenced by each other, and learnt from each other.
Unsurprisingly, it didn’t take long for accusations of anti-Semitism to start flying around – and for destruction to occur. The more the group developed their critique of Jewish Power, it seems the more Jewish Power was unleashed in an attempt to marginalise and destroy them. Gilad chose to face the onslaught full on, and despite serious attempts to marginalise and destroy him, he continues to develop his critique of them, their ideology and their power. He still works as an accomplished and popular Jazz musician and his writings are widely read –Erdogan even quoted him once which caused a major furore, and some respectable and respected individuals such as Richard Falk and Mearsheimer have been seriously attacked for coming out in support of his work. I too have been undersustained attack by Jewish anti-Zionists and Zionists alike.
The attempts to silence Gilad have been sustained and brutal, and it is difficult to read him if your introduction is the out of context snippets circulated with the intention of destroying him.
An example of this: I went to the launch of his book – and was met with the spectacle of folk I have been involved in BDS actions with, picketing the meeting and handing out a leaflet, written by arch rival Tony Greenstein which claimed to be snippets of the book (The wandering who says ….) They were not from the book at all. In order to attend the launch, I had to cross a picket line of people I have previously faced arrest with, and that pretty much ended my involvement as an activist who had been intensely involved in BDS Direct Actions. I now share many of Gilad’s reservations about, and critiques of BDS… although I continue to believe that every attempt should be made to isolate Israel as a brutal, Apartheid state.
Indymedia UK, a project I have a long association with, has been profoundlydamaged by an insistence that it ban Atzmon, which didn’t happen, partly because I opposed the demand. It seems to me that if Indymedia UK lived up to its own aims and intentions it would be a good forum for the debate he is trying to launch – but it proved to be moribund by its own inconsistencies, and has so far not been able to stand up to the attacks on it by Atzmon’s opponents.
Recently my attention has been mainly focused on the brutal attack on the poor in the UK, currently being orchestrated by the nasties in the coalition, and their dismantling of all that made Britain a bearable place to live for those like me who feel unable to cope in the countries of their birth. I haven’t been writing on Palestine, and haven’t been involved in activism around it. I avoid demos because of the intense victimisation I have suffered at the hands of the police – who have helped me understand that the police are the enemy of freedom, and that for as long as we have police we cannot be free.
I have been horrified by how muted the so-called radical Left’s response has been to these brutal attacks on our own society’s most vulnerable. At times it has seemed as if I am back in an Apartheid state, with much of the left being in the position that Liberal white South Africans found themselves in – they knew it was wrong, but they were benefiting enough from it not to want seriously to destroy it. I have personally been affected by the cuts to services that have hindered my own attempts to free myself enough from my own disturbances and depression so that I can find a way of being in this world that allows to me function in a better way than I am able to now… In order that I don’t spend much of my time wishing I could go to sleep and never wake up, or fighting strong suicidal impulses.
I am wondering if it is even possible to be well-adjusted in a maladjusted world. If being well-adjusted means accepting inequality and injustice and allowing it to flourish, then I guess my project is doomed to failure.
If you believe the hype about Atzmon, as represented by his rivals, then he aims to turn us all into jack-booted racists. I know enough about him to think this is preposterous, and I am beginning to believe that part of what makes them most uncomfortable and angry about him – all that he hates most about the way that his Jewish upbringing has affected him – makes them profoundly uncomfortable about themselves too because, when we are confronted with parts of ourselves that repulse us, we often lash out.
I do believe that Gilad is part of a much wider struggle towards a world where we can live in dignity, and at peace with one another – for a while he ended all his performances with “What a wonderful World”. In any case, any new and improved society will have to include all, including those who offend us, disturb us or are from the far Right, regardless of whether we like them or not.
At the least Atzmon opens a debate that I think needs to be had – and which has been censored at a major cost to many – but he has chipped away at it and it seems to me that the debate is beginning to open up.
Despite all the time I have spent reading Atzmon, and listening to him, andrecording him, I still don’t hate anyone on the basis that their mother or father happened to be Jewish. In fact, some of the most influential and loved people in my life fall into that category. So if his opponents are right about his project then it appears to be a failed project.
If his project is the deJudaization of Atzmon, it too is doomed to failure because his upbringing is central to who he is now. But his argument that people need to find a way of understanding and reducing the influence of the environments we grew up in and relinquishing the identities foisted upon us by them, has some validity in it, and it does seem that an increasing number of Jews are starting to explore the path.
I am out of energy – follow the links if you want to know more – and read Atzmonif you are able to open your mind enough to hear what he has to say, or perhaps start by listening to his music. If you insist on judging him solely on what his opponents say, then you aren’t going to be able to do it. And if you insist that you will only relate to me if I denounce him and stop reading his writings, then farewell until such time that you are ready to allow me the freedom to follow my own instincts and respect my right to live a life with as much integrity as I can muster.
The Paedophile MP: How Cyril Smith Got Away with It highlights the similarities between his story and that of Jimmy Savile – and the TV culture that turned a blind eye
Although it is common to complain about how quickly time passes, it seems extraordinary that, at this time last year, Jimmy Savile was still largely regarded as a knight and saint of charitable giving and children’s entertainment, while George Entwistle was energetically setting out to reform the BBC as its new director general.
The downfalls of Savile and Entwistle will be marked by numerous programmes and articles in October and November. But while those reports will almost inevitably be backward-looking, a documentary going out tonight marks the anniversary more tangentially and, crucially, by taking the story forward.
The Paedophile MP: How Cyril Smith Got Away with It (11.05pm, Channel 4) has multiple connections with the Savile affair. The presenter, Liz McKean, was the reporter on the abandoned Newsnight investigation into some of the victims of the broadcaster’s paedophilia, which began the series of events that led to ITV’s documentary Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile and then the BBC management fiascos that forced Entwistle out after 54 days in charge.
McKean opted for voluntary redundancy from the programme during the post-Entwistle period of infighting and tonight marks her first return to the screen as a freelance. And, while she has a direct link to the Savile events, her documentary contains numerous indirect ones between two men who were knighted for their service to the state.
Cyril Smith (1928-2010) was an eccentric northerner (mayor of, then MP for, Rochdale) who became a court jester – though, in his case, for David Steel’s Liberals rather than Margaret Thatcher’s Tories – and television personality by filling that category in English society classified as “larger than life”. Indeed, in one of the glowing obituaries that are shown at the start of McKean’s report, Sir Menzies Campbell oddly describes Smith as having been “literally larger than life”, which seems an odd thing to say about someone who has just lost their life, but was presumably an attempted delicate reference to the 29st girth that became Smith’s equivalent, as a visual trademark, of Savile’s gold lame tracksuits.
Like Savile, Smith shaped his professional life to have access to vulnerable children; running the children’s committee in his local politics career, and running schools and care homes. One of Smith’s alleged victims tells McKean that a kindly worker advised him to keep out of the way during the politician’s visits, a chilling echo of the claim that young patients at Stoke Mandeville hospital were told to pretend to be asleep during the broadcaster’s ward rounds.
In both cases, the police investigated relatively early but no charges were brought, although, with Smith, Dispatches makes alarming suggestions that the Liberal MP may have been protected by security services during the period of the Lib-Lab pact. A police officer recalls that he was discouraged from interviewing, during an unrelated murder investigation, a young man who claimed to be a victim of Smith.
As in ITV’s Savile documentary, telling use is made of archive footage, including a 1974 Liberal election broadcast, in which Smith calls for a restoration of Christian-based moral values in Britain, and a clip of the MP clowning around on a children’s TV show.
The oddity of Smith being invited on such a programme – it seems unlikely that Campbell would ever have become a guest on teatime telly – raises the concern that he, like Savile, saw juvenile studios as a hunting ground, although there is no suggestion that the TV show featured in the programme led directly to an incident of abuse. At best, it confirms the naivety of an era in which, in startling contrast to the reflex online dyspepsia of today, the best motives were generally attributed to people. With Cyril Smith, we may suspect, there was also a tendency to regard him as sexually neuter because of his bulk.
In another comparison with Savile, Smith has now been the subject of an alarming and well-reported documentary. This one will not have the same impact because the institutional damage is to the Lib Dems and the police, rather than the BBC, and most of the allegations have already appeared in print in either Private Eye or newspapers.
But, with McKean showing what a loss from Newsnight she will be, this Dispatches is a powerful pulling together of what Smith did and what the police and politicians failed to do, which adds further evidence of the way in which, in the 60s and 70s, the authorities – and, though less culpably, television viewers – indulged in the creation of monsters of eccentricity whose popularity became a cover for sexual depravity.
Why I believe sinking of Belgrano made MI5 murder my crusading aunt: A death surrounded by dark coincidences, and the disturbing belief of former intelligence chief who helped mastermind Falklands campaign
- Hilda Murrell was abducted and murdered in 1984 in Shrewsbury
- The 78-year-old was found with multiple signs of torture
- Nephew believes she was killed because she ‘knew too much’
- Commander Robert Green says her connection to him ‘sealed her fate’
- Green was at the heart of operation which sank the Belgrano in 1982
PUBLISHED: 21:00 GMT, 20 July 2013
It is nearly 30 years since my aunt, Hilda Murrell, was abducted, beaten, stabbed and left to die in a copse in the countryside outside Shrewsbury.
Her murder has become a cause celebre, not just because of the shocking manner of her death, but because of the unanswered questions that refuse to go away.
Hilda, a 78-year-old rose-grower and anti-nuclear environmentalist, was a keeper of dangerous secrets.
Involved in top-secret work at Bletchley Park in the Second World War, she was an independent, well-connected and informed opponent of Britain’s plans for nuclear power and weapons.
Because of her close association with me, she was suspected of having sensitive information about the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano in the 1982 Falklands War.
Someone wanted her silenced for this, or was it for even more politically damaging information?
The past three decades have seen a rising tide of evidence that the true perpetrators were the British security services.
Meanwhile a man is languishing in jail, wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit. Hilda was my close friend and mentor and I was her next of kin.
I was a commander in Royal Navy Intelligence at the heart of the Falklands War, thus I fear it is more than possible that having me as her nephew sealed her fate.
The struggle to uncover what really happened goes on. Michael Mansfield QC has joined my campaign for a Commission of Inquiry. Austin Mitchell MP is gathering support in the House of Commons.
But standing up for the truth comes at a cost. Our home has been broken into several times, computers interfered with, possessions disturbed, yet nothing stolen. Our mail often arrives in our PO box late, damaged or even empty.
I still find my phone calls mysteriously disconnected mid-conversation. I do not own a mobile phone because they can be listened to.
Following death threats in Britain – including calls to a friend saying ‘tell Rob Green he’s next’ – I feel like a fugitive in my own country. Even after I emigrated to New Zealand, the harassment has continued.
Some UK-based security organisation with extraordinary persistence, reach and resources seems desperate to impede and frighten us. The most obvious motive is that, with the help of my wife Kate Dewes, I am getting too close to discovering who murdered my beloved aunt, friend and mentor – and why.
‘They’ve rubbed her out.’ It was my immediate thought, an involuntary conviction. At 2pm on Saturday, March 24, 1984, West Mercia Police rang to say they had found an old woman’s body. Hilda had been missing since the Wednesday.
Her mutilated corpse had been discovered in a poplar copse six miles outside Shrewsbury, some 500 yards from her crashed Renault 5.
Sexually assaulted, stabbed through her upper right arm and with five shallow stab wounds in the abdomen, she was naked from the waist down. There were severe abrasions on the knees. She had defence cuts on each hand, the hyoid bone in her neck and her right collar bone were broken. Her face was bruised. A trail of her belongings led across a heavy clay field to her body. No valuables were missing, only £40-odd in cash.
Hilda was a remarkable woman. A 1927 Cambridge graduate, she had hoped for an academic career, but instead became director of her family’s respected rose nursery. After retiring in 1970, she became an ardent anti-nuclear activist.
She was much more than my only aunt. We clicked: she the anti-nuclear campaigner, a Liberal voter; I an apolitical, typically Conservative naval Commander with nuclear weapons experience and a top-security clearance.
In 1979, as Personal Staff Officer to the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Policy) in the Ministry of Defence, I was a fly on the wall as the Admiralty debated replacing Britain’s nuclear-armed Polaris submarines with Trident.
The meltdown of the US reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania had endorsed Hilda’s view that nuclear power was too hazardous for civil use.
Margaret Thatcher was determined to introduce new nuclear plants of a similar design, the first of which would be built at Sizewell in Suffolk. When Hilda was murdered, she had just been given approval to testify as an independent objector at the public inquiry.
The Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Heseltine, responded to the growing anti-nuclear movement by setting up a propaganda unit in the Ministry of Defence. It had direct links with MI5 and according to whistleblowing agent Cathy Massiter its branch, dealing with ‘domestic subversion’, was expanded.
In April 1982, Britain went to war with Argentina and I found myself working in the command bunker at Northwood in North-West London in charge of a 40-strong team providing round-the-clock intelligence support to the fleet.
Later I took redundancy from the Navy and dropped out of the ‘Establishment’. I was now earning my living thatching roofs but I knew about the Falklands and nuclear weapons. No wonder there was suspicion about my motives.
From the outset, and despite an ocean of contradictory evidence, West Mercia Police wanted to believe that Hilda’s murder was ‘a burglary gone wrong’.
In June 2003, Andrew George, a 35-year-old local labourer was arrested. The officer from West Mercia Police who gave me the news responded to my incredulity by saying: ‘Yes, Rob – but we can make it fit the facts.’
He was asking me to believe that Hilda had been abducted and murdered by a truant from a foster home who could not drive. George had been aged only 16 in 1984.
In 2005 he was sentenced to 13 years. A 2006 appeal was rejected. His conviction stands as only one among many errors, omissions and distortions which bedevil the case. It seems incredible that ‘burglary’ remains the official reason why Hilda was murdered.
THE ASTONISHING POLICE MISTAKES
The police account of Hilda’s death was riven with anomalies, and so was the handling of the case.
The police inspected Hilda’s crashed car by sunset on the Wednesday. Yet they did not check her house until the Friday evening.
There is evidence of changes to her home while she was missing, including doors and windows open and shut, and lights switched on and off.
There were many reports of suspicious people and vehicles around the house and her crashed car. Yet the police ignored them all.
A white van was reported parked in her drive around the time of her abduction.
According to the owner of the copse, the body was not there on the Thursday when he was checking trees for felling.
So was Hilda abducted to a safe house for interrogation before being left to be discovered on Saturday? The pathologist concluded that, despite her many injuries, Hilda had died of hypothermia.
She had several superficial stab wounds, but a lack of blood. Were some of the wounds inflicted after death to simulate an attack?
Was this to conceal that she had been murdered by breaking her neck before being carried into the copse and a false trail laid of her clothing plus boots, broken spectacles and kitchen knife?
Did the police know about the crime before the body was discovered?
Who were the mysterious officers a witness saw ‘on a murder hunt’ on farmland near the abandoned car on the Friday? Why did two detectives visit a Shrewsbury sex counsellor on the Friday evening before the body was discovered asking if he knew of any man with sexual problems and a preference for violence to old ladies and interfering with their clothing?
WHAT DID SHE KNOW, AND WHO CARED?
‘If they don’t get me first, I want the world to know that at least one old woman has seen through their lies.’ That was what Hilda told ecologist and anti-nuclear campaigner Gerard Morgan-Grenville at the end of her last, agitated 30-minute call to him.
As well as preparing her Sizewell paper, she had been distributing his leaflets making sensitive allegations about nuclear weapons being deployed in British warships to the Falklands War and revealing that the Belgrano was sunk 59 miles outside the exclusion zone.
This information could only have come from an inside source, putting her link with me under suspicion (although I had never made any unauthorised disclosures.)
Morgan-Grenville was an Old Etonian friend of the maverick Labour MP Tam Dalyell, who was embarrassing Mrs Thatcher with other secret details. On Monday, March 19, 1984, Dalyell hand- delivered a letter to Mr Heseltine asking nine new questions about the Belgrano episode. Two days later, Hilda’s house was searched and she was abducted.
Later that year, Dalyell announced in Parliament that ‘British intelligence had been involved’.
Hilda had also conferred with dissident nuclear scientists, one of whom had discovered a serious flaw in the control rods of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor.
It is possible that Hilda held still more damaging material. Several witnesses have come forward with information that Hilda was involved with Bletchley Park. One elderly woman, now dead, reported that Hilda was her supervisor.
There is strong circumstantial evidence that Hilda was trying to prevent some extremely sensitive documents from being stolen and suppressed.
Three days before her abduction, she tried to leave documents with a friend. Less than an hour before she was abducted, she phoned a veteran peace activist from a callbox asking him to meet her that evening with a ‘stout bag’ for a large number of documents she wanted published. Though no one could prove any of Hilda’s papers were taken, her document satchel and handbag were not found.
CRUCIAL EVIDENCE OF A HIT SQUAD
Andrew George, the man convicted of the murder, told a fellow prisoner who was a key prosecution witness at his trial that he had been encouraged to burgle Hilda’s house by a strange woman who told him she had ‘friends in a white van who would clear up after him’.
While on remand, George apparently confessed to his dying father that, on entering Hilda’s house, two men held guns to his head and threatened to kill him, but promised him £60,000 if he kept his mouth shut.
There is no doubt George was there: his DNA was found in semen on Hilda’s underslip and clothing and his fingerprints were in her house. But what had he been forced to do, and why?
There is also crucial unexamined evidence showing male DNA under Hilda’s fingernails on both hands, and semen on her cardigan, that could not have come from George.
The fingernail DNA established Hilda had fought with another man. Why was this ignored by both prosecution and defence?
And why did the Forensic Science Service ‘lose’ the body sheet and crucial body parts associated with toxicology tests, including Hilda’s brain, liver, stomach contents, bile and urine?
DID THE KILLERS USE A DECOY
An affidavit from Trina Guthrie, treated by Hilda as an adopted niece, set out an account of Hilda’s death from a former convict.
He had been told the following: that Hilda had died at the hands of a team despatched to search for copies of secret signals relating to the Belgrano sinking.
The man had shared a cell in a prison near York with another inmate serving 15 years for armed robbery, who claimed to have led a team of three men and a woman hired by a ‘secret intelligence department’ to do freelance work.
The team leader allegedly reported to the Cabinet Office via an MI5 liaison officer.
The female team member, wearing Hilda’s hat and coat, was driven in her car by one of the other men through town and out to near the copse as a decoy.
Witnesses reported apparently seeing ‘Hilda’, obscured by a wide-brimmed floppy brown hat, slumped in the passenger seat of her own car on the day of her disappearance.
Meanwhile the real Hilda was allegedly taken to a safe house where she was subjected to further interrogation under torture with a knife. Two nights later she was dumped in the copse and left to die.
The use of a decoy is reminiscent of tactics from Northern Ireland at the time, where suspects were abducted by snatch squads, sometimes criminals in the pay of the security services.
SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SILENCED
Why have those involved in attempting to find the truth been met with threats, harassment or harm? Philip Griffith, whose mother was one of Hilda’s friends, allegedly overheard three men in a Brighton pub bragging how they killed her. He was later found drugged with morphine and beaten to death in a park. Someone had emptied his flat.
Cecil Woolf, publishers of Graham Smith’s book Death Of A Rose-Grower and several books by Dalyell criticising the Thatcher Government, experienced a mysterious break-in.
Judith Cook, author of Who Killed Hilda Murrell?, was harassed. Lady Dora Russell, a 91-year-old who wrote a letter to the newspapers supporting Cook, was beaten up by an intruder. A postcard followed: ‘We broke into Hilda Murrell, we broke into the Woolf’s . . . and we’ll break in wherever we want to . . .’
And then there are the break-ins at our Christchurch home and more than 20 years of mail interference: letters opened, letters slashed, contents stolen.
If Andrew George abducted and murdered Hilda, why are we and key witnesses still being harassed and intimidated?
Where to from here? First, there is the urgent need to release Andrew George – a petty thief never previously imprisoned. DNA evidence in possession of the police and forensic service would probably establish beyond reasonable doubt that at least one other man, whom Hilda had scratched, and possibly another man whose semen was on her cardigan, were involved in her murder.
Having reopened the case, there has to be a proper Commission of Inquiry similar to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, led by a distinguished independent person with no links to the security apparatus.
Only such an investigation can recommend how to prevent further corrupt, politicised abuse of the British justice system.
Finally, I hope my pursuit of the truth about how and why Hilda died so violently will encourage others suspected of suffering injustice at the hands of the security authorities to come forward.
A Thorn In Their Side, by Robert Green, is published by John Blake, priced £7.99.
Kim Dotcom urged New Zealanders last night to oppose the GCSB spying bill – but predicted it would take a change of government next year to protect their privacy.
The comments came during a public meeting where 500 people heard Mr Dotcom join academics, civil libertarians and lawyers in opposing the legislation.
Mr Dotcom had the most personal story to tell – part of the current debate is the fallout following the discovery of illegal spying on him by the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB).
He was joined on stage by New Zealander of the Year Dame Anne Salmond, Law Society representative Dr Rodney Harrison, QC, and Tech Liberty online rights advocate Thomas Beagle.
The meeting was chaired by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Sir Ted Thomas, who tongue-in-cheek pledged neutrality on the “iniquitous, scurrilous and foul bill”.
Mr Dotcom said he expected a change of government would be needed to reverse the law, which is likely to pass with a one-vote majority now United Future leader Peter Dunne has pledged his support.
Labour MP David Cunliffe sat in the front row last night. His party leader, David Shearer, watched unnoticed from the rear of the hall with Labour’s finance spokesman, David Parker.
“I am a living and breathing example of why the GCSB must not be given greater powers and limited accountability,” Mr Dotcom said.
Referring to the special warrant signed to keep secret the illegal spying against him, he said government actions had been telling.
“[Their] first response was dishonesty, followed by an attempted cover-up.
“The new GCSB bill is like raising the speed limit after getting a speeding ticket. And it doesn’t mean the GCSB won’t be speeding again.”
Dame Anne Salmond said the proposed spy law was one of a series – the others were passed recently – which threatened the rights of New Zealanders. She said Kiwis shouldn’t suffer an “electronic McCarthyism” and called on politicians to show “backbone”.
“At times like this they need to show some backbone and prove they are worthy of the trust we place in them.”
(Victor Rothschild, 1910-1980, the famous “Fifth Man” of the Cambridge Five Spy Ring)
Reprise of key article:
Here is proof that the Rothschild-controlled
central banking cartel is behind
Communism and world government tyranny.
“Which is more plausible? One of the richest men in the world, Victor Rothschild espoused Communist ideals so that his own fabulous wealth and position could be taken away? Or that Communism in fact was a deception designed to take away our wealth and freedom in the name of “equality” and “brotherhood”? ”
In 1942, Sir Mark Oliphant, a leading British physicist was shocked when a messenger delivered a part from his new radar technology with a warning from MI-5 Security Inspector Victor Rothschild to “tighten up your security.”A few days earlier Rothschild had visited Oliphant’s Birmingham University lab, quizzed him on his research, and pocketed the three-inch diameter magnetron.But talk about chutzpah!Baron Rothschild was himself a Soviet agent! Before returning the magnetron, he had transmitted detailed drawings to Moscow, a fact later confirmed by his KGB handlers.Oliphant related this story in 1994 to Roland Perry, the Australian author of The Fifth Man (1994, Sedgwick and Jackson, 475 pp).Between 1935 and 1963, the Soviet Union knew all of Britain’s military and scientific secrets thanks to “The Cambridge Five” a spy ring that operated in M1-5, MI-6 and the Foreign Office. Western intelligence agencies were rendered ineffective and Allied secrets, including the design of the atomic bomb, were stolen.(Only a society bent of suicide would portray these dupes and traitors in a positive light.) The traitors were Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt. But there is a natural reluctance to admit that “the Fifth Man” was Nathaniel Meyer Victor Rothschild (1910-1990), the Third Baron Rothschild, the British head of the world’s richest banking dynasty , which controls the Bank of England.In 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, six retired KGB Colonels in Moscow confirmed Rothschild’s identity to Roland Perry. Col. Yuri Modin, the spy ring’s handler, went on the record.Perry writes: “According to …Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring’s penetration of British intelligence. ‘He had the contacts,’ Modin noted. ‘He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart in the Foreign Office…who controlled Mi-6.” (p.89)You can understand the reluctance. The Rothschilds are undoubtedly the largest shareholders in the world’s central banking system. Victor Rothschild’s career as Soviet agent confirms that these London-based bankers plan to translate their monopoly on credit into a monopoly on everything using government as their instrument, ultimately a “world government” dictatorship akin to Communism.It adds credence to the claim the Rothschilds were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and used the Cold War and more recently the 9-11 hoax and bogus “War on Terror” to advance their world hegemony.Which is more plausible? One of the richest men in the world, Victor Rothschild espoused Communist ideals so that his own fabulous wealth and position could be taken away?Or that Communism in fact was a deception designed to take away our wealth and freedom in the name of “equality” and “brotherhood”?(Evil and Rich)
MAN OF ACTION
According to “The Fifth Man”, Victor Rothschild had an IQ of 184. He was a gifted jazz pianist with an intuitive understanding of many scientific disciplines. He saw banking as a dreary affair and preferred the exciting example of his great grandfather Lionel Rothschild (1808-1879) who Benjamin Disraeli immortalized as “Sidonia” in the novel Coningsby (1844).
“No minister of state had such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world. The catalog of his acquaintances in the shape of Greeks, Armenians, Moors, secret Jews, Tartars, Gypsies, wandering Poles and Carbonari, would throw a curious light on those subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little, but which exercise so great an influence on public events. The secret history of the world was his pastime. His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive, with the public pretext, of transactions.” (Coningsby pp. 218-219)
Rothschild studied Zoology at Cambridge where Anthony Blunt recruited him for the KGB about 1936. (Blunt later said it was Rothschild who recruited him.) Rothschild later joined MI-5 and was in charge of counter sabotage. He instructed the military on how to recognize and defuse bombs. Rothschild was a personal friend of Winston Churchill. Perry writes:
“The two socialized often during the war years. Rothschild used his wealth and position to invite the prime minister to private parties. His entree to the wartime leader, plus access to all the key intelligence information, every major weapons development and his command of counter-sabotage operations in Britain, made Rothschild a secretly powerful figure during the war years…The result was that Stalin knew as much as Churchill about vital information, often before the British High Command was informed.” (xxviii-xxix)
Rothschild helped neutralize enemies of the Soviet Union who came to the British for support. For example, he was involved in the cover-up of the assassination of Polish war leader and British ally Wladyslaw Sikorski, whose plane was blown up in July 1944. Sikorski had become burdensome to Stalin after he discovered the KGB had massacred 16,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Woods and elsewhere in 1940.
In 1944, Blunt, Burgess and Philby all stayed with Victor at the Rothschild mansion in Paris. Rothschild was briefly in charge of Allied intelligence in Paris and interrogated many prisoners.
After the war Rothschild spent time in the US overseeing attempts to learn the atom bomb secrets. Due in part to the Cambridge Five, Perry says “the Russians knew about every major intelligence operation run against them in the years 1945 to 1963.” (xxxi)
Victor Rothschild held many jobs that served to disguise his true role which I suspect was that of a member of the Illuminati Grand Council. (The Illuminati represent the highest rank of Freemasonry.) He was not a lowly agent. He probably gave orders to people like Winston Churchill, FDR and Stalin.
For example, he ensured that the USSR supported the establishment of the State of Israel. “He knew the proper back-channels to reach decision-makers in Moscow,” a KGB Colonel told Perry. “Let us just say, he got things done. You only did that if you reached the top. He was very persuasive.” (176)
T Stokes wrote: ” In the Russian Intel archives Lord and Lady Rothschild are codenamed; “David and Rosa.” Rothschild and Churchill were inseparable during W.W.II. The bankers bought Churchill’s services in W.W.II for a recorded £50,000 to lobby for total war with Germany, and in W.W.1 Churchill had a bank account in the name of ‘Colonel Arden,’ to accept these secret donations.”
The super rich have more in common with each other than they have with the rest of humanity. It appears they have abandoned their natural role as leaders and benefactors, and instead conspire to enchain us. It’s too bad because the only thing they don’t already have is… love.
The fact that Rothschild was protected until his death suggests this is a ruling class conspiracy. According to Greg Hallett, Anthony Blunt, a fellow spy, was an illegitimate son of George V, half-brother and look-alike to Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor. Until his exposure in 1964, Blunt was Knighted and Curator of the Queen’s art collection. He received immunity from prosecution in exchange for his confession.
Many believe this conspiracy is “Jewish.” Yes but “generational Satanist” would be more accurate. These Sabbatean Jews intermarry with Gentiles. The current Lord Jacob Rothschild, the Fourth Baron Rothschild is Victor’s son by his first wife Barbara Hutchinson, pictured above, a non-Jew who converted. In Jewish law, Jacob Rothschild is not a Jew. He married Serena Dunn. By the way, Meyer Amschel, Victor’s only son by his second marriage, also to a non-Jew, ‘committed suicide’ in 1996.
While Victor Rothschild pretended to “socialist ideals,” this was just a ruse to entrap misguided idealists. The banker was a conscious traitor. Treason is the template for contemporary politics. The central banking cartel is erecting its “world governance” dictatorship and anyone who wants to succeed must be loyal to the sick new paradigm and a traitor to the genuine old. While distracting us with sex and sports, our political and cultural “leaders” attack our national, religious, racial and family foundations using war, homosexuality, pornography, feminism, mass migration and “diversity.”
Clearly, we need new leaders who will stand up to the owners of the world monetary system. The destiny of humanity is at stake.
Krister said (July 21, 2013):
Barry Chamish wrote an article named “Just As Scared, Just As Doomed”, where he writes:
“Chaim Weizmann was the emissary of the British crown, and its associated secret
societies. He did their bidding and was welcome in all corridors of power. As you
shall see, even the Rothschilds had to seek his permission before financing any
Then he quotes a part from M. J. Nurenberger’s book “The Scared And The Doomed –
The Jewish Establishment vs.The Six Million” (he also writes that the book “is one of the
most important works about modern Jewish history”):
“It was no accident that Weizmann fought any attempt to support the ‘illegal’
immigration when the doors of Palestine were closed, and that he resented anyone
who contradicted his views. For example, at the beginning of World War II, in
London, where he lived, when asked by one of the Rothschilds to help the Irgun
bring a boat of Aliyah Bet to Palestine, Weizmann said, ‘he would not sit down with a
satan.’ This was already at the time that there was no other avenue of escape.” pp 90
The above indicates that there was people like Chaim Weizmann above Victor Rothschild, making the decisions about Jewish world affairs. My guess is that we shall look at the Rothschilds as financial technocrates, taking orders from a secret Jewish World-Kahal making decisions in accordance with the Protocols.
(Photo: Kenneth Lu / Flickr)The Global Power Project, an investigative series produced by Occupy.com, aims to identify and connect the worldwide institutions and individuals who comprise today’s global power oligarchy. In Part 1, which appeared last week, I provided an overview examining who and what constitute the global ruling elite – often referred to as the Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC). In this second part, I will attempt to identify some of the key, dominant institutions that have facilitated and have in turn been supported by the development of this oligarchic class. This is not a study of wealth, but a study of power.
In an article for the journal International Sociology, William K. Carroll and Jean Philippe Sapinski examined the relationship between the corporate elite and the emergence of a “transnational policy-planning network,” beginning with its formation in the decades following World War II and speeding up in the 1970s with the creation of “global policy groups” and think tanks such as the World Economic Forum, in 1971, and the Trilateral Commission, in 1973, among many others.
The function of such institutions was to help mobilize and integrate the corporate elite beyond national borders, constructing a politically “organized minority.” These policy-planning organizations came to exist as “venues for discussion, strategic planning, discourse production and consensus formation on specific issues,” as well as “places where responses to crises of legitimacy are crafted,” such as managing economic, political, or environmental crises where elite interests might be threatened. These groups also often acted as “advocates for specific projects of integration, often on a regional basis.” Perhaps most importantly, the organizations “provide bridges connecting business elites to political actors (heads of states, politicians, high-ranking public servants) and elites and organic intellectuals in other fields (international organizations, military, media, academia).”
One important industry association, according to researchers Carroll and Carson in the journal Global Networks (Vol. 3, No. 1, 2003), is the International Chamber of Commerce. Launched by investment bankers in 1919, immediately following WWI, the Paris-based Chamber groups roughly 7,000 member corporations together across 130 countries, adhering to largely conservative, “free market” ideology. The “primary function” of the ICC, write Carroll and Carson, “is to institutionalize an international business perspective by providing a forum where capitalists and related professionals… can assemble and forge a common international policy framework.”
Another policy group with outsized global influence is the Bilderberg group, founded between 1952 and 1954, which provided “a context for more comprehensive international capitalist coordination and planning.” Bringing together roughly 130 elites from Western Europe and North America at annual closed meetings, “Bilderberg conferences have furnished a confidential platform for corporate, political, intellectual, military and even trade-union elites from the North Atlantic heartland to reach mutual understanding.”
As Valerie Aubourg examined in an article for the journal Intelligence and National Security (Vol. 18, No. 2, 2003), the Bilderberg meetings were organized largely at the initiative of a handful of European elites, with heavy financial backing from select American institutions including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the CIA. The meetings incorporate leadership from the most prominent national think tanks, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment and others from across the North Atlantic ‘community.’
Hugh Wilford, writing in the journal Diplomacy & Statecraft (Vol. 14, No. 3, 2003), identified major philanthropic foundations such as the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie foundations as not only major sources of funding but also providers for much of the leadership of the Bilderberg meetings, which saw the participation of major industrial and financial firms in line with those foundations (David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan is a good example). Bilderberg was a major force in helping to create the political, economic and strategic consensus behind constructing a common European market.
With the support of these major foundations and their leadership, the Bilderberg meetings became a powerful global tool of the elites, not only in creating the European Union but in designing the process of globalization itself. Will Hutton, a former Bilderberg member, once referred to the group as “the high priests of globalization,” and a former Bilderberg steering committee member, Denis Healey, once noted: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair…we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”
The large industrial foundations have played a truly profound – and largely overlooked – role in the shaping of modern society. The ‘Robber Baron’ industrial fortunes of the late 19th century – those of Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Vanderbilt, etc. – sought to shape a new order in which they would maintain a dominant influence throughout society. They founded major American universities (often named after themselves) such as Vanderbilt, or the University of Chicago which was founded by John D. Rockefeller.
It was through their institutions that they sought to produce new elites to manage a new society, atop of which they sat. These universities became the harbingers of modern social sciences, seeking to “reform” society to fit the needs of those who dominated it; to engage in social engineering with the purpose of social control. It was in this context that the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and later the Ford Foundation and others were founded: as engines of social engineering. One of their principal aims was to shape the development of the social sciences – and their exportation around the world to other industrial and imperial powers like Great Britain, and beyond. The social sciences were to facilitate the “scientific management” of society, and the foundations were the patrons of “social control.”
The Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford foundations were instrumental in providing funding, organization and personnel for the development of major American and international think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations, which became essential to the emergence of a dominant and entrenched U.S. business class linking academia, political, strategic, corporate and financial elites. The Rockefeller and Ford foundations in particular constructed the field of modern political science and “Area Studies” with a view to educating a class of people who would be prepared to help manage a global empire.
They were also prominent in developing the educational system for black Americans designed to keep them relegated to labor and “vocational” training. They helped found many prominent universities in Africa, Asia and Latin America to train indigenous elites with a “Western” education in the social sciences, to ensure continuity between a domestic and international elite, between core and periphery, empire and protectorate.
Another major policy planning group is the Trilateral Commission, created out of the Bilderberg meetings as a separate transnational think tank and founded by Chase Manhattan CEO (and Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations) David Rockefeller along with academic-turned-policymaker Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973. The Trilateral Commission linked the elites from Western Europe, North America and Japan (hence “trilateral”), and it now also includes members from China, India and a range of other Pacific-East Asian countries.
Consisting of a membership of roughly 350 individuals from finance, corporations, media, think tanks, foundations, academia and political circles, the Trilateral Commission (TC) has been immensely influential as a forum facilitating the development and integration of a “transnational elite.” The aim of the TC was “to foster closer cooperation among these core industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system.”
The most famous report issued by the Trilateral Commission in the mid-1970s suggested that due to the popular activism of the 1960s, there was a “crisis of democracy” that it defined as an “excess of democracy,” which needed to be reduced in order for “democracy to function effectively.” According to the Trilateral Commission, what was needed was increased “apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups” to counter the “crisis” being caused by “a highly educated, mobilized, and participant society.”
Moving elsewhere, the World Economic Forum, founded in 1971, convenes annually in Davos, Switzerland and was originally designed “to secure the patronage of the Commission of European Communities, as well as the encouragement of Europe’s industry associations” and “to discuss European strategy in an international marketplace.” The WEF has since expanded its membership and mandate, as Carroll and Carson noted, “organized around a highly elite core of transnational capitalists (the ‘Foundation Membership’) – which it currently limits to ‘1000 of the foremost global enterprises’.” The meetings include prominent individuals from the scientific community, academics, the media, NGOs and many other policy groups.
Another major policy planning group emerged in the mid-1990s with an increased focus on environmental issues, called the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which “instantly became the pre-eminent business voice on the environment” with a 1997 membership of 123 top corporate executives, tasked with bringing the “voice” of big business to the process of international efforts to address environmental concerns (and thus, to secure their own interests).
Among other prominent think tanks and policy-planning boards helping to facilitate and integrate a transnational network of elites are many nation-based organizations, particularly in the United States, such as with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), among many others. The advisory boards to these organizations provide an important forum through which transnational elites may help to influence the policies of many separate nations, and most importantly, the world’s most powerful nation: the United States.
The Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921, refers to itself as “an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher,” with roughly 4,700 members. It is largely based in New York with affiliate offices in Washington D.C. and elsewhere. The CFR is, and has been, at the heart of the American foreign policy establishment, bringing together elites from academia, government, the media, intelligence, military, financial and corporate institutions.
The CFR worked in close cooperation with the U.S. government during World War II to design the post-War world over which America would reign supreme. The Council was active in establishing the “Grand Areas” of the American Empire, and in maintaining extensive influence over the foreign policy of the United States.
As Carroll and Carson noted, there is a prominent relationship between those individuals who sit on multiple corporate boards and those who sit on the boards of prominent national and transnational policy-planning groups, “suggesting a highly centralized corporate-policy network.”
Studying 622 corporate directors and 302 organizations (five of which were the major policy-planning groups: ICC, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, World Economic Forum and World Business Council for Sustainable Development), Carroll and Carson assessed this network of transnational elites with data leading up to 1996, and concluded: “The international network is primarily a configuration of national corporate networks, integrated for the most part through the affiliations of a few dozen individuals who either hold transnational corporate directorships or serve on two or more policy boards.”
Out of the sample of 622 individuals, they found roughly 105 individuals (94 “transnational corporate linkers” and 11 others “whose corporate affiliations are not transnational but who sit on multiple global policy boards”) making up “the most immediate structural contributions to transnational class formation.” At the “core” of this network were 17 corporate directors, primarily European and North American, largely linked by the transnational policy groups, with the Trilateral Commission as “the most centrally positioned.” This network, they noted, “is highly centralized in terms of the individuals and organizations that participate in it.”
In undertaking a follow-up study of data between 1996 and 2006, published in the journal International Sociology (Vol. 25, No. 4, 2010), Carroll and Sapinski expanded the number of policy-planning groups from five to 11, including the original five (ICC, Bilderberg, TC, WEF, and WBCSD), but adding to them the Council on Foreign Relations (through its International Advisory Board), the UN Global Compact (through its advisory board), the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), founded in 1983, the EU-Japan Business Round Table, the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, and the North American Competitiveness Council.
The results of their research found that among the corporate directors, “policy-board membership has shifted towards the transnationalists, who come to comprise a larger segment of the global corporate elite,” and that there was a growing group of elites “made up of individuals with one or more transnational policy-board affiliations.” As Carroll and Sapinski concluded:
“The corporate-policy network is highly centralized, at both the level of individuals and that of organizations. Its inner circle is a tightly interwoven ensemble of politically active business leaders; its organizational core includes the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Conference, the European Round Table of Industrialists and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, surrounded by other policy boards and by the directorates of leading industrial corporations and financial institutions based in capitalism’s core regions.”
Organizations like the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) are not think tanks, but rather, industry organizations (exclusively representing the interests and individuals of major corporations), wielding significant influence over political and social elites. As Bastiaan van Apeldoorn wrote in the journal New Political Economy (Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000), the ERT “developed into an elite platform for an emergent European transnational capitalist class from which it can formulate a common strategy and – on the basis of that strategy – seek to shape European socioeconomic governance through its privileged access to the European institutions.”
In 1983, the ERT was formed as an organization of 17 major European industrialists (which has since expanded to several dozen members), with the proclaimed objective being “to revitalize European industry and make it competitive again, and to speed up the process of unification of the European common market.” Wisse Dekker, former Chairman of the ERT, once stated: “I would consider the Round Table to be more than a lobby group as it helps to shape policies. The Round Table’s relationship with Brussels [the EU] is one of strong co-operation. It is a dialogue which often begins at a very early stage in the development of policies and directives.”
The ERT was a central institution in the re-launching of European integration from the 1980s onward, and as former European Commissioner (and former ERT member) Peter Sutherland stated, “one can argue that the whole completion of the internal market project was initiated not by governments but by the Round Table, and by members of it… And I think it played a fairly consistent role subsequently in dialoguing with the Commission on practical steps to implement market liberalization.” Sutherland also explained that the ERT and its members “have to be at the highest levels of companies and virtually all of them have unimpeded access to government leaders because of the position of their companies… So, by definition, each member of the ERT has access at the highest level to government.”
Other notable industry associations include the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), formerly called the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI), a group comprised of Canada’s top 150 CEOs who were a major force for the promotion and implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The CCCE remains one of the most influential “interest groups” in Canada.
In the United States there are prominent industry associations like the Business Council, the Business Roundtable, and the Financial Services Forum. The Business Council describes itself as “a voluntary association of business leaders whose members meet several times a year for the free exchange of ideas both among themselves and with thought leaders from many sectors.”
Likewise, the Business Roundtable describes itself as “an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies with more than $7.3 trillion in annual revenues,” which believes that “businesses should play an active and effective role in the formation of public policy.”
Finally, the Financial Services Forum proclaims itself to be “a non-partisan financial and economic policy organization” which aims “to pursue policies that encourage savings and investment, promote an open and competitive global marketplace, and ensure the opportunity of people everywhere to participate fully and productively in the 21st-century global economy.”
These are among some of the many institutions which will be researched and examined in greater detail throughout the Global Power Project. In the next installment, I will be examining not only the societal and economic results of these dominant institutions of power, but the specific individuals — and in some cases family dynasties — that wield significant influence nationally and globally.
Obama statue…1. A large number of the world’s leaders work for the CIA.
Ron Rewald, a banker, was recruited by the CIA’s chief officer in Chicago in 1976.
Rajiv GandhiRon Rewald reported that “millions of dollars in CIA funds … such as those maintained in the Bank of Hawaii… were used to launder money for the Sultan of Brunei… President Ferdinand Marcos, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Gandhi’s son and future Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and President Suharto of Indonesia.”The Story of Obama: All in the Company by Wayne Madsen – www.lewrockwell.com
Madelyn Dunham (right), Stanley Dunham (centre), Ann Dunham (left)2. Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was a banker.She was vice president of the Bank of Hawaii.“Madelyn Dunham handled … accounts used to make CIA payments to U.S.-supported Asian dictators like … President Suharto in Indonesia.
Gough Whitlam“Grandmother Madelyn’s bank also had dealings with another CIA bank, Nugan Hand Bank of Australia, through which the CIA funded the constitutional coup d’etat against Australian Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975.”The Story of Obama: All in the Company by Wayne Madsen – www.lewrockwell.com
The World’s biggest Moslem Organisation – the NU3. A very large number of the world’s Moslem organisations work for the CIA.
“A CIA Intelligence Memorandum, formerly Secret and dated July 23, 1966, clearly sees Indonesia’s Nahdatul Ulama (NU – the largest Moslem organisation in the world), as a natural ally of the United States and the Suharto regime.”The memorandum states that the NU helped Indonesia’s President Suharto murder his opponents – up to one million were assassinated by the Moslem organisation’s militia and others.
Obama in Indonesia.“An April 29, 1966, formerly Secret CIA Intelligence Memorandum states that (in Indonesia): ‘Moslem extremists in many instances outdid the army in hunting down and murdering members of the PKI party (Suharto’s opponents) and its front groups.'”
The Story of Obama: All in the Company by Wayne Madsen – www.lewrockwell.com
Ann Dunham? Brainwashed to become a CIA ass-et?4. Many of the world’s leaders have been brainwashed by the CIA.Both Barack Obama and his mother Ann Dunham have links to the University of Hawaii which has links to CIA brainwashing.
“A series of formerly Confidential CIA memoranda, dated May 15, 1972, points to the involvement of… the University of Hawaii in the CIA’s behavioral science program…
“With the ties of Obama’s parents to the University of Hawaii and its links to MKULTRA and ARTICHOKE, a nagging question remains: Is Barack Obama a real-life ‘Manchurian Candidate?'”
The Story of Obama: All in the Company by Wayne Madsen – www.lewrockwell.com
5. The CIA controls many of the key people in Indonesia.
In 1961, Ann Dunham was caring for her infant son.
From 1963-66, Dunham was re-enrolled at the University of Hawaii.
Barack Obama, bottom right, with the family of his step-father Lolo Soetoro.
Ann Dunham met Lolo Soetoro at the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii.
“The center had long been affiliated with CIA activities in the Asia-Pacific region.
“In 1965, the year that Dunham met and married Soetoro, the center saw a new chancellor take over. He was Howard P. Jones who served a record seven years, from 1958 to 1965, as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia.”Jones was present in Jakarta as Suharto and his CIA-backed military officers planned the 1965 overthrow of Sukarno…”
The Story of Obama: All in the Company by Wayne Madsen – www.lewrockwell.com
Obama in Hawaii in 1969By 1968, Obama’s mother was in Indonesia, teaching English for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is a major cover for CIA activities.
A 1968 book, ‘Who’s Who in the CIA’, published in Berlin, lists CIA agents in countries during the 1950s and 60s:Indonesia
The Story of Obama: All in the Company by Wayne Madsen – www.lewrockwell.com
Barack Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, with Barack Obama, Sr., at a welcome to Hawaii ceremony. “The presence of two US Navy personnel indicates the plane may have landed at Hickam Air Force Base, an indication of the U.S. government’s and CIA’s role in the Airlift Africa project.”
Obama has mistakenly referred to Stanley Armour Dunham as ‘his father‘ in two speeches.
“The photograph of Stanley Armour Dunham with Barack Obama, Sr., indicates that the ‘furniture salesman’ in Hawaii was, in fact, working with a CIA-funded project to rapidly educate aspiring politicians to serve in post-independence African governments…
Did Obama’s mother go to a private school in Lebanon in the early 1950s while her father worked for the CIA in Beirut?
“There is a strong reason to believe that Stanley Armour Dunham worked in the 1950s for the CIA in the Middle East…”
Barack Obama went to work for the CIA front organisation Business International Corporation (BIC) after his graduation from Columbia University in 1983.
The Story of Obama: All in the Company by Wayne Madsen – www.lewrockwell.com
Above, ‘the pagan mystic and occulted mass murderer’ General Suharto of Indonesia.
In March 1968, the CIA backed general took power and instituted a ‘New Order’ in Indonesia.
Around one million Indonesians were murdered as a result of the CIA coup in Indonesia.
The CIA gave Suharto lists of people who were to be killed.
Obama’s mother worked for ‘CIA front organisations’, such as the Ford Foundation.
Adolf Hitler’s Nazi deputy Rudolf Hess ‘murdered by British agents’ to stop him spilling wartime secrets
Scotland Yard was given the names of British agents who allegedly murdered the Nazi Rudolf Hess in the infamous Spandau Prison but was advised by prosecutors not to pursue its investigations, according to a newly-released police report.
Written two years after Hess’s death in 1987, the classified document outlines a highly-sensitive inquiry into the claims of a British surgeon who had once treated Adolf Hitler’s deputy that, rather than taking his own life, the elderly Nazi was killed on British orders to preserve wartime secrets.
Released under the Freedom of Information Act, the partially-redacted report by Detective Chief Superintendent Howard Jones revealed that the surgeon – Hugh Thomas – had supplied him with the names of two suspects provided by a “government employee” responsible for training secret agents.
Withheld for nearly 25 years, the report has been released by the Yard’s counter-terrorism command following consultation with “other Government and foreign government departments”.
The death of Hess in Berlin at the age of 93 after he apparently hung himself with a wire flex in a summer house in the grounds of Spandau has long been controversial with claims that he was too infirm to commit suicide and a farewell note to his family had in fact been written 20 years earlier.
The Yard was called in in 1989 after Mr Thomas, an eminent former military surgeon previously based in Spandau, claimed in a book that “Hess” was in fact an impostor sent by the Nazis to Britain in 1941 and his murder was carried out by two British assassins disguised as American serviceman.
In his subsequent 11-page report, Mr Jones said the surgeon had “confidentially imparted” the names of two alleged suspects passed to him by an informant who was a former member of the SAS and had since taken on a role “training people for undercover or spying operations”.
Prior to his death, speculation had been growing that Hess might be released because a long-standing veto by the Soviet Union, which for decades had insisted on a severe regime for Hess, including forcing him to wash his hands in toilet bowl, might be reversed by Mikhail Gorbachev.
Mr Jones wrote: “[Mr Thomas] had received information that two assassins had been ordered on behalf of the British Government to kill Hess in order that he should not be released and free to expose secrets concerning the plot to overthrow the Churchill government.”
The officer found there was not “much substance” to Mr Thomas’s claims of murder but suggested that efforts should be made to trace and interview the alleged killers along with other witnesses to ensure the matter could be “comprehensively adjudged” to have been fully investigated.
It is not known if the two suspects were tracked down after the report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service in May 1989.
But within six months the investigation was declared closed after the then Director of Public of Prosecutions, Sir Allan Green QC, advised that further inquiries were not necessary.
In November 1989, Sir Nicholas Lyell, the solicitor general, told Parliament: “The inquiries carried out by Detective Chief Superintendent Jones have produced no cogent evidence to suggest that Rudolf Hess was murdered; nor, on the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions, is there any basis for further investigation.”
The unannounced arrival of Hess in Britain was one of the strangest incidents of the Second World War and remains the subject of extensive debate about its motivation, including whether it was an ill-judged attempt to unseat Winston Churchill by enlisting aristocrats with Nazi sympathies.
After flying solo to Scotland in 1941, Hitler’s deputy fuhrer parachuted to the ground and, after being taken into custody at pitchfork-point by an astonished ploughman, declared his intention to negotiate a peace with Britain to form an alliance against Stalin’s Soviet Union.
Hess was sentenced to life imprisonment as a war criminal at the Nuremberg Trials and incarcerated in Spandau along with other prominent Nazis including Albert Speer. From 1966 onwards, Hitler’s deputy – whose Allied guards were required to only address him as Prisoner Seven – was the sole inmate in the 600-cell prison.
Further doubt was claimed to have been cast last year on the circumstances of Hess’s suicide when photographs emerged of the summer house where he died, showing the short distance – some 5ft – between the cord from which he was found hanging and the floor.
His son, Wolf, had previously insisted that the height was insufficient for his father, crippled by arthritis, to hang himself and added to post mortem examination evidence suggesting a full noose had been placed around his neck.
In his report, Mr Jones dismissed such concerns, saying expert advice showed Hess’s injuries were consistent with an “unusual hanging situation.”
Media institutions such as the state broadcaster, the BBC, pride themselves on certain principles such as rationality and material science, or at least this is the pretence they want to emit. Strange then, that they appear to be suggesting the news-readers virtually empty desk is some kind of ‘scrying pool’ thus in the subconscious of the viewers giving them perhaps an undeserved reverence deeply engrained into the group memory?
Weather forecasting has long been a blend of material science and ‘witchcraft’ and to illustrate this point the BBC Weather logo is a crystal ball.
The scrying pool and the shew-stone are set against the backdrop of 3D weather maps and a hive of hi-tech wizardry in the seemingly hyper-rational, paranormal-sceptical and sterile atmosphere of the newsroom. With the prominent display in the foreground of these ancient and magical information gathering tools that granted access to a medieval ether-net what are they trying to tell us? Are they clues to the origins of the modern media?
There are some who say the word ‘media’ originates from the Medes who dwelt in the land of Media in present day Iran. An Aryan people that included the Magi tribe, they were renowned for miles around for their knowledge of astrology and ‘sorcery’ and were consulted as divining oracles and soothsayers.
BBC Newsroom, London
BBC Newsroom, London
2 sets of twin pillars resonate with 1111 and the twin spiral staircases with phi, the double helix and twin magnetic currents.
The Hoop: one ring to bind them?
Merovee has coined a phrase to describe the BBC Newsroom that recently underwent a lavish £2bn revamp at Brainwashing House that was opened by the Queen. He terms it the ‘Holodeck’ in reference to Star-Trek.
A hexagonal bank of desks is the main feature of the floorspace with more banks fanning out of it is possibly a reference to Saturn. The Hoop, or ring, hovers above the hexagonal arrangement.
A giant ‘halo’ is mounted above the ‘scrying pool’ too.
With paedo-magickians such as Jimmy Savile fronting public information campaigns and hosting prime-time television shows for the Beeb and ‘M’ presenting gardening programming whilst controlling MI6 who is to say what else occurs in Brainwashing House? For all we know a green-skinned oracle isn’t hidden away somewhere cackling into a genuine scrying pool to glean the day’s news and forecast the weather too while she is at it doubling up the scrying pool as a cauldron and relaying her findings into the news-feeds before they are processed by the equivalent of the Political Warfare Executive and regurgitated by the news-readers?
At this stage it is hard to put anything past the BBC. Which in some ways seems a shame but maybe that’s the programming?