The contents of this article is very profound in the understanding they provide and their discovery only came about as a result of the need to check timelines related to the Kurds fighting ISIS all alone because having made this statement in the Macon article posted on Saturday, by the following Monday the news was making reference to America aiding the Kurds which at this present time appears to be true. Therefore dates and timelines are very important when it comes to understanding the unfolding of events.

The current news, although true, had also served to diminish what had been stated, re the Kurds, and at the same time present America in a better light, but this present stance is the result of the current set of unfolding circumstances.

The intention of research was solely to establish the timeline related to the Kurds but in the process of looking, information revealing a much broader view came to light. It begins with the philosophy of the American Neocons before 911 and covers the elements of the second emboldened statement
but most importantly their concept of Armageddon and Nuclear war to bring about the Second Coming of Christ, a concept also held by certain Muslims to bring about the appearance of the Mahdi and also certain Jews who believe that it will bring about their long expected Messiah.

This subject is an area that was touched on several years ago and I made notes in order to post (but as of yet I am unable to find them) and at the same time came across a section of James Padgett’s writings from Jesus and the Celestial Spirits which are communications through the mediumship of automatic writing and which represent Jesus’ Second Coming on Earth, now in Spirit only which is also explained.

Therefore it is important to understand that the whole concept and belief in a physical return of the Messiah as a result of the destruction of the World is totally unfounded and incorrect and will never happen, though destruction could take place as a result of misguided belief.

1). Now the Kurds who had always made the effort to deal with ISIS in its North Eastern regions of Syria, all alone and unaided are now being portrayed as a threat to Turkey.

2). Weapons to this region began flooding out of Libya immediately after the death of Gadhafi in October 2011, part of the seven countries in five years strategy following the false flag of 911 and murder 3000 international citizens, resulting in ” The War On Terror”, the arrest without charge, special rendition, sometimes of innocents as well as incarceration at Guantanamo, all actions which acted as a natural recruiting sargent to activate conscientious resistance on one hand as well as criminal minds and mercenaries on the other to stir up conflict in order to enable ”justified” military response.

It is very interesting to note that this same John Bolton served under both George Herbert Bush and George Walker Bush and there was also speculation that he may serve with Donald Trump as secretary of State but luckily that did not happen. (This is an update subsequently inserted because John Bolton served as Secretary of State for Donald Trump from April 2018 to September 2019 )

Also of interest is that he often criticised Obama’s actions, but that is the job of opposition, which also serves as a red herring for obfuscation, but regardless the agenda proceeds seamlessly forward.

[Quote] The Bush administration’s international lawlessness did not come from nowhere. Its intellectual foundations were laid long before 9/11 by neoconservative intellectuals such as United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. …… Way back when Bush was still cutting brush in Texas in 1999, Bolton said, “It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so – because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are [sic] those who want to constrict the United States.”
John Bolton helped put into reality the musings of neocon founding father Irving Kristol, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal Aug. 2, 1996, “With the end of the Cold War, what we really need is an obvious ideology and threatening enemy, one worthy of our mettle, one that can unite us in opposition.” [Unquote]
https://original.antiwar.com/utley/2006/09/27/john-bolton-and-us-lawlessness/
(The whole of the above article is in context with this post)

Ideological influences continued:
[Quote] The revelation this month in GQ Magazine that Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary embellished top-secret wartime memos with quotations from the Bible prompts a question. Why did he believe he could influence President Bush by that means?
The answer may lie in an alarming story about George Bush’s Christian millenarian beliefs that has yet to come to light.
In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France’s President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.
In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:
“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”
Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:
“This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins“.
The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elyse Palace, baffled by Bush’s words, sought advice from Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Romer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university’s review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper.
The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush’s invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs”.
In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on “a mission from God” in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.
There can be little doubt now that President Bush’s reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam’s Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.
Many thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died in the campaign to defeat Gog and Magog. That the US President saw himself as the vehicle of God whose duty was to prevent the Apocalypse can only inflame suspicions across the Middle East that the United States is on a crusade against Islam. [Unquote]  I did reflect at the time of the Blair and Bush meetings that Tony Blair may have become influenced by Bush that ”Religion is a good crack” to ride on, as many influential Americans have been seen to have benefited from.
https://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush%27s_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges%3A_god_wants_to_%22erase%22_mid-east_enemies_%22before_a_new_age_begins%22

(Iraq war that started in 2003 and ended in 2011 Onward to Syrian Invasion as well as the deposing of Gadhafi.)
[Quote] How America Armed Terrorists in Syria (much detail in the article plus links)
Another Middle East debacle
By GARETH PORTER • June 22, 2017

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

Here is a quote from Georgiaboy61: To me it serves as an insight to why Obama had the weight of the Establishment  behind him for his bid for the White House. I did say before he was elected that it was a done deal and that Hillary was just a side show, words to that effect. People were rallied for the inauguration which seemed to embody a touch of ”receiving” the saviour in how it was conducted. After the inauguration of Trump much play was made of the fact that Obama had more people attend his inauguration than at Trump’s but on checking discovered that Trump had a greater number of attendance than both Clinton and GW Bush before.

Georgiaboy61 says:
June 17, 2013 at 1:32 am
Re: “The Syrian intervention John McCain and the Clintons want would be a war for Islamism, not democracy.”

The author is entirely correct, but left out one important name – that of Barack Hussein Obama himself. True, for his own reasons, Obama seems not to be too-interested in Syria at present, but that could change at any moment.

Obama has been helping the Pan-Islamic movement – under the Muslim Brotherhood – fight its wars under the polite fiction that it is aiding the so-called “Arab Spring.” This catchphrase is nothing more than a euphemism designed to mislead the public as to the real intentions of the White House. Namely, empower the Ikhwan at every opportunity.

This Obama and his people – including HR Clinton – have already done in Libya, Egypt and in other places across Africa and the Middle East. Now, they are poised to aid the “rebels” – many of whom are members or proxies of al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brothers, or other Islamic groups.

The scandal that is Benghazi is bad-enough, but it has not yet reached a boil; that may change when people find out that the so-called consulate in that Libyan city was in fact a CIA conduit for funneling arms to the “rebels”…

This is a dirty business, and may get far-dirtier still. Obama is probably smart-enough not to get his fingerprints on any of this, but his absence does not prove his wishes are not being carried out. Hillary Clinton doesn’t make policy, she carries it out according to his wishes… [Unquote]

So much for Obama’s Nobel Prize which would have had to be applied for before he took office. He took office 12 days before the closing date for nominations and the whole process normally takes one full year.

I saw an article in GQ magazine while waiting for a haircut and also realised from observation that Obama was set to win the presidency as a certainty.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1566489/Barack-Obama-and-Dick-Cheney-are-cousins.html

[Quote] Jews are waiting for the Messiah, Christians are waiting for Jesus, and Muslims are waiting for both the Mahdi and Jesus. All religions describe them as men coming to save the world.[Unquote].

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch04_the_mahdi

This can only be understood in one way:

As the threat on nuclear war becomes closer to a reality based on misguided political and religious ideology, it is important to have a clear picture of how the allegorical Book of Revelation came into being.

The following content is from the True Gospel Revealed Anew by Jesus and The Celestial Spirits:
John: Book of Revelation is only a mere allegory of some one or more writers and is not the same as St. John wrote.
http://www.padgettmessages.net/messages-in-1916/1916/03/12/bible69.html

Always were these writings prophetic and held forth the promises for the future, without ever attempting to fix a time for their fulfillment, or the ending of the nation’s woes and the coming of its deliverer, so that time went on and the promises were not fulfilled, hope continued to exist and the belief of the Jews was not lessened, and non-fulfillment was explained by the further belief that the time for the consummation of their eagerly wished for expectations had not yet arrived. That God was all knowing as well as all powerful and careful for their race and that He and He alone understood just when the proper and fitting time should arrive.

This hope upon hope was a wonderful force in keeping up the beliefs and expectations of the Jews, and so effective was it that to this day they remain a nation or rather a race in belief and expectation of this coming Messiah. But, alas, as they did not recognize and accept him when he did appear, they will never again see his appearance, for he will never come as their Messiah as expected of old, but only as the great teacher and redeemer, not only of their race, but of all the peoples of the earth. He has already come as such a redeemer, and is working now to lead men to the true and only way to life and happiness and immortality. But never will any Messiah come to the Jews to establish them on earth as a great and chosen nation, as nearly all of them believe and still look for.

Thus, as I say, many books or manuscripts were written by the claimed Jewish prophets holding forth to the Jews the results of visions claimed to have been experienced by these writers. But as the prophecies, in the sense that the Jews understood them, have never been fulfilled, neither will they be fulfilled in the future, and their value has no reality.

Additionally:

http://www.padgettmessages.net/messages-in-1918/1918/03/02/jesus26.html

Many things in the Bible John says he never wrote. John was mistaken about the kind of kingdom that Jesus came to establish.

Here is a link to Friday’s UK Column which begins with comments from Vanessa Beeley on the present situation in Syria which exposes the lies of the narrative expounded by mainstream media. This also serves to compliment my previous post and is a further counterfoil to the spirit of the Open Democracy article, and the content given by Brian Gerrish and Mike Robinson on the Macon and May meeting shows that the British government is complicit with the military ambitions of the French.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1BCov-UUPM

Opinion  Macron wants his cake and eat it over defense

These were the thoughts that got me out of bed this morning but realised that there would be more flesh to be added to the bone:

Macron wants his cake and eat it over defense.

The fact is that economy is intertwined with defense for it is economy which enables it. If economy is to be put at a disadvantage by design, then if France expects to use our military then they will also have to pay for that privilege.

(then France must also bear the burden and pay for the privilege of using it. We are not here to enable French adventurism in its (former) colonies, defense means defense and not aggression.)

Why are three Chinooks being sent to support French adventurism.

This is not defense, this is encroaching on the sovereignty of a distant country which is no threat to us. The French may be just protecting their own interests in a former Colony which usually means exploitation without giving anything back to the well being of the local population which should be part of their own economy.

Don’t talk about a special relationship with France in the same way that we are supposed to have it with America, if that is really a true relationship anyway.

When we were finally allowed to joint the EEC it was the French who unashamedly pre planned the decimation of our fishing industry by design on entry and this is comprehensively reported in the UKIP pdf called Stolen Seas. This is backed up by fishing societies around the country as well as the testimony of those who were responsible for maintaining ”rules” and quota’s.

Macron says that Britain cannot expect a special deal regarding Brexit but it looks like the military union aspect is a special deal for France which they want to maintain and which was signed sealed and delivered by Cameron without proper discussion in Parliament.

As the only two nuclear powers in Europe, the French want the UK to be the command centre for operations, how cynical is that? The UK would therefore be a prime target to receive a nuclear attack in response.

The UK is an obvious place being separate from the mainland of Europe and also the south westerly trade winds would blow any contamination away from Mainland Europe, skirting in a North Easterly direction.

Of course we had the Tri Scott Prime Ministership of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron (who is of pedigree Scottish descent) who oversaw the erosion of our independent UK military capability. These are facts that cannot be ignored and the cherry on the top is that historically the Scott’s had always supported the French in battles against the English. So as an extrapolation of that there is a possibility that they all have a clear conscience regarding their actions. ( We are talking on a political level here) Populations just get roped in to the desire of their rulers, as in Nazi Germany as a prime example.

From Nairaland Forum
[Quote] The Sahel includes some of the world’s
poorest countries but has rich natural
resources in the form of minerals and gas.
France sent troops to Mali in January 2013
after Islamist militants threatened to overrun
the capital, Bamako.[Unquote]

Weapons to this region began flooding out of Libya immediately after the death of Gadhafi in October 2011, part of the seven countries in five years strategy following the false flag of 911 and murder 3000 international citizens, resulting in ” The War On Terror”, the arrest without charge, special rendition, sometimes of innocents as well as incarceration at Guantanamo, all actions which acted as a natural recruiting sargent to activate conscientious resistance on one hand as well as criminal minds and mercenaries on the other to stir up conflict in order to enable ”justified” military response.)

From Open Democracy:
[Quote]: Conflicts are at the sharp end of contemporary crises. Refugees, extremist ideologies, criminality and predation are all produced in conflict. Contemporary conflicts are sometimes known as ‘hybrid wars’ or ‘new wars’ in which classic distinctions between public and private, government/regular and rebel/irregular, and internal and external break down. They are best understood not as legitimate contests of wills (the twentieth century idea of war) but as a degenerate social condition in which armed groups mobilise sectarian and fundamentalist sentiments and construct a predatory economy through which they enrich.Identifying ways to address violent conflict could open up strategies for dealing with broader issues. [Unquote].

Quote: “The world is not only Europe”
Prior to the conflict the EU had rather extensive relations with Syria, and through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and the European Neighbourhood Policy was applying a range of instruments, with some limited effect, aimed at bringing about political and economic reform. These efforts were abandoned shortly after the conflict began, and instead the EU focused on the application of sanctions, scaling down its mission in Damascus, and taking extreme political measures that led to the loss of political leverage.
The Syrian foreign minister responded in June 2011 by announcing in a statement to the media, “We will forget that there is Europe on the map,” and promised to look “eastward and southward and in every direction that extends its hands to Syria. The world is not only Europe.” Indeed, shortly afterwards, Syria did suspend its membership in the Union for the Mediterranean, and it did look in other directions for support, mainly from Iran, Russia and China. This served only to increase the leverage of these countries over the Syrian government and increase polarisation at all levels. The theory of change that assumes that the regime is going to change its behaviour should such measures be imposed has not only proved to be wrong, but to the contrary, these measures produced the opposite outcome. [Unquote]

Although this is an academic paper, it must also be remembered that Syria had self suspended itself from the Union of the Mediterraean which is a French construct and just as it has been speculated that the real reason to remove Gadhafi was his intention to switch over to the gold standard as a replacement for US dollars. We can only speculate how much of an influence Assad’s new position really had in the move to depose him for regime change.

There had been an anecdotal story from a person familiar with the oil industry on a business level who told that it was Assad’s refusal to allow a pipeline to pass through Syria from Israel and on to Turkey and Europe. In his opinion,this was the real reason for the invasion of Syria and Regime change. This pipeline was to originate from Qatar.
During this conflict Syria’s industrial manufacturing capability had been looted and taken to Turkey as well as everything else destroyed by the so called friendly terrorists who receive cash support from EU, UK and USA, as well as ISIS who seemed to have free reign until Russia stepped in to make a serious attempt at eradicating them. Now the Kurds who had always made the effort to deal with ISIS in its North Eastern regions of Syria, all alone and unaided is now being portrayed as a threat to Turkey.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/rim-turkmani/role-of-eu-in-syrian-conflict

The efficacy of cease fires as expressed in the Open Democracy article is not cut and dried:

https://shadowproof.com/2016/09/16/next-cold-war-roundup-91616/

[Quote]

_ French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said on Sep. 15 that it’s a problem that France doesn’t know all the details of the deal and the US must make more of agreement on targeting available to them because of the risk of “moderate opposition” being hit.

_ Reuters also says that France “is a key backer of rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces and allied militias.” When rebel sponsor countries are mentioned, France is not usually among those mentioned. Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are usually cited.

_ On Friday, Sergey Lavrov said the US is “stalling on its promise to separate moderate rebel groups in Syria from terrorists. Lavrov went even further by saying he hopes “this delay is not caused by someone in Washington trying to shield terrorists from being targeted.”[Unquote]

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[Quote]https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/01/18/world/u-k-choppers-join-french-counterterrorism-mission-africas-restive-sahel-region/#.WmMJiIaska8

[Quote] May said U.K.-French summit “will underline that we remain committed to defending our people and upholding our values as liberal democracies in the face of any threat, whether at home or abroad.”

One topic not high on the agenda is Brexit. Britain wants the meeting to underscore how the close relationship between the two neighbors won’t suffer when Britain leaves the EU in 2019.

In the crisply martial surroundings of Sandhurst, where army officers have been trained since the days of the British Empire, senior ministers from the two countries will sign agreements on everything from space exploration to tackling online extremism.

In a boost to Macron, Britain is throwing its backing behind the European Intervention Initiative, a multinational European military force that the French president has proposed. He also wants a common European defense budget and security doctrine.

The plan is in its early stages, but British officials don’t see it as an “EU army,” an idea on which the U.K. has long been cool. [unquote]

So here we can see that just like the nature of the EU from the beginning, matters military are now in the process of being morphed into something else again because of public reaction against the concept of an EU Army but all of the organisational structure for this is already in place, illustrated by the Command centres based in the UK now set up and ready to be put into operation.

When the final result of the Brexit vote came in, the most obvious to me was the separation of our own military from that of Europe.

It is no wonder that the French want to hook into our technical expertise for free via this so called pact, and I say this from my own observations of somebody trying to sort out the electrical problems in his French car in the centre of London and the owners comments on the matter and in that same car design they thought it a good idea to store the spare wheel in the engine compartment. I was parked next to him at Holland Park 1996.

Even on a more simple level concerning a Peugeot bicycle they thought it common sense to make a seat pillar that had a smaller diameter than standard and which was unique to their own design as well as designing the clamp so that the full weight of the rider bore upon the very bolt that is meant to clamp the saddle in place. With this design the bolt acted as the fulcrum or pivot. The first time the bolt sheared off, what was left was fortunately able to be removed and replaced with a much stronger bolt, so the mechanic told me, but it wasn’t long before that one also sheared off.

There was a time when Britain was ahead of the Americans in space technology and we willingly shared it, which resulted in nothing in return. Although we are supposed to have a special relationship with America, it came to light that when Obama visited France he told them that they were America’s greatest Ally.

France wants to impose a financial burden upon us so let them also be a recipient of that burden.

Soon after my article about the release of the JFK files back in October called The Release of JFK Assassination Files on this blog I began more research which led to the discovery of the testimony of Madeleine Brown who was the mistress of Vice President Johnson at the time and also the testimony of James Files who was still serving a prison sentence when by his information given confirmed the fluid relationship between the agencies of the US government and the Mafia syndicates as well as big business. James Files testimony sounds very plausible and puts into context the fragments of information which can be cross checked from different sources of origin as well as the numerous videos which have been put on line. However one had to wonder why he would claim to have fired the fatal shot that killed Kennedy, a claim made while still incarcerated.

The most prominent fact to be learned is that we will not gain much more information from mainstream media other than what has already been laid down and the obvious conclusion for this is possibly the protection of those even higher up the food chain, as it were.

I had written an outline and put it on the back burner but today came across an amazingly informative video covering first of all the identity of those involved at the highest level, quoting Madeline Brown, although bets are on that even higher up there are still individuals hidden from view.

In this video also is a mention of E Howard Hunt, as well as Gordon Liddy,  who was prominent in a book written about Watergate and who liked to show how he could withstand pain by holding the palm of his hand over a flame of a cigarette lighter. As previously mentioned none of the information within a book that I had been reading from a Jackson Mississippi library in 1985 gave away any information regarding the relationship of these actors to The Bay of Pigs, the JFK Assassination and Watergate. However there was a paperback available called The Rockerfeller File also by Gary written in same style of Who Dare Call it Conspiracy and chapter 13 is titled: Was Nixon Watergated. Also while visiting a Reagan Bush campaign office somewhere in Mississippi or possibly Louisiana, not exactly sure because of constantly moving from place to place on a daily basis, I made a comment based on what I had read from these Paperbacks and a person on my side of the counter answered back saying ‘You are right, they broke into the Watergate building several times until they were caught’.

(http://www.reformation.org/rockefeller-file.html)

James Files is not mentioned in this video so draw your own conclusions about that but would also like to mention that it is very likely that the establishment and all of its organs of influence are doing a ‘job’ on Trump because it is very likely as an outsider who wasn’t expected to win the Presidency is also, most likely not ‘one of their own’. We know that most presidential candidates of the past are pre chosen, on both sides, and have the weight of the establishment supporting them.

It is thanks to a scam item that came to my Facebook which I knew was a scam and while in the process of trying to confirm it ended up with one of their tell tale posts that refuse to delete no matter what is tried. Instead of resorting to drastic measures of resetting the phone to factory condition I decided to use Google Chrome instead which is pre installed but never use. While turning to YouTube this video, among others relevant to previous searches, was already there waiting. It is so profound and well put together that it is worth watching all the way through.

By the way, this video is not one that claims to be BANNED, as explained within this video as being used by the CIA as a red herring to convince the public that the contents are true. For some reason this display from the link for the video has appeared but is not on the original except as part of an explanation within further along.

President Trump has been receiving persecution from all quarters of the main stream media as well as various governments for his recent tweets regarding videos said to be depicting extreme Jihadi violence sourced from the Britain First website, which itself is deemed to be extreme Right wing. The videos it seems have now been ‘proved’ not to be from the said locations at all according to independent investigation, but despite this the whole episode prompts some serious questions of their own regarding hypocrisy from his accusers.

The old adage of the Pot calling the Kettle black comes to mind, or the saying of Jesus which said ‘Judge not lest yea be judged’ or even the current saying that ‘ when the accusing finger is pointing forward there are thee more pointing back’.

So the glaring question which begs to be confronted is the issue of sheer hypocrisy from the accusers be it MSM or more importantly, from those in power, be it in the UK or across the pond in America focused on Obama and Hilary Clinton and their backers whoever they may be in the shadow government.

This last point is also an important issue because we have the semblance of democracy but once the vote is in and counted, the resulting ruling party then go on to do as they wish,regardless of public opinion and as such function more like an elected dictatorship, partly in secret.

Within this set up there is another interesting point in the relationship between the UK and America, and that is the relationship of cooperation between the two Nations where the Right Wing of one Country cooperates seamlessly with the Left Wing of the other.

At the time of the false flag of 911, we saw George W Bush,Republican, arm in arm together with Tony Blair, UK, New Labour which in political terms is equivalent to the Democratic party in America. We saw them cooperate in overseas invasions and at the same time enact policies against the best interest of their public at home in the guise of ”The War on Terror” which even included flights for ”Special Rendition” through the UK for illegal torture overseas.

Another example of course is that of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Democrat in the US and David Cameron in the UK, Conservative, which is similar to the Republican Party in America. Cameron was willing to support the agenda to overthrow a a freely elected leader for regime change in Syria.

Now we presently have a situation where the Conservative government under Teresa May in the UK is criticising Donald Trump who is the Republican President of the United States of America.
So this is quite an anomaly at a time when these two political parties, the Conservatives in the UK and the Republicans in the US should be perfectly aligned ideologically. In the past there have been complete harmony between Ronald Reagan, Republican and Mrs Thatcher, Conservative during the 1980s.

It is a fact that Donald Trump wasn’t expected to win the Presidency and it was quite apparent that those who are criticising him now were the same ones badmouthing back in 2016 before the election result but who were quick to change their tune afterwards, which was quite an amusing thing to see.

This is an important detail and it would suggest that Trump is his own man and is not owned by the establishment. This is quite likely to be the answer to the reason for the afore mentioned anomaly. So the bottom line is that he is not a puppet of the Deep State or Shadow Government so they are doing their best to unseat him. Despite this it is apparent that Trump’s initial choice of people chosen to fill government roles are gradually being replaced by those who have been instrumental in supporting previous administrations and could be said to be fully functioning tool of the Deep State.

To compliment what has been written above is what was put together last night with all of the supporting Video links.

The Hypocrisy is very cleat to see and it seems that it is judged to be more of a crime to post videos
depicting terrorist atrocities than it is to be involved enabling and funding them.

Elements of the pot calling the kettle black. Do not judge lest yea be judged and when a finger is pointed forward there are three pointing back.
The attack on Trump from every quarter just begs for clarification of the facts to expose how hypocritical his accusers are.
Just to make it clear that Boris Johnson fully supports the fraudulent White Helmet shown in the video that follows.
Boris Johnson praising the White Helmets and providing £65 million
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2mWdvgCOqs

A composite from many good White Helmet expose’ videos:
White Helmets Fraud – Netflix and MSM Push White Helmets Propaganda Despite Facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6ihyRoj4UI

BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND WHITE HELMETS EXPOSED ON THE BBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAQmB74eIGo  

Also an additional video which compliments the above in great detail:

This should have been posted yesterday but wrote out a draft in longhand but afterwards felt a little reluctant.

Today, Monday the 27th November 2017 is the first day ever that the Royal Navy has participated in the Changing of the Guard.

The impetus for writing this really began on Saturday night when I wanted to know what was on two memory sticks. While looking through I came across a copy of a post that I made in July 2011 to a particular forum which unexpectedly closed down without warning or explanation while I was on holiday in Germany and only found out when I decided to visit an internet cafe just a couple of days before returning back to the UK to find out how things were progressing.

It was on a different subject, amongst other posters, that things were beginning to heat up politically and was beginning to get exiting with the addition of much trolling, which I suspected was from the Civil Service, but was never able to find out the truth in the end because of the closure. However the forum did become available again at a much later date but only as an archive because a new replacement had been made, but I was never to join this new forum because of the in-courteous way that it was closed without explanation or apology. What was intended to remain as an archive was eventually deleted altogether.

My motive for much posting had been altruistic but felt that it had been violated.

My particular post in question was called Who Will Deliver Us and it centred on the general persecution of Christians around the World and it was responded to with contributions from Sovereign, another avid poster. Because the forum had closed I sought to locate this post in a cache on the web and luckily found it. It had become the one important post that I wanted to save out of 848 proper posts with content made over a 15 month period, at a rate that I will never do again, but I had been ‘In the mode’ at that time.

It so happened that this post had almost become lost again and luckily found it on the desktop of an old drive, which I had decided to recheck just before deciding to reformat it for re use, something that I have often done as a take no prisoners solution to getting rid of suspected nasties on the computer.

So of course I read through it all again Saturday night and on the Sunday morning while awaking began to reflect on certain points and One thing in particular that came to mind was that in 2012 the Royal Navy had officially recognised Satanism as a religion aboard ship, thinking that it was just one year on from my post. However I subsequently discovered that this may be incorrect because later in the day I could find nothing related to that year whatsoever on the internet.

Any way, while still in bed contemplating my thoughts it came to mind that a ship at sea is virtually its own domain and can escape the influences of the land locked World. Whether this is exactly true I do not know but this was the image in my mind. Thoughts that followed reflected how Russian sailors played a key role in the Bolshevik Revolution. So of course one thought led to another and to my great surprise, on the 09:00 news on Radio 4 it was announced that the Royal Navy would be performing the role of Changing the Guard and this news got me quickly out of bed to put pen to paper for which I did write down content and later researched the web but then became reluctant to sort it out.

The news related to a Satanist and Satanism being officially recognised aboard ship by the Royal Navy dates back to 2004. The interesting thing about this is that the person who was written about had since been promoted and later head hunted by the MOD for a post in London. So there you are, I will leave that with you.

This is what I wrote in longhand and how it was expressed. There was much more content in mind, in a convoluted way and just wanted to relax so gave it a miss because because it is also time consuming.

1). Sunday 26th November 2017

This is something which I felt compelled to write while it is fresh in my mind.

Yesterday evening while looking for some files on two particular memory sticks, I came across a copy of something which I had written to a forum in 2011. It was entitled ‘Who Will Deliver Us’ and its main theme was about the inherent on Christianity at home as well as World wide. This is the only one of 800 + which I had felt was important to rescue from the forum that year.

2). Sunday 26th November 2017

This morning in particular, as I lay in contemplation of this article (content), it came to mind that the following year (2012) of writing the article, Satanism was introduced into the Royal Navy as an official religion.

So on reflecting on this point this morning and that, the fact that a vessel at sea is in effect its own kingdom, separated from the influences of those on land. That anyway was the concept (and image) that came to mind.

Quite interestingly the 9:00 news on Radio 4 had a short item announcing that the Royal Navy will be performing the Changing of the Guard for the first time and that training had been given over a period of time.

What also came to mind too, as a natural train of thought was how Naval Seamen played an important part in the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/sailors-prepare-for-royal-navys-first-changing-the-guard/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/3948329.stm

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/royal-navy-satanist-gets-promotion-967122

Without taking into account the fact that the seed of the EU, the Council of Europe, was Nazi in origin with influential Nazi’s taking prominent positions within it’s structure after the second world War, what the UK joined in 1973 was the European Economic Community which by its name was centred solely on trade and that we joined a trading block. A referendum in 1975 ensured that we remained. However what was to follow by stealth and deception was the mutation into a political union.

Political agreements were foisted on the 12 existing members with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 for political integration. This spelled the move from a social democratic model which was more concerned with the well being of populations to a neoliberal model which embodies all of the social problems that we see today, the result of private profits being moved offshore instead of being reinvested which was once the case. The introduction of Private Financial Initiative which New Labour used to build schools and hospitals, and which have since proved to become the main burden in running these programs was introduced by Tory John Major as a result of lobbying from the City of London, but Maastricht Treaty policy enabled this to take place.

Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 but agreed the following year. Ireland also rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the Nice Treaty in 2001 and also the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 but was made to vote again until a yes result was secured which was in 2009. There were 27 members by this time and the rule was that all member states had to agree.

When we look at the negotiations with the EU regarding Brexit, the foremost demand from the EU negotiators is that the UK pay a substantial sum first without having any idea of what the final outcome for trade will be. It seems that the political aspect comes first and they want their bung as a priority.

With such an attitude, the attempted ousting of Mugabe comes to mind as one who served his own political ambitions over those of his people and who had no concern for the extreme ruination of a once prosperous country and even at a very old age is still determined to hang on to self serving power.

The same goes for political leaders who are willing to lead their nation into war for gain rather than defence, even if it means a disastrous outcome as was the case in WW1 and 2, not to forget many wars since despite the mantra of the EU that it exists so that such carnage never takes place again within Europe.

The UK only wants to extricate itself from the supranational dictatorship and to resume trading on an equal basis as before when a member of the EEC but this seems to be a no no as far as the main political proponents for the negotiations are concerned, but this should also be of concern for the trading partners of the 27 because it will be they who will also be feeling the reciprocal pinch and not the political bodies who exist, as ever throughout the World, like a parasite on the population.

Here are some excerpts from the work of Robert John which provides additional information via his work titled Behind the Balfour Declaration, Britain’s Great Pledge To Lord Rothschild posted on the Institute for Historical Review web site. This may be regarded as a confirmation and validation of Vadimir Moss’s article titled Bolshevism and the Jews, posted in the previous article.

Normally I would just make comment and then add the hyperlink for the body of work to be viewed directly from the web site but in this case there is so much reading required which precedes the paragraphs of particular interest that I thought it necessary to lift them out and place them directly on this page. Of course anybody wishing to read the whole content of Robert John’s work may do so from the hyperlink  and in fact it is the best way to read it because the way that paragraphs are separated and indented in the original do not copy well.

Here is a most pertinent quote from Robert John’s work considering this day of Remembrance for the fallen of the Great War of 1914-18, which was promised to be the war to end all wars, and those which have followed since:

Quote: ”Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann “somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919,” and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, “If they don’t,” he said, “we’ll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.”

In this context it is well to read the section on The Great War.

Behind the Balfour Declaration
Britain’s Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild
By Robert John

http://www.ihr.org/node/242

According to Lloyd George’s Memoirs of the Peace Conference, where, as planned many years before, the Zionists were strongly represented,

”There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavor to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V.J.O.D., [HH] was formed, and in January 1918, Talaat, the Turkish Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which “all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfillment.”
Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.

It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.[189]”

As for getting the support of Russian Jewry, Trotsky’s aims were to overthrow the Provisional Government and turn the imperialist war into a war of international revolution. In November 1917 the first aim was accomplished. Military factors primarily influenced Lenin to sign the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.

The Zionist sympathizers Churchill and George seemed never to lose an opportunity to tell the British people that they had an obligation to support the Zionists.

But what had the Zionists done for Britain?

Where was the documentation?

“Measured by British interests alone,” wrote the Oxford historian Elizabeth Monroe in 1963, the Balfour Declaration “was one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history!”
The Zionists had the Herzlian tradition — shall we call it — of Promises, “promises.” Considerable credit for the diplomacy which brought into existence the Jewish national home must go to Weizmann. A British official who came into contact with him summarized his diplomatic method in the following words:

”When (the First World War) began, his cause was hardly known to the principal statesman of the victors. It had many enemies, and some of the most formidable were amongst the most highly placed of his own people … He once told me that 2,000 interviews had gone into the making of the Balfour Declaration. With unerring skill he adapted his arguments to the special circumstances of each statesman. To the British and Americans he could use biblical language and awake a deep emotional undertone; to other nationalities he more often talked in terms of interest. Mr. Lloyd George was told that Palestine was a little mountainous country not unlike Wales; with Lord Balfour the philosophical background of Zionism could be surveyed; for Lord Cecil the problem was placed in the setting of a new world organization; while to Lord Milner the extension of imperial power could be vividly portrayed. To me, who dealt with these matters as a junior officer of the General Staff, he brought from many sources all the evidences that could be obtained of the importance of a Jewish national home to the strategical position of the British Empire, but he always indicated by a hundred shades and inflections of the voice that he believed that I could also appreciate better than my superiors other more subtle and recondite arguments.[190]”…………..

In the U.S., in July 1917, a special mission consisting of Henry Morgenthau, Sr., and Justice Brandeis’s nephew, Felix Frankfurter, was charged by President Wilson to proceed to Turkey, against which the United States did not declare war, to sound out the possibility of peace negotiations between Turkey and the Allies. In this, Wilson may have been particularly motivated by his passion to stop the massacres of Armenian and Greek Christians which were then taking place in Turkey and for whom he expressed immense solicitude On many occasions. Weizmann, however, accompanied by the French Zionist M. Weyl, forewarned, proceeded to intercept them at Gibraltar and persuaded them to return home.[147] During 1917 and 1918 more Christians were massacred in Turkey. Had Morgenthau and Frankfurter carried out their mission successfully, maybe this would have been avoided.
This account appears in William Yale’s book The Near East: A Modern History. He was a Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War. When I had dinner with him on 12 May 1970 at the Biltmore Hotel in New York, I asked him if Weizmann had told him how the special mission had been aborted. He replied that Weizmann said that the Governor of Gibraltar had held a special banquet in their honor, but at the end all the British officials withdrew discretely, leaving the four Jews alone. “Then,” said Weizmann, “we fixed it.”
The same evening, he told me something which he said he had never told anyone else, and which was in his secret papers which were only to be opened after his death. He later wrote to me, after he had read The Palestine Diary, saying that he would like me to deal with those papers.
One of Yale’s assignments was to follow Wilson’s preference for having private talks with key personalities capable of influencing the course of events. He did this with Lloyd George, General Allenby and Col. T.E. Lawrence, for example. Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann “somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919,” and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, “If they don’t,” he said, “we’ll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.”

Brandeis was in Washington during the summer of 1917 and conferred with Secretary of State Robert S. Lansing from time to time on Turkish-American relations and the treatment of Jews in Palestine.[148] He busied himself in particular with drafts of what later became the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine, and in obtaining American approval for them.[149] A considerable number of drafts were made in London and transmitted to the United States, through War Office channels, for the use of the American Zionist Political Committee. Some were detailed, but the British Government did not want to commit itself to more than a general statement of principles.

On 18 July, such a statement, approved in the United States, was forwarded by Lord Rothschild to Lord Balfour. It read as follows:

”His Majesty’s Government, after considering the aims of the Zionist Organization, accepts the principle of recognizing Palestine as the National Home [CC] of the Jewish people and the right of the Jewish people to build up its national life in Palestine under a protectorate to be established at the conclusion of peace following the successful issue of war.
His Majesty’s Government regards as essential for the realization of this principle the grant of internal autonomy to the Jewish nationality in Palestine, freedom of immigration for Jews, and the establishment of a Jewish national colonization corporation for the resettlement and economic development of the country.

The conditions and forms of the internal autonomy and a charter for the Jewish national colonizing corporation should, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, be elaborated in detail, and determined with the representatives of the Zionist Organization.[150]”

It seems possible that Balfour would have issued this declaration but strong representatives against it were made directly to the Cabinet by Lucien Wolf, Claude Montefiore Sir Mathew Nathan, Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu, [DD] and other non-Zionist Jews. It was significant they believed that “anti-semites are always very sympathetic to Zionism,” and though they would welcome the establishment in Palestine of a center of Jewish culture, some — like Philip Magnes — feared that a political declaration would antagonize other sections of the population in Palestine, and might result in the Turks dealing with the Jews as they had dealt with the Armenians.[154] The Jewish opposition was too important to ignore, and the preparation of a new draft was commenced. At about this time, Northcliffe and Reading [EE] visited Washington and had a discussion with Brandeis at which they undoubtedly discussed Zionism.[155]
Multiple pressures at key points led Lord Robert Cecil to telegraph to Col. E.M. House on 3 September 1917: “We are being pressed here for a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement and I should be very grateful if you felt able to ascertain unofficially if the President favours such a declaration. ” [156] House, who had performed services relating to Federal Reserve and currency legislation for Jacob W. Schiff and Paul Warburg, [157] and was Wilson’s closest adviser, relayed the message, but a week later Cecil was still without a reply.
On 11 September the Foreign Office had ready for dispatch the following message for Sir William Wiseman, [FF] head of the British Military Intelligence Service in the United States: “Has Colonel House been able to ascertain whether the President favours sympathy with Zionist aspirations as asked in my telegram of September 3rd? We should be most grateful for an early reply as September 17th is the Jewish New Year and announcement of sympathy by or on that date would have excellent effect.” But before it was sent, a telegram from Colonel House dated 11 September reached the Foreign Office.
Wilson had been approached as requested and had expressed the opinion that “the time was not opportune for any definite statement further, perhaps, than one of sympathy, provided it can be made without conveying any real commitment.” Presumably, a formal declaration would presuppose the expulsion of the Turks from Palestine, but the United States was not at war with Turkey, and a declaration implying annexation would exclude an early and separate peace with that country.[158]
In a widely publicized speech in Cincinnati on 21 May 1916, after temporarily relinquishing his appointment as Ambassador to Turkey in favor of a Jewish colleague, Henry Morgenthau had announced that he had recently suggested to the Turkish Government that Turkey should sell Palestine to the Zionists after the war. The proposal, he said, had been well received, but its publication caused anger in Turkey.[159]
Weizmann was “greatly astonished” at this news, especially as he had “wired to Brandeis requesting him to use his influence in our favour … But up to now I have heard nothing from Brandeis.” [161]
On 19 September Weizmann cabled to Brandeis:

”Following text declaration has been approved by Foreign Office and Prime Minister and submitted to War Cabinet:
1. H.M. Government accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people.
2. H.M. Government will use its best endeavours to secure the achievement of the object and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Zionist Organization.[162]”

Weizmann suggested that non-Zionist opposition should be forestalled, and in this it would “greatly help if President Wilson and yourself support the text. Matter most urgent.” [163] He followed this up with a telegram to two leading New York Zionists, asking them to “see Brandeis and Frankfurter to immediately discuss my last two telegrams with them,” adding that it might be necessary for him to come to the United States himself.[164]
Brandeis saw House on 23 September and drafted a message, sent the following day through the British War Office. It advised that presidential support would be facilitated if the French and Italians made inquiry about the White House attitude, but he followed this the same day with another cable stating that from previous talks with the President and in the opinion of his close advisers, he could safely say that Wilson would be in complete sympathy.[165]
Thus Brandeis had either persuaded Wilson that there was nothing in the draft (Rothschild) declaration of 19 September which could be interpreted as “conveying any real commitment,” which is difficult to believe, or he had induced the President to change his mind about the kind of declaration he could approve or was sure he and House could do so.[166]
On 7 February 1917, Stephen Wise had written to Brandeis: “I sent the memorandum to Colonel House covering our question, and he writes, ‘I hope the dream you have may soon become a reality.” [167] In October, after seeing House together with Wise, de Haas reported to Brandeis: ”He has told us that he was as interested in our success as ourselves.” To Wilson, House stated that “The Jews from every tribe descended in force, and they seem determined to break in with a jimmy, if they are not let in.” [168] A new draft declaration had been prepared; Wilson had to support it.
On 9 October 1917, Weizmann cabled again to Brandeis from London of difficulties from the “assimilants” Opposition: “They have found an excellent champion … in Mr. Edwin Montagu who is a member of the Government and has certainly made use of his position to injure the Zionist cause. ” [169]

Weizmann also telegraphed to Brandeis a new (Milner-Amery) formula. The same draft was cabled by Balfour to House in Washington on 14 October:

”His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish race and will use its best endeavours to facilitate achievement of this object; it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed in any other country by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship.[170]”

It was reinforced by a telegram from the U.S. Embassy in London direct to President Wilson (by-passing the State Department), stating that the “question of a message of sympathy with the (Zionist) movement” was being reconsidered by the British Cabinet “in view of reports that (the) German Government are making great efforts to capture (the) Zionist movement.” [171]
Brandeis and his associates found the draft unsatisfactory in two particulars. They disliked that part of the draft’s second safeguard clause which read, “by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship,” …………

That October 2017 happens to be the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution is timely, because it also throws into focus the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration which also took place in 1917. In fact it would seem not to be out of place to suggest that it could have been by design that these two events almost run in parallel from beginning to end. Not only that but could the instigation of the October Revolution be an event which was to function in much the same way that we see when an event in modern times is stated to be a good time to bury bad news, media wise.

The first Russian Revolution took place more organically in February of 1917 and a second Revolution which was to become a violent revolution in October of the same year was to set the mould of what was to become the ideology/methodology of brutal Communism at home in Russia and throughout conquered parts of the World.

This was the opening paragraph that I had written this morning in an effort to express my thoughts about this particular time regarding seeming parallels of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Balfour Declaration. This thought had been seeded in my mind a week or two ago and which has now been especially kicked into relevance with the breaking news that Prity Patel had held secret meetings in Israel without the knowledge of the Foreign Office. Could this in fact be a second parallel or even homage to the events of 100 years ago?

Looking at the timeline from various sources there was much detail of the ramifications of the running conflict between the Bolsheviks and Menshevik’s plus the other permutations in between, Kerensky and coalition government but there was no mention about the journey of Lenin to Russia, who was trapped in Switzerland because of raging WW1 in surrounding Countries, in a sealed train, with the agreement of the German government and $10 million in gold provided by German Banker Max Warburg. (Given a mention in None Dare Call it Conspiracy).

An excerpt from a book The Sealed Train states:
”In London that Week, Lenin’s proposed journey was brought to the notice of Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary. On April 5, in fact, two telegrams that had reached the Foreign Office were causing anxiety. From Berne, British Ambassador Sir Horace Rumbold reported that negotiations were in progress with the German government to obtain “safe conducts through Germany to Russia of Russian socialists and anarchists resident in Switzerland.” Since they were in favor of immediate peace with Germany, they would be commissioned to “make violent propaganda among the working classes in Russia and among troops at the front.”…..
The other telegram that arrived in London that day was received at the Admiralty. Six socialists had been removed by British naval authorities from the SS Christiania Fiord, which had called in at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on her way to Russia from New York. It had been reported that one of them, Trotsky, was “the leader of a movement to start a revolution against the present Russian Government, the funds being subscribed by socialists and Germans.”

Here is an excellent expose’:
BOLSHEVISM AND THE JEWS
Written by Vladimir Moss
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/371/bolshevism-jews/

The recent news to break is that Trump has released thousands JFK files, and blocked others under pressure. It is understandable why the FBI and CIA have exerted pressure on Trump to withhold for further scrutiny, redact further or even seal.

On the morning of 26th October BBC Radio 4 broadcast an interview with Clint Hill who is the Secret Agent who who can be seen jumping on the back of the Limousine the moment after the shots rang out. He maintains the official narrative that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin and debunks the so called ‘conspiracy theorists’.

Now the interesting point here is that he would have been in a prime position to be able to hear the direction of the shots which the majority of bystanders heard coming from the grassy knoll and who responded by ducking down whilst looking in the direction of the picket fence.

The interviewer asked ‘how did you know for sure that Kennedy was dead at that time’ and the response was words to the effect that ‘ Kennedy was slumped over and I could see that there was a large hole in the skull and that there was no brain matter left. Remember that the biggest hole is always from the exit wound and that the Agent was observing from behind and thoughts at that time during the interview was the possible use of dum dum bullets.

Now this is a personal experience of mine going back to 1985 while staying in a shared house on Middlebrook Pike in Knoxville Tennessee which had been used by students belonging to CARP and who had recently moved out.

Now here the bookshelf was full of political books which was something in keeping with the building’s use and one day I pulled out five books from the shelves in what would seem to be a random manner but I was soon to discover that each one was relevant in its own particular way. One of the books, which was also the largest, was an autobiography by Henry Kissinger called simply Kissinger with a black and white photograph of his face dominant on the front cover. I had no intention of reading this book from cover to cover because of its size but instead browsed through its pages. One particular passage jumped out at me which said words to the effect of ‘When a policy is being made, the best time to change it is before it goes through. Of course I understood this in the context of moulding policy to the will of such like the Trilateral Commission for example, but at the same time that sentence acted as a catalyst of thought that suggested to me that there was a thread or connection that made a link between the events of the Bay of Pigs, the assassination of J F Kennedy and Watergate.

I never ever stopped searching for more insights into both politics and religion for my inner self always told me that there was more to know than we are aware of. So I always took the opportunity to search and brows and while in Jackson Mississippi in particular focused on reading Watergate books to see what could be gleaned of relevance but found nothing in particular that would support my tri event theory.

As far as understanding where Kissinger was coming from, politically, I had already discovered a book called None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen during the tail end of 1980 in San Francisco while browsing a bookshop there. After an initial look around, I had decided it was time to leave but it seemed as if there was a hand on my shoulder keeping me there so I understood that I was to continue looking. Eventually on a white plastic wire carousel of paperbacks I picked out a book called None Dare Call it Conspiracy and as I browsed its contents realised that this was what I was supposed to find and that it was important that people should know about it. However, after buying it and having time to begin reading it through properly I began to wonder if this was just the product of the author’s fanciful imagination. I became separated from this book before completing it due to an unexpected trip to to New York for a three week seminar and expected to return but did not. I should have known better. (http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html)

That first stint in America lasted 14 months after which I unexpectedly returned to England but it was during the second trip which began 1984 thereabouts that one of the five volumes chosen was NDC but I had not recognised it at first until proceeding to read it and gradually I recognised the content and this time was convinced that what was written inside was true.

When the so called ‘Berlin Wall came down’, I could not help but be suspicious that a plan was underway for the infiltration of Europe but eventually put it aside and moved on and with regards to the content of None Dare Call it Conspiracy I put that aside as well because those whom I spoke to about it did not believe and regarded it as an inside joke.

It was during browsing on the internet in 2007 that the answer came regarding the link between the events of the Bay of Pigs, JFk assassination and Watergate and it came in the form of the death bed confession of E Howard Hunt to his son named St. John. It seemed that St John had already had suspicions of his father’s whereabouts on the day of the assassination and recognised the similarity of his father to one of those masquerading as tramps seen behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll, and that he also had his hand in both the Bay of Pigs and Watergate. (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-last-confession-of-e-howard-hunt-20070405)

In this context it also comes to mind a question surrounding the observation of the extent of President Kennedy’s fatal wound.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Confession_of_Howard_Hunt.html