How to get through customs with sensitive materials (And how this relates to the Daily express and their obsession with Princess Diana and Madelaine McCaan)

As I have stated, there is no true understanding of enhanced perceptual reasoning and its important implications for societies in the west due to the psychiatric establishment’s reliance upon subjective determination of psychiatric conditions. Intelligence agencies would furthermore be liable according to present policy to view such abilities as a problem in that they pose a threat to human systems of surveillance which are being concealed.

Those with enhanced perceptual reasoning are of course more often than not blessed with excellent memory and can see patterns and details. Rather like Nunez in HG Wells novel Country of the Blind, it is not a case of “seeing things which aren’t there” but “seeing things which others cannot see”

This is quite a useful ability should one wish to get through customs with some sensitive materials which one would wish to conceal. Without meaning to sound disrespectful, it is not as if the average customs officer in the west will be able to see the significance of patterns and details in certain situations and in addition, they are not blessed with telepathy which enables them to read someone’s memory. Furthermore their superiors would no doubt regard any such abilities as a threat as I outlined in my first post.

Before coming to Moscow, I was aware that I had been subject to computerised network exploitation (aka hacking) and that the main archive had been deleted and that should I reconstruct it it was likely to occur again even if it were encrypted. I did however have several backups of all the material but felt that it would be best if those backups were to have documents with insignificant names and were to be arranged (with several copies) in a disorganised manner with several backups spread across several disks. I would also have to remember quite a fair bit.

This I felt would lead customs officers who would have average perceptual reasoning upon any potential inspection (as had been the case on the frontier between Belarus and Poland in September 2015 when I was detained by the Polish border guard who proceeded to inspect my computer) to conclude that it was “Junk” and this is indeed what occurred before the reassembly of my archive in Moscow.

For the customs officers, it is a case of seeing “not seeing things which are there” rather than “seeing things which aren’t there” because they cannot see things which those with EPR can see.

In many ways the method which I used is not unlike the one whereby the British Ministry of Defence exported arms to Saddam Hussein in the early nineties except for the fact that that attempt was not all the well concealed.

Of course this does not does not apply to for someone with an excellent memory and EPR and one might conclude that this presents a problem to authorities in the west given that this lack of ability in this respect and fear of such abilities in that it threatens their systems of surveillance presents a challenge. As I have proved, that fear of such abilities threatens one system of surveillance, which is customs.

So at the moment, it’s very easy to get sensitive materials through western customs and there is nothing they can do about it.

I should state that Russia and other non-western countries are not presented with such a problem given the fact that they have no need to ensure that on a general level, the public are unaware of certain systems of surveillance. From what I understand and have witnessed, they are fairly blunt and open about such matters.

As regards how this related to the Daily Express and Princess Diana, I should perhaps explain. The Daily Express along with some extent the Dailymail publishes is renowned for covering conspiracy stories regarding the death of Princess Diana. it is known for this reason as the Di-ly express. This is also mixed in with the Madelaine Mccaan story

One might ask why this is the case. I would imagine that it is not improbable to suggest that the editor of that newspaper is employed by or has links with MI5 and the “Junk” stories concerning Diana are in fact an effort by the intelligence community to promote a situation whereby any real revelation concerning the death of Diana will be associated with the Daily Express and such conspiracy stories. In other words were to state the truth and state “This is what happened to Diana”, the other person would yawn and state “you sound like the daily express”.

For the truth to be concealed, you just hide it in a load of nonsense and junk news although someone with a high level of PR would be able to see this as well as its significance

Why they should go to such efforts would lead one to suggest that there is in fact something to conceal although I would wish to state that the death of Diana is not something I will be covering.

DM
Dailymail 18:16 GMT 24th of April 2017

In a similar manner, the mail (and indeed others unusually) have published a story concerning MI5 and involvement in the Madelaine McCann story.  I would suggest that it is not unlikely that they would wish my suggestion of underhand dealings by that organisation to be associated in the publics mind with these conspiracy theories, thereby leading the allegations to be discounted.

This is rather difficult however given the definitive links between the mail and MI5 and the fact that a member of MI5 is involved in underhand dealings, one Martin Clarke, who is its editor.

If anyone thinks PR can be ignored, then to be quite frank they need their head examined.

UPDATE: Although this might be unrelated, just after publishing this story at 21:00, the story about MI5 and Madeleine McCann has been removed. GCHQ of course read this pass on this to MI5 and thence onto Martin Clarke who publishes stuff on their behalf.

243314
Dailymail 21:02 GMT 24th of April 2017

UPDATE: As of Tuesday the 24th of April, all the newspapers have started covering Maddie even though it is not so significant a story to merit such coverage before the anniversary. This is perhaps an effort in the part of MI5 to cover up the revelation which I made that that story is perhaps used to cover up another story. They are perhaps attempting to achieve this by increasing the ratio of disinfo to info and by pretending the Maddie story which is hardly ever covered in the more serious journals but which strangely now isis, is not used by a tool by MI5 through the express.

The scientific method of leaking

1324234

Most sites which are devoted to leaking classified materials such as Wikileaks and The Intercept are of the opinion that for a claim to be accepted as truthful, it must be an original source document from a government employee. In addition, for the most part, the intercept in particular has a tendency to focus upon the United States, something which is perhaps understandable to some extent.

This approach does have its limitations however.  

Governments would naturally regard a reliance by leakers upon original source documents as a weakness which can be exploited (much as the CIA presumably did when wikileaks asked people to apply to that organisation as potential infiltrators).  They will anticipate the fact that there are leakers by providing “official documents” which are either at variance with the truth as was the case with the zinoviev letter or which are “leaked” in order to conceal even worse stories.

It’s called disinformation.

With regard to the latter, one example would be the disinformation with regard to Michael Flynn and the Cambridge Intelligence Seminars. Another example would be a recent story on the intercept (which I shall not discuss for the moment) which pertains to human systems of surveillance. With regard to the former, a classic example is the double-cross system in WWII whereby the Germans relied upon official sources.

Furthermore, there has not been a leak of the scale of Snowden since Snowden. What was revealed in Vault 7, without meaning to sound disrespectful to Wikileaks, was bound to exist in that it revealed examples of what Snowden had already revealed. It makes sense to presume at the outset that western intelligence agencies have access to all computer systems (given the hacking of the latest version of my tails-OS and OSX installations) rather than being surprised at any big revelation revelation that they do.

There is a better alternative which exists in certain cases to leaking information. This to use the scientific method and to analyse in a logical manner what already exists, which in the case of human forms of surveillance is mostly governmental disinformation rather than original source documents, and to form a conclusion as to the existence of such systems. Such an approach, although this not with regard to intelligence related matters, seemed to work with Charles Darwin and his discovery of evolution. It also appears to work for Sherlock Holmes and other fictional detectives.

It is possible to conclude that a modern form of COINTELPRO is in operation on the basis of the governmental disinformation (which can be classified as original source documents to some extent) and to leak on that basis. In the absence of anyone being able to point out flaws in the analysis, the conclusion reached would appear to be true.

I’d love it if someone were to say “This is wrong because…” and to be able to debate the matter but strangely no-one seems to be able to

On a general level with regard to analysis of intelligence related matters, it should be taken into consideration that revelations concerning human forms of surveillance are of greater importance than revelations concerning electronic systems of surveillance given that the former would appear to be as extensive as and form the basis of the later.

How not to protect people by MI6

SIS is the correct name for MI6, which I am reticent to use because people appear to think, no doubt due to James Bond that it’s some Special Operations Executive type organisation which hasn’t existed for over half a century. In actual fact the reality is that the life of an intelligence officer is an office job with perhaps some travel mixed in and lots of counselling of agents. Just to remind you, this is the sort of person who works for MI6.

Philip-the-Fellow

Anyway, the repeated attempts to recruit me to MI6 on the part of that individual in the photo whose name is Dr Philip Oliver and was the head of admissions at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge are interesting in that MI6 promised that they would “look after me in every which way”. I felt I should comment upon this rather strange claim.

Not only is it the case that SIS don’t seem to be particularly capable (or indeed interested) in looking after the Middle East but the previous head of the organisation, Sir John Sawyers doesn’t appear to be able to look after himself or indeed his own family, given that certain pictures of himself and family appeared on the internet through his wife’s Facebook account which were available to everyone.

mi6 27.jpg

Lady Sawyers and Corinne Sawyers

mi6 18.jpg

Sir John Sawyers

The EXIF details were presumably available on this photos, thereby providing details of the locations where they were taken and so on.  Lady Sawers also happened to disclose many personal details on her facebook account, including the location of the London flat used herself and Sir John and other details of their three children and of Sir John’s parents. Security experts even warned that his family might have to be rehoused.

I hope it is understood given this that having being in a Cambridge college where one is invited in the hope of expectation that one will work for GCHQ, it’s really not all that difficult to come across information in relation to those who work for the intelligence agencies, as Jock Kane confirmed.

It’s doesn’t exactly ring true that they would look after me particularly given the photos and given the fact that they murdered Gareth Williams and tried to blamed the Russians and Americans.

Moreover, apart from the general harassment, the death threats in person and online, the threat of torture, the fact that others have reported torture as well as the fact that Sir John appears to think torturing terror suspects produces useful intelligence are all rather off-putting to say the least.

How not to murder your own employees by MI6 and blame the Russians (and the Americans)

Gareth-Williams-photo-ret-006

A fuller explanation of the case involving the murder of Gareth Williams can be found in an article from the Guardian newspaper.

Gareth Williams was an employee of GCHQ who had begun an advanced course in mathematics at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge in 2000 as part of his employment at that organisation. The people whom GCHQ assigned to mind him at the college were one of the former directors of admissions and my former personal tutor, Dr Philip Oliver, along with one of the porters whose name I cannot remember but who retired last year.

This fact was made known to me by Dr Oliver in a conversation which I had with him at the college on the 25th August 2015. Dr Oliver revealed this information as part of a conversation whereby he attempted to recruit me to MI6. He also does not always keep thing confidential which might be to do with the fact that he gets tired and emotional.

Shortly before Gareth Williams was due to leave his secondment to MI6 to work at GCHQ in 2009, he was found dead in a locked holdall in an MI6 safe house in Pimlico. There is apparently some uncertainty as to what caused his death.

When one examines the facts surrounding this case and other similar cases and when one takes into account conversations which were help with myself and Dr Oliver and additionally with Chris Kerr, a former student of the college, one can only conclude that he was murdered by individuals who work for or on behalf of a British Intelligence agency. The reasons for this conclusion are as follows.

  1. He was found dead in a holdall which was padlocked from the outside, something which is apparently not been achieved by someone of his height. Furthermore, the holdall was found in a bath which would have further lessened the room which he would have needed in order to maneuver himself into the bag and also to lock himself in from the outside. One must also consider that the handles were fastened with Velcro which would have added to the difficulty. Even if it were the case that he had somehow managed to lock himself in the bag, there were apparently no fingerprints or DNA on the handle of the holdall or around the zip which would mean that he would have had to have worn gloves. There were however no gloves found. It would be reasonable to conclude on the basis of this that someone else put him in the bag and that he was murdered.
  2. There were no fingerprints or DNA evidence in the flat and the USB sticks within his flat had been wiped. Additionally, the temperature had been turned up in his flat in the midst of summer, something which would appear to be indicative of an attempt to eliminate the presence of toxins within his body. Both of these factors would indicate that a third party had had access to the flat and had taken steps to hide the evidence in relation to a murder.
  3. It been noticed that he had not turned up to work for a week. Given his access to sensitive information and the fact they they considered him important enough to allocate him a safe house in Pimlico with an armed guard outside, it is difficult to believe that MI6 did not seek to discover his whereabouts at an earlier stage.
  4. The suggestion that due to the presence of two armed guards, someone chose to enter his premises through a skylight would appear to be somewhat suspicious in that had it been a possibility, given how obvious it is, it would have been mentioned as part of the inquest but was strangely only mentioned in the same week as my visit to England whereupon I was encouraged to speak to Dr Oliver..
  5. In my meeting with him, Dr Oliver did not express concern at Gareth Williams death in our meeting and in fact joked about it and said that after it occurred, he hid from the press who presumably knew about his function as minder and wished to talk to him. It is my interpretation but I read from his tone that he knew that he had been murdered by MI6. In any case why would he be reticent to talk about the suicide of murder of a student on the part of the Russians if there was no malfeasance on the part of MI6. As the director of admissions and as someone who has made visits to several schools in order to encourage people to apply to the college, it is implausible to claim that Dr Oliver’s reticence is down to because he is shy and does not wish to talk to the press.
  6. There were suggestions that Gareth Williams was a cross dresser despite the lack of evidence for this found by the police who expressed frustration at the fact that “He didn’t even drink”. Such sexual smears after the murder of an employee of the intelligence services or indeed former government owned or associated defence companies are markers of the fact that the British establishment is responsible for a murder. Of particular note in this respect can be said to be Jonathan Moyle, James RusbridgerStephen Drinkwater, Kevin AllenNicholas HusbandRichard Pugh, Mark Wisner, Shani Warren and Stephen Milligan. It is notable that historically where journals, even those which can be said to be virulently anti-Russian like the dailymail, have made claims about Russian involvement in some murder, they have never make involve allegations that the Russians dressed them up in women’s clothes or bondage gear
  7. It is difficult to see how Gareth Williams could have afforded £20,000 worth of such clothing which was apparently found in his flat given the comparatively low salaries paid by GCHQ and the need for secure housing which is not provided as part of any remuneration package. The secondment to MI6 and the allocated safe house was only for a short-term period and it is difficult to see how he could have saved that amount of money in such a short duration.
  8. In a meeting with him in January 2015, Chris Kerr, a former student at Saint Catharine’s College alleged that Mr Williams had been murdered by British Intelligence due to the fact that according to what he had been told, he had been intent upon providing the Russians access to sensitive information. He mentioned this because he was aware of my recording of an attempt to recruit me to MI6 and hinted that for my own safety I should not return to the UK. From my observation and from the fact that he was a former member of the college’s MCR (Middle Combination Room) committee, Chris was quite close to to Dr Oliver. As Dr. Oliver has leaked sensitive information to myself and to others, it would not have been unreasonable to suggest that Mr Kerr had had access to information in relation to what happened from Dr Philip Oliver although the Russians being at fault does not fit with the evidence as explained in the next point..
  9. In terms of the reason for his murder, the following should be discounted as possibilities:
    1. The suggestion that he was murdered because of concerns about him leaking information to the Russians. There was no concern at my repeated reports of Russian infiltration within British Intelligence and also an attempt to conceal my report when I pointed it out on various occasions. There must have been an awareness of the allegations of potential infiltration but as in the case of Jock Kane, this was not deemed important or credible and the fact of such an allegation was deemed an inconvenience and challenge to the powers that be. In any case the apparent ease at which I can know so much means that on a general level (most notably this website) means that there are leakages of information and one might ask why Gareth Williams was used as a scapegoat for what is a general situation
    2. The suggestion that he was assassinated by the British because someone “had some compromising material on him” which might present a security risk. The trouble is there was no such opportunity if one looks at matters given the fact that there was no opportunity to gather any compromising material:
      1. He had no great wealth nor indeed desire for possessions.
      2. He had no sexual interests according to the evidence from the guardian article.
    3. The possibility that concern was expressed by others about leakages and they chose to kill an “oddball” like Gareth Williams in order to reassure them. Using a scapegoat is not altogether unlikely given that my experiences of British Intelligence at Cambridge concur with those of Gareth Williams and more importantly sections of British Intelligence including MI6 have attempted to kill me. Gareth Williams was someone who by all accounts was somewhat introverted. He spoke about friction in the office and his distaste for the hard drinking, macho culture in the office. It is possible that due to a personality clash, certain members of MI6 or other intelligence agencies may have used him as a scapegoat for actions which were their own or that, given the lack of oversight in the intelligence services, someone may have chosen, purely based on a personal dislike or some perceived social faux pas to murder him. This is however on its own, given his employment and given his apparent level of skill, not an entirely satisfactory explanation.
    4. The possibility that the United States ordered the murder is not plausible in that they like investigations and prosecutions to take place openly. Even where American government employees like to see people dead, they are open about the fact, as can be seen with Edward Snowden. They also ask for extraditions as can be seen in the case of Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love. It does not seem likely that they would have ordered the murder of Mr Williams for hacking the emails of the United States President.
  10. The lack of willingness of the press to apportion blame to the Russians is significant in this respect. There have been to the order of 30 unexplained “suicides” not dissimilar to that Gareth Williams type murders over the past 40 or so years in the UK. In all the previous cases, there has been no attempt to blame Russia, something which is strange given that MI5 are usually very keen to blame Russia along with their acolytes in the press. In fact it was two years after the inquest, that the possibility was mentioned in a newspaper. Furthermore the lack of willingness on the part of several newspapers to respond or to publish this information, to get in contact as well as the publishing of disinformation are indicative of the fact that this case is subject to a DA notice and that the press are aware of what happened. Further to this, one might also like into consideration the following in that there is an attempt to conceal what occurred by the powers that be.
    1. The rather aggressive reaction and personal attacks in relation to my perfectly reasonable questions about the case in December 2015 on the British Army Rumour Service forum seem to suggest that there may be something to hide. It would appear likely that members of JTRIG were present on the forum which would not be unexpected given that it is an official British military forum and had used personal misinformation in the form of very idiosyncratic personalized slurs which had been gathered from people whom I had known 20 years ago.
    2. The fact that someone has commented upon this post with advice that one should secure ones laptop. Given that this is written on a laptop and given the fact one the basis of the evidence one can conclude that MI6 or another intelligence agency murdered their own employee, this can not only be interpreted as a threat by JTRIG but also as confirmation of the fact that the intelligence services do in fact steal as I have stated in my asylum case.
  11. One can therefore conclude that he was murdered because of factors which are internal to the United Kingdom and because he was aware of something which was inconvenient to those within a section of British intelligence, which having excluded all other possibilities including Russian involvement and having taken into account similar reports by Jock Kane can only have been corruption.

Outlining the government’s position on Brexit (and how this relates to post-brexit intelligence arrangments)

This article is an update to a previous article which outlines the position of the government (by which I mean the civil service) with regards to brexit. It would be a waste of effort on the part of the European Union to make allowances for a hard brexit given that this is almost certainly not going to occur and was never indeed the intention.

I will also outline how this relates to the fact that the role of GCHQ as the premier signals intelligence within the European Union can no longer be seen as valid one.

Before I start I should perhaps outline for those who are perhaps unfamiliar, why the civil service run Britain and why democracy in the United Kingdom is a shame. It works as follows

  1. In order to get elected as an MP, one has to join one of the three main political parties as it is very rare for an independent to be elected.
  2. Someone interested in becoming an MP for one of the three main parties must go before a selection committee to be chosen as a prospective candidate. These committees have a tendency to weed out anyone who is particularly independent minded.
  3. Roughly two thirds of parliamentary seats are what are known as “safe seats”. That is to say, an MP from a particular party will be elected to a particular seat. It is thus only a third of the seats which generally matter and as a consequence, this is where the resources in elections are spent.
  4. When the prime minister of the governing party chooses his or her ministers, they generally have little or no experience of the particular department which they are running and on average remain in position for a period of 6 months to 1 year before changing from one ministry to another. Thus it cannot be said that they are ultimately in a position to effect any change something which is described very well in he television series “Yes Minister”. This is described very well in the television series “Yes Minister”

The short version is that the civil service and in particular, the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood do not wish Britain to leave the European Union and have made steps to ensure that this does not occur. It has surprisingly for the British press in fact been reported that his actions had some effect upon the outcome of a referendum. In September 2014, just before the Scottish independence referendum, the Queen made a carefully loaded public statement which bent the rules of royal impartiality to the advantage of the no campaign. “I hope people will think very carefully about the future”, she told a crowd near her Scottish residence at Balmoral. Heywood had co-written it with her private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt.

It is no great claim to make that the civil service do in fact wield ultimate power something which in addition to previous reports by ministers and depictions on the small screen would appear to have been confirmed in an article which appeared in a not altogether reliable or indeed reputable source of news, known as mailonline.  If one believes the article, one senior minister confirmed the fact that the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood does in fact wield immense power by stating ‘Be in no doubt Heywood runs the country,‘.

The attempt to suggest however that the cabinet secretary had no influence upon the governmental administration of Theresa May and was hemmed in by her two advisors is simply a not credible one. It is an attempt to deflect blame through a publication which has historic association with the intelligence services, services which are under the purview of the civil service and indeed the cabinet secretary. In fact the article contradicts itself by the fact that is states two contradictory things in the same sentence, namely that he both is and is not a shrinking violet.

‘Jeremy hasn’t got where he is by being a shrinking violet,’ said a senior Whitehall source. ‘As soon as Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were out the door, he took over.

Of particular note is the fact that this claim is not only contradictory but

  1. Originates from a source which can hardly be said to be impartial given it is a member of the very same civil service for which Sir Jeremy Heywood is ultimately responsible.
  2. Rather amusingly uses a very famous quote, “I didn’t get where I am today”, from the novel “The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin”  which is pertinent in that the some of the methods employed to prevent brexit as outlined in this article and the previous would appear to originate from this novel or indeed something similar.
  3. Contradicts previous reports which demonstrate how much power he could be said to wield..

With regards to the actual attempt to swing the election, much of the following repeats but updates what was written in he previous article. Some of the claims are mere theorizing on the basis of who is most likely responsible but the broad thrust of the argument would appear to be true in that there is a wish on the part of the civil service not to proceed with Brexit.

I had initially stated as a conspiracy theory back in December that people who were clearly ill suited to their positions had been appointed in order that decisions with respect to Brexit would be made behind the scenes by the civil service or perhaps the Queen. This is in fact true.

1234

After the referendum on exiting the European Union, it was decided by the powers that be, namely the civil service that a Brexit or at the very least a Hard Brexit would not occur. Indeed the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood who took steps to block Brexit moves by ministers has now strangely been put in charge of Brexit.

Moves were made to ensure that Theresa May was installed as Prime Minister. One might recall the episode of Yes Prime Minister which is perhaps the most accurate depiction of government to hit the small screen to see how these things function in reality.

 

One might ask why Theresa May was in fact chosen

  1. There was a need to look for examples of prime ministers who were regarded by the public as particularly unsuccessful and no doubt looking back, they would have first called to mind the previous prime minister, Gordon Brown who was known as the “son of the manse”. This will no doubt have focused minds upon Theresa May who was a “daughter of a manse”.
  2. She might be said to temperamentally unsuited to the position of prime minister and easily controlled. Given her role as Home Secretary, someone who is formerly in charge of agencies GCHQ and MI5 and the fact that such agencies have files on the very people who are meant to be overseeing them, Sir Jeremy Heywood or someone else within the civil service will have had access to her file to be able to deduce her psychological flaws.
  3. Unlike Boris Johnson or David Davis, she had not been in favour of leaving the European Union and could not be said to be the most enthusiastic person to lead the implementation of the result of the referendum given her apparent set of instincts previous to the referendum
  4. She would be for the most part hemmed in by two advisors who would act as the go between with other members of the cabinet and would ensure that appointments and decisions were made which would prevent any successful execution of Brexit.

To this end much of her approach to brexit and the antagonistic nature of her person, something which is probably inherent according to one of her former underlings, Norman Baker led to a decision to bad advice to use that characteristic as part of her approach towards EU ministers. This advice was given in order to reduce the prospect of a successful outcome for Brexit.

Furthermore, the decision for example to state “no deal is better than a bad deal” defies logic given the outcome and one might also like to consider the effect that the decision to opt for a “hard brexit” would have upon the higher education, pharmaceutical sectors and defence cooperation.,  In short when it would appear that this decision was not working, there would have to be a reversal in position at least to some degree

In addition, rather like the scene in the television series the rise and fall of Reginald Perrin when he wants to destroy his grot empire,

people who were entirely unsuited to particular positions were appointed on the basis of advice given by the civil service. Most notable in this respect are

  1. Sir Michael Fallon, one of the worst defence secretaries ever to have held the post.
  2. Boris Johnson, who whilst he might have made an excellent higher education secretary is clearly unsuited to the post of foreign secretary, particularly given his racial comments and his general manner which might be seen as amusing as a game show panelist but not is not best suited to the role of  foreign secretary.

Certain members of the European Union may have been aware of this plan and one might ask why there is not the degree of outrage as one might have expected from individuals such as Guy Verhofstadt.

Further evidence of the fact that they did not wish to proceed with Brexit can be seen through the fact that a Briton, Sir Julian King was appointed as security commissioner after Brexit.. It is a strange decision given the fact that

  1. The United Kingdom is apparently leaving and the decision to appoint a Briton appears to indicate an intent not to leave.
  2. The resignation of another commissioner, Sir John Hill in response to the decision to leave the European Union.

Overall given all this, it cannot be regarded that there was a serious intent to proceed with brexit, especially given the fact that the fact that the civil service which is meant to be impartial did not prepare for such an outcome before the referendum

After hardening of positions in the European Union along with a certain amount of unpopularity due to knowledge of the effects of Brexit, not forgetting of course the policies of the government with regard to austerity, the powers that be decided or had decided in advance that it would be an appropriate moment to engineer a situation where she would be deposed or weakened.

They commissioned a poll which stated that she would win with a landslide and advised her that she needed a strong government in order to deliver Brexit in the difficult times ahead and should call an election. Again one might like to look at the following Yes Minister clip about opinion polls to see how they can provide an answer one wants.

As part of this George Osborne would, regardless of his knowledge of this arrangement, be expected to “piss in the brexit tent” as it were, by becoming an editor of a newspaper which would brief against the interests of the government. This may be expected given his sacking by Theresa May which was no doubt engineered by the powers that be through advice given to the prime minister to sack him. You can see how impartial he is in this regards in the following clip.

The powers that be in the form of her two advisors chose to provide her with bad advice, primarily her mantra “Strong and Stable”. This mantra is particularly significant in that it was originally used in Adolf Hitler’s autobiography, as well as in the following Doctor Who clip from the first episode of the Mutants.

Since publishing this article, this clip has been removed which might just perhaps may have something to do with this being a statement of the truth, given that as far as I can tell, all other clips of that story have not been removed. The full episode is however available in the here on another site and the speech begins at 20 minutes in.

It thus is doubly devastating as a mantra especially given the fact that (as some are in fact aware) I myself used a similar tactic against MI6 by tampering with the header of an email from the FBI and altering it so it would state THISISAFAKE@state.gov at several places as well as by changing the contents of the email to state that there was going to be an FBI investigation against St Catharaine’s College which was a recruitment center for GCHQ.

They did not however notice upon the header and much panic ensued believing that there was going to be an FBI investigation.

Given the decision to insert a policy, namely the death tax, which was so obviously bound to turn out to be subject to public outrage something which was no doubt manufactured by the powers that be and the consequent commissioning of another poll which shows a huge drop in the gap between Labour and Conservative which itself led to a U-turn with regards to the policy, this destroyed the believability of her mantra “Strong and Stable” and thus her credibility. It was downhill from there.

Then the decision was made to ensure that Jeremy Corbyn appeared to be narrowing the polls versus Theresa and that he would gain either a small majority (unlikely), a hung parliament or small majority for Theresa May (highly improbable). This in turn would lead to a situation where, through more behind the scenes management by the powers that be, most of the socialist policies would not be implemented but a hard Brexit would not be. In particular it would not be possible to renationalise as far as I understand under the rules of the EEA, an organisation to which the United Kingdom would belong if a hard brexit does not occur.

Strangely, I published the apparent plan and originally wrote the full outline (the previous outline was very short and written the same day) on June the 1st in my electronic diary. Here is a screenshot which isn’t very detailed but I would imagine you could verify the fact that the polls widened again:

votingintention

Because that diary is and was being read by being read by the intelligence services and hence the Cabinet Secretary, the plan could not be executed as originally intended because it would have led to accusations that the United Kingdom is not a democracy. Indeed from the moment I pointed it out the gap between labour and conservative appeared to widen again.

As such, because of the result of the election whereby the conservative party was in a minority and to  further descredit any attempt at a Hard Brexit,

  1. An arrangement was made between the conservative party and the DUP, which like Sinn Fein had an association with terrorist organisations. This had the effect of discrediting Theresa May in that she had stated as a result of the terrorist attacks during the election, that enough was enough and that she was going to crack down on extremists.
  2. Boris Johnson and Michael Fallon both kept their positions.

 

One can expect a situation whereby there will continue to be behind the scenes movements by Sir Jeremy Heywood and the rest of the civil service to scupper a hard brexit. It is difficult to see therefore why the European Union should make any allowances for this option given the fact that despite public appearances, there has been no serious intent on the part of the civil service for that to occur and indeed  moves have been made to scupper this.

My own view is that the most likely outcome is that the UK will be part of the EEA, subject to European Union regulations and is thus an unofficial member without influence.  It could be argued that people will state that it would be better to be an official member with influence and there will be a movement in favour of rejoining the European Union or at least not leaving.

With regards to intelligence arrangments after Brexit, I would like to highlight three options with regards to the role of this signals intelligence agency within Europe, depending on the eventual outcome for the United Kingdom with regards to Brexit.

  • If it is decided that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, it is difficult to envisage a political unit which is to an increasing degree likely to become a fully fledged federation and would which wish like to be described as such, outsourcing its intelligence to a third country. There has never been an example of a truly sovereign country or a would be superpower outsourcing its defence or intelligence functions to a third country. To give an analogy, the European Union deciding to outsource its intelligence to the United Kingdom would be not unlike China deciding to outsource its intelligence to Peru. Furthermore, given the latest series of terrorist attacks as well as the terrorist attacks which are going to take place and given the deficiencies which have been highlighted with regards to the current intelligence arrangements, it is entirely sensible of Guy Verhofstadt to suggest that the European Union needs it’s own intelligence service rather than rely upon external parties.
  • If it is decided that the United Kingdom is going to stay in the European Union then having caused so much trouble, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in order to reverse article 50, the UK will have to make some sacrifices which, as it would appear the EU wants to be a fully fledged federation, should involve the abandonment of British Intelligence as an independent set of agencies and their subordination to European Intelligence.
  • If Europe does not become a fully fledged Union, through the tactics of divide and conquer on the part of the United Kingdom, a situation not unfamiliar to the people of India, Cyprus, Ireland, the Middle East (ref: Sykes-Picot) and Africa, then it is difficult to envisage a) Europe not becoming weaker in the face of international competitors such as China, Russia, India and indeed the United States. b) the promotion of GCHQ as the head organization within that Union being a rather futile effort given that it would not have a comparable degree of influence as might have been the case with a European Intelligence agency, c) Potentially wars breaking out in Europe. One might perhaps wonder however why the United States would allow such a situation to occur given that it was their idea for Europe to be formed into a political union in the first place as a result of the world wars with which they become embroiled. One might furthermore wonder what they would envisage as the role of GCHQ given that it would be external to the European Union.

In short, as a consequence of the vote to leave the European Union, it is difficult to envisage a central role for GCHQ and it sister agencies within the European Union.

The current arrangements with GCHQ being to a large extent a head office for European Intelligence and the lack of central coordination in terms of European intelligence bodies which has occured as a result of not having a central European intelligence agency, provide some explanation as to why Europe has been able to prevent so many terrorist attacks. It is proving to be an unhealthy and unworkable arrangement which must as part of the brexit negotiations be revisited.

I should wish to state that t is difficult to see how European Intelligence or indeed the European Union for that matter can be taken seriously with individuals such as Amber Rudd and Boris Johnson in charge of agencies which are the lead agencies within European Intelligence, particularly given the fact that those individuals, as per the Maxwell-Fyfe convention, have no authority to oversee the departments they are meant to be running.

 

How the consequences of the actions of those with a high level of PR are already apparent.

One should of course refer to the first two essays before reading this which are as follows.
  1. How a high level of perceptual reasoning negates the possibility of psychosis.
  2. Why psychiatrists sometimes diagnose psychosis when they fulfil the diagnostic criteria.
Although only six out of the eight following individuals listed below can definitively be classed as neurodiverse, they do all nonetheless have a high level of intelligence. By extension of  this fact and the fact that they have no small interest in computers, something which has led to charges of one sort or another being brought against them by the government of the United States, it is possible to conclude that they all have a high level of perceptual reasoning. Of course it has taken someone with a high degree of perception to remark upon this.
It might be of interest to note that every one of these individuals are the most significant whistleblowers or hackers of our age and they have all caused no small difficulties to that government.  I should wish to point out however that this does not signify guilt in cases where someone on the spectrum has been accused of whistleblowing, hacking or leaking, something which was alledged in the case of Gareth Williams.
  1. Edward Snowden IQ measured at 145. To some degree according to his own account, fits the profile of someone autistic but not formally diagnosed as such
  2. Julian Assange “Genius IQ”. Self-reported as “a bit autistic”
  3. Bradley ManningHighly Intelligent“. Diagnosed with an autistic spectrum condition.
  4. Lauri Love “Stupidly high”. Diagnosed with an autistic spectrum condition
  5. Gary Mckinnon “Intelligent” Diagnosed as autistic spectrum condition.
  6. Kim Dotcom “Intelligent”. Has two sons who are on autistic spectrum condition. Given the hereditary nature of ASCs and given his background in computing, it is not improbable to suggest that he is either on the spectrum or neurodiverse in some other sense.
  7. Brian Regan From recollection, highly intelligent. Diagnosed as dyslexic.
  8. There is of course in addition my self. I have an IQ of 130 and have been diagnosed as autistic.

It might be argued that as a safeguard, those who belong in such a category should be categorised as a potential threat. When they perceive certain things the authorities would not wish to be perceived, for example the undisclosed systems of surveillance in the west or take actions in a similar fashion to the individuals listed above, they should be subject to penalties, mistreated in some fashion either through the judicial process or by for example being misdiagnosed with a mental health condition.

The reasons why this is counterproductive are outlined in the first essay. One should however see how this applies in this particular situation and again one might ask whether such a policy is to the advantage of a western government, given the following very probable situations:

  1. A rival government does not have a policy to mistreat such individuals by for example defining them as psychotic. Their policy is instead to take advantage of the abilities and intelligence of such individuals. The difference between their approaches to those with Enhanced Perceptual Reasoning means that they are stronger than a western government. Again
  2. A rival government wishes to seek advantage and to damage a western government by enticing an individual with enhanced perception to work for them through a recognition of their abilities and through informing them that they are being mistreated in some fashion.
  3. Furthermore, in order to damage the reputation of a western government, the rival government makes it publicly known that that individual is being deliberately harmed by the western government.
  4. Given the fact that those undisclosed systmes of government sutveillance are reliant upon perception management and given the fact that that eastern governments do not employ such systems and have in the case of the Chinese government, deplored their usage, cointelpro is an impediment to the full utilisation of enhanced perception, even given the fact that in a limited form, GCHQ does use the abilities of those with a level of enhanced perception.

One might argue that western governments could attempt to suppress knowledge of the importance of EPR and of the fact that it negates the possibility of psychosis. It is however difficult to forsee how this could be achieved given that:

  1. It is doubtful whether a western government could persuade an eastern government or other bodies to suppress knowledge of its importance when it would be to their advantage not to do so. It is also doubtful whether an eastern government would suppress knowledge of its importance  as they would be able to cause reputation damage to a western government and to attract individuals like those on the list or indeed anyone with an enhanced level of perception.
  2. Through the increasingly availability of modern communications, it is difficult to see how the available data and knowledge of its importance will not  become public knowledge. The policy of western governments will be become apparent to the public which would be damaging. As a consequence, there is a probability that others with EPR would look towards other countries.
  3. Each country wishes to gain competitive advantage through the scientific discoveries which are made by those with a high degree of perception. It remains difficult to see how each one of the 196 countries in the world can all agree to cooperate for the first time on concealing such a discovery especially those countries which do not already conceal the importance of perception. In a competitive international environment, it is logical to expect that at least one country will choose not to deny but instead to take advantage of those who are highly intelligent and as a consequence of their actions have been subject to penalties, mistreated in some fashion either through the judicial process or by for example being misdiagnosed with a mental health condition.

On a related note, the mainstream media have not thusfar realised or commented upon the significance of the fact that everyone on the above list is neurodivergent. This is perhaps to be expected.

It is particularly worrying however that even journals which are devoted to intelligence related matters such as the intercept have not covered this issue but have instead, at the same time as either describing autism as an illness or being rather naive or patronising about the issue, devoted a far more significant part of journal to the discussion of matters such as gay rights and drug liberalisation which perhaps as subjects are more suited to the guardian.

 

2

1

 

 

 

 43

A prediction in relation to the Cambridge Brainfest on the 23/25th of June

Cambridge is having an exhibition called “Cambridge Brainfest” from the 23rd to the 25th of June and one of those exhibits is titled “Perception and Imagination”.

I am therefore going to make a “prediction”. Unlike my prediction in 1995 that ARM Holdings was going to be a world-beater, this seems entirely very obvious.

The speakers at the exhibition will deny on the basis of nothing much if at all a well-established scientific fact as referred to on the Cambridge neuroscience twitter feed that Neuropsychiatric disorders are disorders of cognition and motivation and their interaction

Here is a screenshot of that tweet

12413.png

With reference to “perception and imagination” they will claim that:

1) Perception has nothing to do with cognition as stated on the Cambridge psychology website:

124

The premise is in fact obviously untrue because

A) Perceptual Reasoning as a measure of perception is a measure of IQ and thus cognition.

B) It does not provide measures of PR anywhere in the document to which a reference is made. Thus the premise is untrue in that it is not possible to ascertain whether this is the case on an objective basis.

C) It does not address my seven essays which came out after the study and which are available on the homepage.

D) Cambridge Neuroscience agrees with me

2) Won’t acknowledge the fact that psychosis involves a deterioration in perceptual reasoning, won’t provide counter evidence or will skirt around the issue.

3) If they deal with the question, they will say that there are different point of view without pointing out such points of view. This is even though the objective in other words the scientific evidence supports the correlation.

This will occur because of

A) Cambridge’s association with the intelligence services which renders such research rather unreliable

B) My case and my harassment by the intelligence services and the fact that they have to conceal it.

C) CPFT (The local mental health trust) have to deny the science because they helped SIS to try to recruit me.

In this sense, the function of the department and of the university will be not as one might imagine, to advance human knowledge but to instead do the opposite and to misinform the public with junk science because of the need to support the status quo and to protect the power, position and status of the establishment.

 

The British establishment and the Grenfall fire.

This article is a follow on from the last one which and concerns Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary who is named Sir Coverup, by, amongst others, Peter Oborne, a reputable journalist who writes for the mail.

I had initially called Sir Jeremy, Sir Cabinet as a nickname but that is perhaps to dignify him too much and an insult to high class furniture. Furthermore it is a comment upon the innapropriateness of someone like him being called “Sir”.
I should like to point out that he is someone who must have been in the know regarding the fire hazard which caused the deaths (at the time of writing) of 17 people, given his position as what is, to all intents and purposes, the power behind the throne within government and given tbe fact that he has been in such a role or indeed similar ones with such influence for a considerable time.

The minister who was last responsible for fire safety (if there is indeed such a thing where the civil service and Sir Cupboard are concerned) was a Mr Gavin Barwood who after not dealing with the safety issue, lost his seat and was subsequenrty appointed as an advisor to Theresa May. Similarly, other ministers did not deal with issue of cladding which was highlighted as far back as 2009 where there was a fire at Larkanal House in Southall, London.
Furthermore, where residents raised concerns to the company concerned, they were in fact dismissed or threatened with legal action.

One might think that whilst he is most likely not directly responsible for covering up the fire hazard, as someone in his influential position within government and nonetheless set the overall approach to such matters. One might therefore ask whether the approach to government which he has inculcated since becomibg cabinet secretary needs to change and whether it is time for a new broom.

Of particular note with respect to his concern is the fact that on his twitter feed, there is no mention of the awful tradjegy which ocurred at Grenfell tower and this doesnt exactly indicate that he is someone who has the correct ethos within government.

His attitude and concern for such people is not dissimilar to the college where I was stayed for a while, St Catharine’s Cambridge as you can see from their last twitter post which is below and previous to this and since the fire.

It seems rather inappropriate to focus upon such things given the tragedy. It does strike me however that the British establishment generally speaking (of which the college is of course part) are solely concerned about money, power, position and status and could not give a damn about people in such situations.

How to swing an election

I would like to update my essay which I wrote elsewhere in relation to what would appear to have been decided into relation to brexit by the powers that be in the United Kingdom.

Some of the claims are mere theorising on the basis of who is most likely responsible but the broad thrust of the argument would appear to be true in that there is a wish on the part of the establishment not to proceed with Brexit.

I had initially stated as a conspiracy theory back in December that people who were clearly ill suited to their positions had been appointed in order that decisions with respect to Brexit would be made behind the scenes by the civil service or perhaps the Queen. This is in fact partly true.

After the referendum on exiting the European Union, the then Cameron government who were none too pleased with the result came up with a plan to ensure that Brexit or at the very least a Hard Brexit would not occur. One might recall the episode of Yes Minister: Prime Minister to see how these things function in reality.

 

 

 

 

In effect the election is a second referendum upon Brexit without actually being a referendum in order to reverse the decision.

I am theorising of course as to who is responsible but it is likely that David Cameron and George Osborne through the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Haywood ensured that, given the result of the Brexit referendum, a Prime Minister would be elected who whilst she may perhaps be suited to the position was

1) Unlike Boris Johnson or David Davis had not been in favour of leaving the European Union and could not be said to be the most enthusiastic person to lead the implementation of the result of the referendum given her apparent set of instincts previous to the referendum
2) Would be for the most part hemmed in by two advisors who would act as the go between with other members of the cabinet and would ensure that appointments and decisions were made which would prevent any successful execution of Brexit.

To this end much of her stance which no doubt is one which has been reached on the basis of bad advice and which was meant to prove antagonistic is bound to be one which would not be successful. The decision for example to state “no deal is better than a bad deal” defies logic given the implementation and one might also like to consider the effect that the decision to opt for a hard brexit would have upon the higher education, pharmaceutical sectors and defence cooperation.

In addition, rather like the scene in the television series the rise and fall of Reginald Perrin when he wants to destroy his grot empire,

 

 

people who were entirely unsuited to particular positions were appointed on the basis of advice given by the civil service. Most notable in this respect are

1) Sir Michael Fallon, one of the worst defence secretaries ever to have held the post.
2) Boris Johnson, who whilst he might have made an excellent higher education secretary is clearly unsuited to the post of foreign secretary .

Certain members of the European Union may have been aware of this plan which is why there was not the degree of outrage as one might have expected even from Guy Verhofstadt. Additionally there was the appointment of a Briton as the security commissioner, Sir Julian King after Brexit which appears to be a strange decision given that the United Kingdom is apparently leaving and this decision appears to indicate the opposite of this.

After hardening of positions in the European Union along with a certain amount of unpopularity due to knowledge of the effects of Brexit, not forgetting of course the policies of the government with regard to austerity, the powers that be decided or had decided in advance that it would be an appropriate moment to engineer a situation where she would be deposed

They commissioned a poll which stated that she would win with a landslide and advised her that she needed a strong government in order to deliver Brexit in the difficult times ahead and should call an election. Again one might like to look at the following youtube clip about polls to see how they work in practice

 

As part of this George Osborne would “piss in the brexit tent” as it were by becoming an editor of a newspaper which would brief against the interests of the government (reduced since my post on the 1st), something which may be expected given his sacking by Theresa May which was no doubt engineered by the powers that be through advice given to the prime minister to sack him

The powers that be in the form of her two advisors chose to provide her with bad advice, primarily her mantra “Strong and Stable”. Given the decision to insert a policy which was so obviously bound to turn out to be subject to public outrage which was no doubt manufactured by the powers that be and the consequent commissioning of another poll which shows a huge drop in the gap between Labour and Conservative which itself led to a U-turn, this destroyed the believability of her mantra “Strong and Stable” and thus her credibility.

Then the decision was made to ensure that Jeremy Corbyn appeared to be narrowing the polls and that he would gain either a small majority (unlikely), a hung parliament or small majority for Theresa may (highly improbable). This in turn would lead to a situation where through more behind the scenes management by the powers that be, most of the socialist policies would not be implemented but a hard Brexit would not be. In particular it would not be possible to renationalise as far as I understand under the rules of the EEA, an organisation to which the United Kingdom would belong if a hard brexit does not occur.

Furthermore, given that to all intents and purposes the United Kingdom will be subject to European Union regulations and is thus an unofficial member without influence, it could be argued that people will state that it would be better to be an official member with influence and there will be a movement in favour of joining the European Union or at least not leaving.

Given this, I am somewhat puzzled by the allegation that Russia is somehow not a democracy when taken in comparison.

UPDATE: Having said this, it is difficult to forsee how this can proceed as originally intended which is why informed sources in the hope that Brexit will be bungled told Boris Johnson that he can keep his job.. One might expect a conservative majority given that

1) I published the apparent plan and originally wrote the full outline (the previous outline was very short and written the same day) on June the 1st in my electronic diary. Here is a screenshot:

1234

Because it is being read by the intelligence services/civil service and their plan, because it is known, cannot be executed. The gap between labour and conservative appeared to widen again

votingintention

2) Without going into details, it might lead to accusations that they swung elections elsewhere which would be damaging to the interests of the United Kingdom

An unlikely probability is that, if the plan to scupper Brexit without a majority is to still succeed, they will not be able to rely on polls to influence behaviour and will rely upon the increase in voter turnout (which pertains to the young and therefore labour voters).. 

GCHQ perform an ARP spoofing attack on my devices and block me from posting the video of this on their twitter feed.

I have of course reported the fact that I have been subject to harassment by the intelligence agencies which included hacking by GCHQ during and since the period when I was at St Catharine’s College. Just to reiterate to those who are new to the blog, the college is a location where individuals are (or perhaps were) invited in the hope or expectation that they might work for GCHQ. As a consequence of complaining about the harassment which included hacking, I was detained in a psychiatric ward and later asked to work for MI6.

The thing is there is a video of the latest instance of hacking which has occured in part because I disclosed the aforementioned function of the college as well as the fact that SIS murdered Gareth Williams. It is not as if therefore such claims are evidence of mental illness because there is proof that this is occuring.

This is in addition of course to the previous post where I outlined an ARP spoofing attack whereby through a MITM attack, my traffic was altered and there was an attempt to recruit me to MI6 which smacks of desperation.

When I try and post this on the GCHQ twitter feed, it is rather tellingly censored and , unlike my other posts, does not appear except that is on the profile where I post. The conversation then appears somewhat incoherent perhaps in an attempt to reinforce the effort to discredit me, something which the Joint Threat research Intelligence Group is tasked withdo. This effort takes place with the assistance of professional psychologists which is entirely unethical and rather discredits the profession.

I hope you will forgive the poor formatting but my twitter profile is on the left and a standard profile is on the right. You will see that certain posts do not appear which is suggestive that they have something to hide and that I am telling the truth.

It’s kind of a bit dumb for them to do so because it …

 

 

1456

 

14231

EDIT: Shortly after posting this article which deals in essence with the fact that I am being subject to an unusually intense ARP spoofing attack by GCHQ and censorship as a consequence of, amongst other things, disclosing the identities of members of the intelligence services and revealing that Gareth Williams was murdered, it was reported that the NHS was subject to a cyber attack.

This could of course be coincidental but it is should be considered that this might be a false claim, rather like those in relation to a Russian infiltration, which has been made in order to bury bad news. I understand that wikileaks have revealed the existence of tools, as part of Vault 7, whereby it is possible to attack a country and blame it on hackers or Russians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Canadian Asylum Case

I will upload documents which pertain to this should the Canadian government make it entirely clear that, on a long standing basis, favours and arrangments have been agreed with St Catharines College and various British Intelligence agencies to conceal the corruption and harassment which are taking place.

At the moment it would appear that the RCMP were duped by the college and by British Intelligence as I am sure they would like to agree.