1 How things have changed

It must be stated that the present situation with the United Kingdom as well as its relations with other countries when compared with 2012 is like night and day.

The fact is, a rational analysis would show that they do not have the power and it would not be in their interests to carry on doing what they have attempted to do in relation to myself. This is for the following reasons

  1. The foreign office have resorted to and revealed the most extraordinary level of criminality and incompetence to other countries as a result of their decision to harass me.
  2. The United Kingdom also faces a situation where, due to the coronavirus and the lockdown which is still ongoing, there are going to be inevitable economic consequences which will include cuts to departmental budgets. Because austerity has rather reached its limits, such cutbacks can only really apply to Defence & Intelligence, International Aid and Higher Education.
  3. The United Kingdom is facing no deal or an approximation which means that
    1. Any defence and intelligence links which the UK has with Europe in particular are liable to be diminished
    2. It will as a result be rather more overburdened with work.
    3. It will have less funds to handle this work as a result of the economic consequences of no deal and the lockdown.
    4. Its value to the senior partner which is the United States is rather diminished.
  4. Additionally one should also state that, for all the talk of Global Britain, the UK has had a tendency in the past few years to willfully destroy and deleteriously affect relationships with much of the world. Global Britain is to be frank a rather Orwellian term in the sense that it sounds like “İgnorance is peace” because Britain certainly is not “Global”. One only need look at the fact that it is on rather bad terms (or seen as unimportant) with the most important power blocks in the world such as
    1. The Europe Union
    2. The United States because it can no longer acts as a bridge to the European Union (thus the special relationship is rather less important)
    3. China.
    4. Russia.
    5. The middle east because of the damage which has been caused by liberal interventionism and colonialism
    6. Africa as a result of the empire and the fact that rising powers in the east have greater prestige.
  5. One can compare the present with 100 years ago and see the astonishing decline in the UK and understand where this is heading. Even Scotland and Northern Ireland are inevitably going to leave.
  6. This will have the result that
    1. The United Kingdom will split up. With a Biden administration, it would seem far more probable to suggest that the government of Boris Johnson when faced with any potential discontent concerning Ireland would chose to ensure that a territory which they don’t have any great love for and which is viewed as a pebble in their shoe would become part of Ireland rather than ensuring that the UK as a whole remains subordinate to the ECJ. It resolves the Northern Ireland issue permanently and brings peace. It would seem probable to suggest that a Biden administration would be more in favour of reunification than any other arrangement for these reasons and for reasons of history. The EU would obviously be in favour as well and so would Northern Ireland under no deal by a rather large majority. The prospect of violence under no deal is improbable given the fact that the nationalists would be in touching distance of a United İreland so any violence would be unnecessary.
    2. As a result of Irish reunification, it will inevitably be argued by Scottish nationalists that they are entitled to a confirmatory referendum and it will be difficult to deny such a request. They will be supported in the event of them seeking international recognition. After all if Irish independence is recognized, why would Scottish independence not be.
    3. England and Wales (or UKr) will lose
      1. Its remaining colonies,
      2. Its seat on the security council
      3. Its position within the five eyes.
    4. It would seem rather unlikely that a democratic administration in the United States would be disfavourable to such a situation given what they actually think of the United Kingdom and given the fact that power with respect to the continent of Europe has been moving towards countries such as Germany
    5. GCHQ, SIS and the security service will have the same position as the KGB do now in Russia, ie non-existent.
    6. They will not be able to carry on with the harassment. They do not have the talent and can only carry on as they have because they have had a certain privileged position which enabled them to proceed with their stupidity and which is going to be taken away from them.
  7. This leaves them unable to proceed with the sorts of actions in which they have been engaged over the recent past  and a rational person would not deem me a priority. I say rational but
    1. There are few of those in the foreign office and cabinet office or indeed alas, it would appear, in Europe.
    2. They seem unable to recognize the fact that much of the present situation is due to the consequences of their own efforts with respect to myself.

Whilst the cabinet office and related bodies perhaps do not have the intelligence to understand this and have a tendency to react rather than to think, it is long past time when it should have been understood by them (and more importantly others) that

  1. The word “disability” can only be said to apply to them.
  2. My work cannot be considered in any way shape or form safe in their hands. Moreover ethically and due to the apparent complete absence of any competence displayed, they have to be given a wide birth.
  3. Their actions, not just in financial terms, has demonstrably not proved to be worth the cost. It would be an understatement to state that it has already significantly outweighed the perceived end benefits.
  4. In particular, to continue to go to such extraordinary costly and self-defeating lengths to protect and act on behalf of Michael Hauser Raspe, his father Dr Hauser and Professor Simon Baron Cohen is the height of lunacy and it turns the United Kingdom and indeed those individuals into a laughing stock. Moreover given the damage that these individuals and related companies have caused, the fact that their ethics are questionable, only institutions which will be please to demonstrate their stupidity could back them. The fact is in any court case, they could simply make reference to this and other material and win.
  5. They have to accept that, given the above and what was already mentioned in the first chapter, it across as extraordinarily silly to make counter-accusations most notably in relation to mental health.
  6. It is not a question of “Game of Thrones” because it would be fair to state that over the course of the past decade, I have won every battle against the foreign office and they have lost everyone of theirs. This is not something which is liable to change given
    1. Past form
    2. The fact that such losses involve a permanent loss of stature and
    3. I have become stronger as a result.
  7. I can if necessary, very easily go further and mention material which is not included within this document to countries which would be particularly liable to listen.
  8. Its not a matter of hate on my part, really it is self-evident that any such allegation is a form of psychological projection by an inherently narcissistic and dying elite. Such narcissism is most evident given the point about global Britain and they should accept how they are seen by other countries.
  9. COINTELPRO does not work, is in essence a costly form of self-destruction, and something which the countries of the west cannot afford given the cost of the lockdown, the large national (external) debts and deficits and the decline of the west as a whole. Furthermore should a country in the east choose to, it can easily expose this operation and crush your reputation.
  10. With respect to JTRIG like operations, this is silly. In the first place the British government is seen as pretty foolish throughout the world, in the second place JTRIG and what they do is mentioned as part of this history and in third  place, it would merely serve to highlight my case, in the east.
  11. It is true to state that the coronavirus is a great tragedy but it is one which the civil service deliberately refused to prepare for. Instead they were and are rather more distracted by and occupied by other things which have led them unprepared to deal with the virus. Ultimately this is a choice. Indeed it is a deliberate one because they feel that by “going on strike”, as it were and not preparing for or handling the virus correctly, they can force the government into a position where they have to agree to a post-brexit deal with the European Union, given the fact that the catastrophic economic situation which has occurred as a result of their actions renders no deal more unpalatable.

The plain truth is that it is time to accept that it is time move on but like many entities which do not understand their time is up and who abhor reason and reality, they cannot appreciate this.

Update 17th of September 2020

I’ll give you an example. I referred to the usage of coded messages with reference to a Sonia J Bamford. The following set is another example which is from the mailThe bottom left story refers to someone who would apparently prefer to stay anonymous and who as a result loses to copyright over their work. The story on the top right is a reference to a Dr Michael.

The rough translation is that they are trying to suggest that Michael Hauser Raspe will become a doctor on the basis of my work which they want to copy because they apparently think I wish to stay anonymous in all instances because of what I wrote below about awards and I might therefore like to improve my mood.

If one calculates the probability of all the above factors, one can see that this is not a coincidence and this is a coded message.

Apart from the fact that I would not stay anonymous and they would want to given that I would reveal chapter and verse concerning what British intelligence and Dr Hauser got up to in a foreign court which was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, I would be able to make reference to the reference to the above and the fact that it constitutes an announcement of such an intent as well as the fact that mailonline in conjunction with British intelligence resorts to coded messages.

Another thing they might like to bear in mind is the fact that my work will amongst other things prove the fact that the British state engages in harassment so it would seem unlikely that Michael or indeed anyone else would be willing to do this. Furthermore, a competitor will of course use the material on this website against Michael his family and indeed the British state.

So for that reason, I suspect it won’t be happening and Michael won’t be making any copy of my work. What will be happening though is the following.

As a result of their actions, the United Kingdom is facing no deal or a very close approximation, the probable loss of its last technology company and complete loss of technological sovereignty to the United States and the economic effects of the coronavirus, which it failed to prepare for because it was too busy dealing with harassment.

When I see the above idiocy, the phrase “My Kingdom for a horse” comes to mind. To be fair though, unlike Michael Hauser Raspe, horses at least have some sort of value and aren’t a walking groundnuts scheme.

Even a third rate banana republic would have shoved him in the glue factory by now.

Seeing as you ask though, I’m fine. But how are you?


2 The appointment of Richard Moore

The Prime minister and the foreign secretary have appointed a new head of the secret intelligence service called Richard Moore.

He has been appointed on the basis of what is written here and not because he is the most suitable candidate. One can tell this because of the fact that

  1. He is appointed because of me
    1. He is the former British ambassador to Turkey. I am in Turkey
    2. He went to a Catholic school called St George’s college in Weybridge. I am catholic and my name is George
    3. He is of foreign extraction. As am I.
    4. He has a grandfather who fought the British and I fight the foreign office
  2. He is a generalist and studied PPE at Oxford, something which the prime minister’s advisor Dominic Cummings often complains about.
  3. His body language in particular his expression and folded arms indicate a service which is on the defensive.
  4. He does not understand the meaning of the word secret as one can see from the above and the following
    1. His name R Moore which is not a cover name rather like his counterpart at GCHQ Mr Fleming would indicate the fact that he was not chosen by those who select on the basis of the most suitable candidate and indeed the fact that as the SIS and GCHQ are run by the FCO, that organisation is perhaps not the best run organisation but then I think that is already crystal clear.
  5. One could doubt whether his name is in fact real but one can perhaps cast doubt on a claim that his wife is blind given the fact that
    1. When one does a search for Richard Moore + youtube on google one gets lots of reports of a blind Richard Moore and not Richard Moore who worked for SIS.
    2. That Richard Moore was shot by British soldiers in Ireland and lose his sight, talks about “forgiveness” and it just so happens that the Richard Moore had a grandfather who won a medal from the Irish government for fighting the British
    3. Wives and Husbands often work together at intelligence services
    4. Some spies in my experience pretend to be blind.
    5. The only Maggie Moore I can find at an initial glance on google was an actor who did comic opera 
    6. This is a not very good attempt at gas-lighting in that I am meant to somehow “feel bad” because of his wife, his ancestry, the fact that he was chosen in typical JTRİG manner to “get me alongside” along with the mention of forgiveness. I should like to state the following
      1. In order for there to be forgiveness there has to be an admission. As a catholic he should would know that forgiveness involves being sorry and expressing the fact.
      2. There are several complaints to the IPT to which there has been no reply.
      3. It forms part of an attempt to bomb me to the table through the usage of charm in this instance or aggression in other instances. They should know that this will not work.
      4. If I “forgave” it would happen again given previous and present instances, given my experiences in 2015 and given what I learnt from certain people at Cambridge who pretend to be sorry but then do the same again. More importantly, it would happen to others.
      5. It is a form of manipulation which I recognize from Cambridge.


3 What do I think of Russia

It is obviously the case that what Russia is doing with respect to infiltration is wrong and moreover it is, as I can attest not only annoying but has lead to much upset in my family because of the way in which the United Kingdom handle the fact that they are infiltrated. Then again the intelligence agencies are corrupt so it would have been the case (and indeed has been the case) that such behaviour is apparent in other respects.

I felt that overall, after having considered the matter in Russia, it would be beneficial to everyone to reveal the infiltration because ultimately it is only the foreign office which loses out. The fact that there is infiltration is of course proven by the actions and record of the foreign office.

Revealing infiltration at such a scale shows that the special relationship is, disregarding whatever political preference you may have, fundamentally overrated. The United States should understand this and benefit from an awareness of the fact, even if this fact, for it is a fact, is a rather uncomfortable one to accept. Russia benefits because the reputation of a country which has over the past 200 years been rather aggressive towards it, is rather diminished, as a consequence of which, because it is the prime instigator of Russiaphobia, relations with other countries, most notably the United States, improve.

It should also be stated that the end result of Russian foreign policy is to prevent aggression in its various forms by certain elements in the west which belong to what is called “the deep state”.

It might be argued that they best way of achieving this is through infiltration but a) this takes time and b) in any case the end result of revealing that infiltration is that the power to interfere is destroyed or at least diminished to a greater extent than would be possible through the infiltration because of the effect of damaging the overrated special relationship which, after all, is the prime source of Russophobia. At the same time it does not harm the American republic even if it does harm an empire, which harms and endebts the republic.

I should be honest and state that there are many things I do like about Russia particularly when I look at

  1. The grotesque and seemingly endless incompetence of western intelligence and its related organs most notably the American side which has an active aversion to understanding why 9/11 occurred and which makes the same mistakes
  2. The European Union and the fact that
    1. It engages in corruption by employing Dr Hauser
    2. It slavishly sides with the UK when it comes to intelligence related matters and allows harassment of one sort or another to take place on its territory
    3. It ignores obvious and systematic breaches of the law by the UK (Whilst complaining when they choose not to comply with for example the withdrawal agreement)
    4. It is essentially run by spineless cowards who are liable either to shout “disinformation”/ “fake news”, to change the subject in some way or to cynically talk about compromise or forgiveness when the truth is pointed out even though that truth won’t change.

Obviously to express such a view means a) that one is a Russian spy and b) that one has forgotten that there is no alternative to Europe.

In particular as someone who has been to Cambridge, one can and should admire their intelligence even if that intelligence is sometimes misdirected and wasted. Cambridge simply does not compare in this respect and neither does the American civil service from what I can see.

Another aspect I like is the fact that their society is not dissimilar to the Europe I grew up in in terms of mores and so on. It does seem that since the end of the cold war, the East has become the West and the West has become the East. Is the west really “democratic” given what I have related in relation to brexit? Does it respect human rights? Does it have a respect for a belief in a creator? It really does not seem to be the case.

Even though I was kept prisoner in the Moscow, it would be incorrect to state that I was in any way mistreated especially when compared to the way in which I have been treated by the UK. In many ways I should also add that the situation was rendered more difficult for everyone perhaps because of the actions of the UK and its intelligence services who spent their time interfering and did so to their ultimate detriment.

I probably shouldn’t say this but I must be honest, what they did with non-linear warfare and concealing infiltration in the way which they did it and given the way the United States reacts is funny even if the effects in terms of the way the United Kingdom has dealt with the matter is very unamusing.

When one compares Russia with the United States in particular, it is quite a contrast.

One has the correct impression that not unlike the film Brazil there are umpteen agencies all overlapping each other’s functions, contradicting each other and not knowing what each other agency is doing. There are in fact no less than 17 intelligence agencies in the United States, which is an obvious recipe for wastage, confusion and errors. It is evident that they do not learn and are not willing to learn from 9/11.  Then there is the inherent aggression one feels even when one encounters Americans in authority allied with their immense lack of intellectual curiosity or indeed intelligence. It is a stereotype but it is nonetheless true.

America is only powerful in the sense that it has a lot of money to spend on its intelligence agencies but buying 1000 instances of something which is at best average, in other words the staff and trampling things to death with money (which they have not got) does not lead to a better end result. It just means that instead of having someone who is average you have a greater intensity of what is average.

In this respect, I should like to comment upon the following. I sent an email to Oxford psychiatry asking whether they had any evidence peer reviewed in the form of academic studies that someone with a high level of perceptual reasoning can suffer from a mental health condition.

It will be noted that within 2 minutes the CIA tweet which may perhaps be taken to be in relation to what is on this website

The particular medal is the “Exceptional service medal” which is for people who are either dead or injured. In other words keep your mouth shut, agree you are mad and we will give you a medal for political reasons.

I have often commented on a private blog on how, unlike degrees, Nobel prizes and things of that nature, military medals actually mean something for society as a whole in that they set an appropriate standard which everybody can look up to. Speaking for myself if it were the case that I were offered one (not that that would ever be forthcoming considering everything and I am not fishing for compliments) I do not like the fame bit (correction 17/09/2020: in this particular instance) and prefer the lack of social status in the Socratic sense. One cannot however reject or reject or besmirch them because it is insulting to an objective set of values.

The CIA misinterpreted what I said and felt that this might act as some form of enticement perhaps.

The thing is I neglected to mention someone about the meeting with Kang Tchou at Jim Wah in January 2015. He attempted the very same thing and talked about “mental illness” and “patterns” which is a rather ironic thing to say for two reasons most notably the fact that he decided to leak things and to say things in that meeting, in a manner which suggested that he wasn’t exactly compis mentis.

So not only have the his employer failed to learn from the past but they have besmirched all of their honors system for political ends so under no circumstance would I ever accept one of their medals.

Oh and I look forward to copies of the relevant academic studies of course or indeed the titles of studies which will be available in any case on pubmed and other online journals given that they will have been peer reviewed and given that all academic journals are now online.

As regards the United States, it might be worth noting that for all the irrationality, aggression and sense of entitlement, they are no longer the only game in town.


4 A small note for St Catharines

No amount of public relations exercises will alter the fact of what sort of a college you are St Catharines The above looks like the sort of thing Dr Oliver used to do and you will note I nope the Jimmy Saville like expression he has.

Part of the reason you are doing this is because you are afraid of a drop off in donations for their unnecessary rebuilding efforts, You have been currently, believe it or not, been fundraising for new buildings during a period where the country has been facing rather substantial difficulties as a result of the coronavirus.

These should not be happening during a period of financial difficulties for the government of the United Kingdom and one would think that the government particularly in light of what the college is responsible for will regard it is appropriate for any funding which comes from donations for those buildings to be deducted from any funding which would have been allocated by the treasury.

If the college can get donations, why should nurses and teachers and street cleaners have to subsidize them?

As ever though the BBC which is an establishment organisation which has a record in this respect of concealing corruption most notably with Jimmy Saville have resorted to similar actions and have done publicity on behalf of the college. This is not the first instance given that they did as much with respect to Salisbury.

Personally, I look forward to the day when the BBC which for the most part produces rubbish these days is sold off. At the very least the license fee should be cut or frozen.

In this respect I should like to state the following.

  1. Other media organisations like all private companies have a duty to increase profits for their shareholders.
  2. As such it should be argued that the license fee and the monopoly which the BBC has over the funding which comes from the license fee reduces those profits.
  3. Other media organisations therefore have a legal obligation to ensure either that
    1. The license fee is abolished which can be achieved by a mass campaign of non-payment. As part of this, people should be informed of what their legal obligations are
      1. They can withdraw the implied right of access which that company has to a premise.
      2. They do not have to respond to Capita who are responsible for the collection of the license fee.
      3. They can charge for the processing of their communications.
    2. Argue that
      1. Such a monopoly in terms of public funding should be opened up to competition on the basis of certain public service criteria in much the same way as ITV used to function.
      2. The BBC does not fulfill the criteria of a public service broadcaster in numerous respects.
      3. For all the talk of increased competition since the 1980s, the provision of public service broadcasting has become a monopoly since ITV and indeed Channel 4 were allowed to dispense with most of its public service obligations
  4. With respect to a charge for the processing of communications from Capita, all companies and not just ones involved in the media have a legal obligation to increase profits for their shareholders. As such certain companies which are involved in the legal profession have an obligation (and indeed a profit motive) to act on behalf of individuals who are being harassed by Capita. As part of this they can encourage people to demand the money which Capita owes them for the processing of their communications.


5 A small note on Julian Assange

I have written about the fact that Julian Assange was likely to be on the spectrum in a previous article which was written three and a bit years ago. The article, as some might recall, outlined how the effects of those with a high level of perceptual reasoning was already apparently.

Indeed this diagnosis has been confirmed by a doctor who luckily is not Professor Simon Baron Cohen. This of course puts an entirely different complexion on the case. Apart from the fact that

  1. The extradition case is shall we say dubious in the extreme given the manner in which the Swedish authorities were persuaded to pursue obviously false charges of rape and given the manner in which Julian Assange has been treated especially in Belmarsh.
  2. It is not so much Julian Assange who is on trial but American and especially British justice. This case does to my mind absolutely shred the reputation of British justice in particular

this diagnosis puts a different complexion on things and reveals the fact that the crown prosecution service in the form of  a Mr Lewis who is acting on behalf of the US government, is obviously intellectually subnormal given the comments he comes out with

Lewis said Assange has hosted a “chat show” on the Russia Today television network, and played footage to the court of a question and answer event where he appeared by video link at London’s Frontline Club.

But Dr Deeley said he was talking about a topic in which he was an expert, which was not incompatible with his diagnosis.

Expertise in a subject is one of the diagnostic criteria. This is known as a Fixed interest. It is one of the so called “triad of impairments”. He quite clearly is so ignorant that he doesn’t know the first thing about what he is talking.

Lewis also raised Assange’s long-term relationships, during which he has fathered five children.

Mr Lewis told the court that Assange’s father described him as ‘good company’ with a ‘good sense of humour’ while his partner said he ‘could turn on the charm and entertain people’.

He has obviously not listened to Ian Levine.

He added: ‘His mother said he has a wonderful sense of humour he is an extraordinarily selfless father.

‘That last comment – an extraordinarily selfless father – that alone is very inconsistent with someone who is on the autistic spectrum.’

Note that the prosecutor thinks that people on the spectrum are selfish which again is astonishingly ignorant and to be frank, I can hear his knuckles scraping the flaw. It’s the equivalent of saying that Asians are spray painted (they aren’t by the way just to make clear for the foreign office) or that he can’t speak African but it is I am afraid entirely consistent with attitudes in the UK and in particular Cambridge with respect to the autistic spectrum.

He lawyer claimed Assange’s family relationships contradicted the diagnosis, asking: ‘He’s maintained many long term relationship and has fathered five children, is that not inconsistent?’

I know its probably a bit advanced for him because lets face it he is obviously the depth of his ignorance appears to know no limits (along with that of the judge for taking account of anything he says), but he obviously hasn’t heard of assortative mating or the fact that the autistic spectrum has a partly genetic basis. This obviously implies somewhere along the line that two people or one person on the spectrum and one person who wasn’t decided to have a child.  In other words to have long terms relationships and to father children, as would have certainly been necessary before the 1960s.

If it were the case that the British government and the judge were to agree to the extradition on the basis of what the prosecution then it is obviously a comment upon

  1. The intelligence of the judge in taking account of the statements and claims of the prosecutor. The fact is his level of ignorance in one respect calls into question everything he says.
  2. The British government’s attitudes towards those on the spectrum. In turn it can be said that something which of course applies in my case and which I would be bound to use if necessary.

It is true to state that they denied the extradition of Lauri Love and Gary Mckinnon using the testimony of an “expert witness” who was anything but and whose diagnosis of both individuals is rather dubious. The decision to deny both extraditions was more to do with issues in relation to their mental health as opposed to the fact that they were supposedly on the spectrum.

In the case of Julian Assange, the reason why the British government is prosecuting him is because he has a fixed interest in a particular topic (US crimes) and has a view of right and wrong which is viewed as comparatively rigid and therefore socially unacceptable particularly in the way he expresses himself. In other words, he is being prosecuted because he is on the spectrum.

As regards

  1. The hack on the DNC.
    1. That’s a two way street. Hillary Clinton was never prosecuted for not securing her emails or using a private email server and it is the reason not to prosecute more than anything which lost her the election as opposed to some emails which had been leaked months beforehand.
    2. It certainly does not warrant Julian Assange spending the rest of his life in jail.
  2. The rest of the charges.
    1. I find it very difficult to give them any credence given the bizarre way in which the authorities have gone about things with some fake charges in the first place involving an extradition to Sweden and the way in which it is manifestly the case that he is being mistreated.
    2. If they are prosecuting Assange and not prosecuting anyone from the FCO for being involved in/concealing infiltration, then they demonstrate to the world what skewed judgement they have.
  3. The UK has no business waggling its finger at China, Iran or whichever country in order to detract from what it is doing in this and other respect. The unfortunate fact is those countries will point out in crystal clear terms what the United Kingdom is doing in response. The Untied Kingdom and in particular the foreign office is already a laughing stock and its perhaps not to confirm the impression people have of both, particularly when there is a need to secure trade deals and to promote soft power.


6 A small note for the cabinet secretary and the minister for the cabinet office

I sent the following email to the cabinet secretary Simon Case and the minister for the Cabinet Office today at 16:38pm instructing them that they had to stop the harassment for which they are ultimately responsible and which is ordered by the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.

Of course, it is something which would be difficult for them to ignore except that is if they sought help from the authorities in Turkey,  It would not be unexpected after all given past form involving Rona Fairhead and Boris Johnson and the then cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood in Russia and indeed given what occurred in Quebec although this was no doubt at the presidential level as part of a general approach and with nothing overtly stated.

At 20:53 local time the following story (on the right) appears in mailonline. The story may be said to consist of an attempt to flatter Turkish interests and to signify a wish for potential cooperation in order to secure the end goal of continuing with the harassment.

It is strange therefore that the following appears. The phone call occurrred at 19:30. Note the talk about “defence cooperation”

I very much doubt that the Turkish president would have rung the British Prime Minister given the fact that it would have been known that I had sent the email and it would have been rather too obvious under the circumstances to talk about such things and indeed they certainly would have made sure that a publication of such a story would not have occurred because it gives an overt impression that the Turkish president has agreed to “defence cooperation”. This is code for wanting to continue with the harassment.


  1. The timing is so obvious that, given past form involving similar sorts of actions which indicate desperation, it is far more likely to have been the Prime minister who decided to respond to my email by ringing the president and to talk about “defense cooperation”.
  2. It sounds like the third season of House of Cards where the British government cooperate with the Turkish government with respect to oil interests in Cyprus. One can state that he got such advice from someone in the foreign office who lack imagination and get their ideas from public media. The foreign office would have to be involved given the fact that Boris Johnson does not speak Turkish. The cabinet secretary would also have to be involved given that he listens to all the conversations of the prime minister.

There are three reasons why such an act is futile.

  1. The fact that it looks like house of cards.
  2. If such “defence cooperation” were to occur as opposed to selling things, it would an effective statement that the Turkish president had sanctioned it something which I do not think is liable to occur with respect to myself given what has occurred in Canada and Russia. It is an attempt therefore to give the impression that the Turkish president has agreed to the harassment when he hasn’t and to put words in his mouth
  3. It is known that if there was such “defence cooperation”, I would end up leaving and I would inevitably have to state why I had left in that I would have to claim asylum. It can hardly be argued that I can be extradited or deported to the United Kingdom given that I have done nothing wrong and given that the “defence cooperation” would mean that such an act would be political.

(Oh and it is possible to have high testosterone without having sex.)

I published a draft of the above at 1:01am on Tuesday the 29th of September as you can see here

And the foreign secretary decides to talk about such things with someone else.

Indeed it is notable that none of the British governmental twitter feeds nor indeed the websites mention the telephone conversation which if they weren’t up to anything they would have done (if one accepts they like to send snide signals as to their intentions through the publication of that news story).


6 Some vindication by the US government

I have of course stated that “Russiagate” was not about attempts to “swing” an election but was in actual fact a form of non-linear warfare which was successful in terms of its aims which were to essentially to mess with the minds of the American intelligence services as well as the American political process, causing upset and so on by making them think there was collusion/attempts to swing the election. This of course occurred at the behest of the UK and Russia to detract from the fact that there was Russian infiltration of British intelligence.

The US government have confirmed that the intent was indeed was to mess with the minds of americans and to cause upset in the following joing statement by the FBI and the CISA

It is also confirmed that the FBI misrepresents what was said in that they exclusively focus upon the potential threat for someone/some government to swing an election. Note the words “could” and “potential”. My arm could burst but it does not mean it is happening. The reason they focus upon this is because they are trying to spread the impression that foreigners are trying to promote Trump (because they would never say as much with respect to Biden) except they don’t have any evidence of that. In doing so they are interfering with the election.

Their counterparts actually said the following

Here is what the link actually says. It’s very accurate and one wonders what is the purpose of the FBI given that their counterparts at CISA do such a better jobs of assessing threats.

“Foreign intelligence services have been known to use websites, including pseudo-academic online journals, to disseminate articles with misleading or unsubstantiated information. Such sites could be employed during the 2020 election season in an attempt to manipulate public opinion, increase societal divisions, cause widespread confusion, discredit the electoral process, and undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions.

Foreign intelligence services have used online journals, including some with a global reach, to exacerbate disunity and dysfunction in the United States while also misinforming or misleading readers. Foreign governments have used these journals to amplify their disinformation and overt propaganda, and they have used websites, social media, and other online platforms to amplify the journals’ messages and increase their global reach.

As foreign actors intensify their efforts to influence the outcome of the 2020 U.S. elections,

The later statement could apply to the UK, the EU or indeed anyone of significance. And indeed it does apply as you can see from the following

And the word “outcome” is broad and does not mean only  “result”, The outcome could be “lots of upset”.

They could use online journals to advance and launder misinformation and disinformation to denigrate or support specific candidates or political parties.

Note the word “could” which means there is nothing to suggest that it is happening

Foreign actors could also use online journals to target the U.S. elections by making claims of voter suppression, amplifying reports of real or alleged cyberattacks on election infrastructure, asserting voter or ballot fraud, and spreading other information intended to convince the public of the elections’ illegitimacy.”

Indeed wasn’t that the FBI’s job though if one looks at the whole Russiagate report.


7 A prediction

The French leadership are a cowardly disgrace
They fight with their feet
and f*ck with their face

This pertains to Brexit and the compromise which has been proposed by the United Kingdom with regards to fishing rights. It is claimed that whilst certain other governments are minded to accept the compromise, the French government are adamant that there can be no compromise on this matter.

This is par for the course though.

In the final analysis what the government of Emmanuel macron always has done and will do in the case of brexit is

  1. Complain vociferously, say how something is unacceptable and how there is going to be no compromise
  2. Say no
  3. Give in

All the supposed outrage is very obvious bluster which is meant to

  1. Make a very weak leader seem strong.
  2. Get rid of the difficult bit (standing up for France) in a serious of statements. He has a habit of using lots of warm words about sovereignty one minute in speeches and then subordinating his country to the interests of the British. The most notably instances of this are Salisbury and the fact that they do nothing about the activities of GCHQ within France. Where he does supposedly stand up for sovereignty it is to detract from his considerable domestic problems as part of which he chooses an option which is comparatively more easy which is for example
    1. To stir up trouble with Turkey.
    2. To state that there is a problem with Islam when any problem with terrorism is proven to have to do with drugs.

When he does give in because he will you can be clear that this is his way. It’s in his blood and in the blood of the French leadership. He is consistently insistent as well. He’s a windbag and  will

  1. Say how he wants to be friends with X or how he wants to be sovereign one minute
  2. Accuse them the next of poisoning someone on the basis of evidence he knows to be false or indeed state how he doesn’t by implication of what he says wish to be sovereign

(You can see the fact that they do not wish to be sovereign because their president and government on a personal basis knowingly chose to allow the French state to collaborate in criminal activities with the British state with regards to Salisbury. They also choose to allow the British government to carry out criminal activities on their territory whilst feigning ignorance or handwringing. It’s also an ignorant claim that collaboration will continue given the effects of brexit but one which proves in absolute terms that France is lying full stop when they talk about a wish for sovereignty or that France can be a place to do business. It is delusional to think it could given the fact that they willfully, knowingly and deliberately chose to allow the British government to carry out criminal activities in France)

There is hardly any difference anyway between no deal and the deal which is close enough to no deal. The one is immediate disaster. The other is a disaster which occurs slightly more slowly. A slow puncture which is irreparable if you will.

I’m really not sure why the Germans think it is illogical (typically German comment) to think fishing is not an issue. There is the small problem of the national front (or the rassemblement nationale) who would gain popularity and it quite likely that they would get elected because of the betrayal, the unpopularity of macron’s government as well as the economic effects of the coronavirus. It is rather ironic however that the country which was responsible for the nazis does not think that the the prospect of fascism is a problem

Still I don’t suppose there is much difference between Macron and Le Pen. The later is supposedly a fascist whereas the former follows are supports those who pursue fascist actions (the UK and its intelligence services).

As regards fishing under no deal, one might ask what real defence does the British government has? As far as I can see it isn’t much

  1. The European Union could react to any attempt to stop fishing within British waters by imposing tariffs which rather neuters the British position. With regards to a deal, one cannot trust a government which abrogates an international treaty which it has negotiated with you.
  2. The vast majority of fishing takes place in Scottish territory and fishing is a devolved matter.It is very likely that the Scottish government, which never wanted to leave the European Union in the first, would be willing to do a deal with regards to fishing in order to maintain good relations with the European Union. In the event of any dispute with regards to fishing in an international court, it would be likely to win and in any case, they don’t need to “go to court” to declare independence because its not something the United Kingdom parliament can block.
  3. It would be difficult to see how the British government could enforce its will given
    1. An international ruling
    2. The fact that they are pretty incompetent at the moment and it would be surprising to see them enforce the law in this respect.
    3. The fact that the UK cannot defend its waters against people who arrive by boat so it would not seem reasonable to suggest that they could stop people fishing in British waters. It would also show an odd sense of priorities, even amongst those who support brexit, for them to view protecting fishing as more important than preventing immigration which they view as illegal.
    4. If one goes back to the the 1970s, when the United Kingdom had a much larger navy, it lost the cod wars against a comparatively smaller country like Iceland. It should be remembered of course that the countries of the European Union as a collective whole have a much larger navy than that of the UK.
    5. The royal navy is underfunded and has I think about three ships to defend the whole of the UK.
    6. There are going to be cutbacks to the navy because of
      1. The economic effects of the lockdown and the coronavirus.
      2. Brexit.
    7. The fact that under no deal, it would certainly lose its colonies in the south Atlantic and elsewhere. If there was some sort of alliance between the country to which the occupied territory belongs and a European country in order to bring such an outcome to fruition, that country might be granted access to extra fishing grounds.
  4. Even if the Scottish government were unable to give access to their waters and even disregarding the unenforceability of the “border”, it should be remembered that in the event of no deal, Scotland and Northern Ireland will leave the United Kingdom and will rejoin the European Union, a situation which would be amenable to the European Union and which would give access to the vast majority of the areas of the UK EEZ where there are fish whereupon they would have access to two third of the existing British fishing waters. Admittedly this would take a few years but it should be borne in mind that any deal is permanent so in the longer term given access to the majority of the fishing waters, no deal with regards to fishing is far more beneficial.
  5. One should not just consider fish. It is currently the case that most of the money from the north sea oil and gas goes south of the border. If Scotland under no deal were to become independent and rejoin the European Union, it would be possible perhaps that there would be a fairer arrangement with respect to oil and gas for both Scotland and European companies. This also applies to colonies which would become independent of the United Kingdom as a result of no deal.
  6. You will know how serious and how weak the position of the British government is by the following. Boris says he will walk out on the 15th if there is no deal but
    1. It does not exactly indicate a strong position to state as much and then to a) decide to emphasize the point by ringing up the French and German leaders to put pressure and b) send fifty civil servants to partly put pressure upon other Europeans. It does rather remind me of the scene in the Tony Hancock episode “the wild man of the woods” in which Hancock has decided to “return to nature” by living on Wimbledon and where he comes across as not exactly sure about his decision when his housemates say goodbye to him and when he repeatedly asks them whether they are staying or not.
    2. You will know that he knows his position is not strong and that he is bluffing if he agrees to continue talks after the 15/16th.

I suspect Macron and the French government will give in though because, as stated, weakness and giving in is in their very marrow. I also suspect that despite the usual arrogance from the European establishment and some resorting to dirty tricks (tampered polls for instance), Marine Le Pen and the rassemblement nationale will be very likely to win the presidency and to affect the body politic of France and Europe as a result of their weakness which consists of, amongst other things,

  1. A failure to defend those communities affected by the loss of fishing
  2. Their continual failure to deal with terrorism as well as the fact that solemn and pompous speeches expressing determination to deal with the problem are their substitute for action.

One has to understand that

  1. The economic effects of the financial crisis in 2008 were only delayed and that to add to this, France currently has a very unpopular government as well as the economic and social catastrophe of the lockdown, something which will become apparent (despite complacency/public relations to conceal the fact) in the next two years. This will inevitably be reflected in the presidential vote and damage to fishing communities would be rather unhelpful to say to least.
  2. Europe has had significant problems arranging a rescue package to deal with the fallout from COVID (something which is of course ongoing and certain to continue and to get worse). It is very unlikely that they could afford to bailout areas of the country which are affected by cuts to fishing particularly given the fact that the resultant economic and social situation in those particular areas of the country would be likely to be as permanent as it is in other de-industrialised areas of France such as the north. It should also be remembered that under the proposed fishing deal those cuts to fishing would be permanent whereas under no deal, they would be temporary. Logic would suggest that the deal which has been proposed with regards to fishing is less favorable than not having one.
  3. Moreover such a situation is something that the British as a competitor to Europe would seek to exploit as part of their historical policy of divide and conquer, given that the Rassemblement Nationale is as euro-skeptic as the British government.

So with a “deal” on fishing (in addition to their choice not to deal with terrorism), you have a ticking timebomb for the European project.

One should also wonder whether such an outcome would be beneficial to

  1. Transatlantic relations, given that, in all likelihood Joe Biden is going to win the presidential election and given the fact that they are very much in favour of a United Europe and not so much in favour of the “special relationship”.
  2. NATO which is already rather fragile.
  3. Turkey given the fact that Marine Le Pen is rather more anti-Turkish than Macron is.

Overall, to look consider matters from the point of view of no deal versus a deal is rather myopic and is to look at things on a very short term basis.

It is inevitable that in the medium term under no deal, a ) Scotland will become independent and rejoin the European Union and b) Northern Ireland will rejoin Ireland. Thus England and Wales will be left isolated.

It would seem inevitable that that grouping of countries will rejoin the European Union with the John Bull types (along with individuals who for the most part come from certain public schools and Oxbridge) rather discredited in much the same way as the Rhodies are in Zimbabwe.

There would no longer be a situation where the intelligence services and the cabinet office would be able to act in the way that they do in their own self-interest and that of the south east and Oxbridge in particular and to the detriment of others.

Is it better for the EU

  1. Have a shrinking and disruptive UK outside of Europe with some short term problems which can be overcome, the prospect of resolving the Irish issue permanently by Irish reunification and the prospect of Scotland joining the EU
  2. To import the problem which have been apparent with the UK by having two European states which are hostile to the European namely France which, as a result of any betrayal of the fishermen, will elect a far right euro skeptic government intent upon destabilizing Europe as well as the UK which will be somewhat stronger than would be the case under no deal, which would be more disruptive and which would help Le Pen. It is virtual certain that Marine Le Pen will be elected in 2022 if there is a betrayal of the fishermen given the fact that this would act as a linchpin to discontent which is already apparent through the following
    1. The existing popularity of Marine Le Pen and Rassemblement nationale
    2. The continual and utter failure to deal with terrorism on the part of the French state which Le Pen will exploit. This is resolvable no doubt but I would imagine it would go down like a bucket of cold sick to act weak in the face of the British in the same fortnight as you were weak in the face of terrorism.
    3. The economic fallout from COVID which is really yet to hit and which Le Pen will exploit.

As stated however it is probable given the nature of the French leadership with respect to dealing with terrorism (and the drug dealers which precipitate acts of terrorism), foreign invasions and acting in a subordinate manner to British government who have a policy to encourage terrorism (as is evident from the fact that they chose to ignore comments made by the head of MI5 concerning the fact that their foreign policy does encourage terrorism) that they will,as is their nature, act in a cowardly and complicit manner. As such they will no doubt classify me as a terrorist because they are upset instead of dealing with  terrorism, drug dealers and showing a backbone by dealing with the FCDO as a sovereign country. And the result will be the election of Le Pen which will affect Europe.

I am on record as stating that those who interfere in a country be it Deash, the drug dealers who precipitate people becoming terrorists as well as organisations such as the FCDO who have a policy to encourage terrorism and to provoke people should be treated like as an enemy force which should be subject to the terms of warfare.

The French government seem to forget the French people and indeed do not measure up to people of the calibre of the De Gaulle or the French resistance to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.

One does need not lectures from a government which

  1. Fails to protect its citizens “One Muslim student’s father posted a Facebook video denouncing Paty. That was then distributed by a self-proclaimed imam long known for his hardline Islamist views, along with the school’s address and Paty’s cell-phone number. Alarmed, Paty lodged a complaint with police. And yet the police failed to offer him protection—and indeed, when the killer surveilled the school last Friday, students are believed to have pointed out Paty to him. “Despite threats and calls for people to denounce the teacher, no one thought it could go this far,” one unnamed police source old Le Figaro newspaper after the killing.”
  2. Fails to respond to offers of help and which defends those who interfere.
  3. Defends those who are involved in chemical weapons attacks and harassment, namely the FCDO, which claims that others are responsible for terrorist acts in response to someone reporting Russian infiltration.
  4. Choses not protect its citizens or residents against either terrorism or criminal activities by the FCDO because it wants to remain dependent upon the UK and the US and chooses to act at their behest in every single instance. As part of this it refuses to condemn or act against the various actions which the cabinet office are engaged in which range from the misuse of medicine to the misuse of the powers of the intelligence services. It does not even condemn the fact that the United Kingdom has passed a law which permits criminality without oversight on domestic as well as foreign territory. Instead it talks about “compromise” and “peace” and then acts in a hypocritical manner and has a fit of pique when someone does the same to Macron and states that he is bonkers. This is something which is only true in so far as many in the west are suffering from a shared delusion that Islam is the cause of terrorism when it is drugs. I doubt there would be a hospital large enough to accommodate all such people.
  5. Defends those who attempted successfully to sabotage the development of a Soviet plane, something which resulted directly or indirectly in a plane crash on French soil which killed and injured many. I refer of course to the Tupolev 144 in 1974, something which my personal tutor was involved in attempting to sabotage.
  6. Obsesses in general or when confronted with evidence of its own cowardice about gender issues, abortion, climate change, SDG,FGM, some pompous speech where they say “never again”, some alleged human rights abuses east of the Curzon line or outside of the EU (which is useful because they can complain without really doing anything and because it detracts from their unwillingness to offend the UK and the US because of their wish to remain a non-nation and dependent upon their intelligence services.
  7. Blame muslims for terrorism instead of tackling the drug issue. What really causes people to become terrorists, as can be seen from the statistics, is drugs. As such one would classify those who sell drugs in the same way as one would class deash or pedophiles.
  8. Whips up hatred against and treats X as a scapegoat in order to deflect from its own weaknesses and failures and to take support away from someone who is more to the right.
  9. Ignores the fact that the British intelligence services who harass on their territory misdiagnoses dissidents and then decides to negotiate with the United Kingdom with respect to a deal on security “cooperation” after brexit (which amounts to dependence given that they ignore illegal activities by the UK). They then have the arrogance to complain when a foreign leader says that their leader needs psychiatric treatment. The unfortunate fact is that whilst the French government either have an agreement with or negotiate with the United Kingdom with respect to making “security” arrangments after Brexit, people have every right to say what they like about their leaders. And they can jolly well lump it no matter how much they try and wriggle their way out of it or use warm words.

We know the French government will give in. It always (with the exception of De gaulle) gives in after initially kicking up a fuss and going “non”. With respect to terrorism which, as stated, occurs due to the sale and usage of illegal drugs, they have already given in. They show now desire to deal with this issue properly

This does however present a difficulty for them in that their word cannot be trusted. When they state “Absolument pas” to an issue where they is some dispute between them and someone else or when they state that they will definitely do something, they will eventually say “oui” or not do what they set out to do. Macron in particular is an expert at this.

It is unfortunate however that they wish to confirm the stereotype many people have of the French administrative class.

The other alternative is of course that Boris Johnson is bluffing and will give in which might be expected given his record on such things and the fact that he went to Eton and Oxford  The effect of such bluffing would be interesting with respect to other negotiations and ones which pertain to trade.

(The likely of the French agreeing to a deal where there is deferral of any decision on the size of the quotas by the British seems unlikely. They would be agreeing to a deal on the basis of fishing quotas which would be determined at a later date but the quotes would inevitably be the same size as  the British government currently desires. In other words France would merely be delaying a decision to betray their fishermen.)

It would also be interesting in another way and extremely damaging. Despite the talk of “global Britain”, it wouldş cruelly expose the limitations of British power if they felt unable to go for no deal after insisting that this is what would occur if the French did not back down. The would be doing this because of their fear of the reaction on the part of Biden with respect to the special relationship and because of the reaction on the part of the European Union.

What you would have is something far worse than Suez in that the purpose of brexit was to enable the United Kingdom to act as an independent power and this would expose the fact that this was no longer possible. Moreover it is not as if the United Kingdom could decide as it did after brexit to joın the European Union.


You have given in. You have in years ago to platitudes, inaction and subordination to British intelligence. It’s really not something you can dispute.


23rd of December 2020: It looks as if they have come to an agreement on fishing which has of course, as was entirely predictable, involved Emmanuel Macron giving in. The fish and the blockade is really a side issue.

The fundamental purpose of the deal is to ensure that the European Union and its member states remain dependent upon and subordinate to British and American intelligence.

To ensure that this occurs, Emmanuel Macron has to give the appearance of seeming strong by for example performing a temporary blockade upon people leaving Dover.

GCHQ and SIS are obviously happy about this because this puts pressure upon Boris Johnson and the conservative government to sign a deal.

Thus by the giving the appearance of strength, his real intention is ensure the weakness and dependence of France upon British intelligence and defense.

What do I mean by dependent? Well this is outlined in the Political declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom

In other words an agreement, which was negotiated by Michel Barnier, who is of French nationality, outlines the fact that the United Kingdom will be sovereign, or independent whilst the European Union and its member states will be merely autonomous and not independent.

And based upon my experience in France what this means in practice for myself is that when I have problems wwith the intelligence services of the United Kingdom, who will for instance listen into my phone calls, read my emails, monitor my communications on a personal basis and generally interfere or harass, France is very unlikely to do anything about it by for instance instructing them to stop those activities on French soil.

Moreover if there is another incident like Salisbury, France is likely to ignore the truth of what occurred and side with the United Kingdom. Indeed all of this will be proven I think if I claim asylum in France. Or even if they recognize what occurred and so on, the United States is likely to put some form or pressure or utilize some form of inducement and France is likely to view an individual as unimportant compared to some trade/security thingy with the US or indeed restoring good relations.