Chapter I : A necessary preamble

1 Introduction

1  The purpose of this chapter

The purpose of this chapter and the next two chapters is not to provide a sequential account of events but to establish a few important preliminary facts which are necessary in order to understand the sequential account of events which is outlined in subsequent chapters. It is perhaps a bit of a learning curve but due to the nature of the material which is outlined, this is a necessity. In this chapter, I outline:

  1. How any allegation that my outlining of the harassment at the hands of those services is evidence of some mental illness is objectively false on the basis of
    1. The science
    2. Other evidence
    3. Their admission that the harassment took place.
  2. How the reverse is the case in that
    1. One the basis of the science, I am objectively more sane than most people
    2. They have proven, given events, that they are psychotic.
  3. Why under British law they have immunity with respect to such harassment
  4. Why neither the press nor western governments will help
  5. How the harassment which I experienced forms part of something known as the third direction/ COINTELPRO and how one can prove it exists.
  6. How COINTELPRO is a proven threat to national security.
  7. Why counter-allegations are silly.

 

2 A brief comment upon the harassment itself

This account of the harassment is outlined from chapter five onwards and there can be no question given the evidence that the fault lies entirely with them. The fact is that when agencies are afforded great powers, great secrecy, have no oversight, and benefit form the corroboration of the press and others, it is inevitable that they will attract certain criminal elements.

Such a culture of criminality was evident from the account which was provided by the former employee of Jock Kane and which was confirmed by the Geoffrey Prime case. They remain to this day as unaccountable as they were in the 1970s

Their overriding concern concern of those agencies which are run by the foreign of commonwealth office and the home office and overseen by the cabinet office is power for its own sake, self-preservation and reputation management even given the consequences of their actions. The concern is certainly not about national security.

In essence they chose to harass me on behalf of certain people within Cambridge because they felt they could get away with it.

 

3 How the intelligence agencies have immunity from prosecution

One might ask why I did not complain to the police or indeed the press or indeed to foreign entities about the harassment.

1 Why there is no recourse under the law

This always seems to surprise people when I explain this because they are under the misapprehension that the United Kingdom is a democracy with respect for the law.

In the United Kingdom one cannot, as one might expect, go to the authorities such as the police to complain about the misuse of powers which are available to the intelligence services. One must complain instead to a judicial body called the the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) which hears complaints about surveillance by public bodies and which is “the only Tribunal to whom complaints about the Intelligence Services can be directed” The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the use of surveillance by any organisations with powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Certain European Court of Human Rights judgments said the IPT offers no human rights remedy on surveillance questions, in particular Burden v United Kingdom (2008) 47 ECHR 3869 and Malik v United Kingdom (Application no.32968/11) [2013] ECHR 794 (28 May 2013)

Organisations under the IPT’s jurisdiction must provide details to the IPT of any activity that is being complained about. The IPT will only decide whether any surveillance that is being carried out is lawful—i.e., that it has been appropriately authorised and is being conducted in accordance with the applicable rules. If it investigates a complaint and finds that surveillance is being carried out but is lawful, it will not confirm to the complainant that they are under surveillance, merely state that their complaint has not been upheld. The IPT is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 so information made available to it in the course of considering a complaint cannot be obtained under a freedom of information request. There is no avenue to appeal, other than to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Only select IPT rulings are published. Statistics concerning complaints dealt with by the IPT are published each year in the Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner.

Those statistics shows that very few complaints about surveillance have been upheld; from 2000 to 2009, five out of at least 956 complaints have been upheld and the likelihood of success has not changed since that period.

In effect, if one examines my case and one examines what is stated by the law, the intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom have effective immunity from any form of legal recourse and prosecution in cases where they abuse the powers which are available to them.

Furthermore even cabinet ministers, namely the foreign secretary and home secretary who formally have the responsibility for the intelligence agencies are not permitted, according to the Maxwell-Fyfe convention, as explained by the former home secretary Merlyn Rees to have oversight over or to know the operational deeds or misdeeds of those agencies..

https://youtu.be/qJB8tSLeOj4

I have nonetheless submitted complaints to the investigatory on five occasions. The first complaint was as expected dismissed. I have not however received a reply to the two complaints I made last year nor indeed the complaints I made  this year, complaints which admittedly have been made fairly recently.

 

2 Why the press will not help

The press in the United Kingdom are subject to something known as the DSMA committee whereby stories which are deemed embarrassing to the government are not covered. Newspapers such as the Telegraph and the Mail are therefore rather reluctant when it comes to investigating matters which pertain to the intelligence services and will do the bidding of the government. With respect to the Guardian, which one might think is anti-establishment, it should be stated that thats publication does in fact have links with the intelligence agencies.

It is fair to say that the press in concealing and justifying the corruption which exists within these agencies, is following a tradition whereby they are only too pleased to conceal stories in relation to

  1. The Snowden files
  2. The Hillsborough disaster
  3. The Guildford Four
  4. The Birmingham Six
  5. The Battle of Orgreave
  6. Jimmy Saville
  7. Cyril Smith

It is especially understandable that they should be at the beck and call of the intelligence agencies but the point of journalism is from what I understand to hold the powerful to account, which they manifestly and repeatedly fail to do.

 

3 Why western countries will not help

Foreign countries in the west choose to be subordinate and dependent upon an organization known as the Five Eyes. This organization is composed of the intelligence services which are run by United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Where they wish to go against the wishes of that organization they are subject to different forms of pressure. One can see an example of such threat on the part of the NSA and GCHQ to withdraw intelligence here, which occurred shortly after there was a decision on the part of the Germany top prosecutor to investigate the actions of the NSA. This threat to reduce cooperation was carried out on the dubious pretext that the BND was insecure and it just so happens that after the publication of that story there was a terrorist attack which occurred in Germany.

The inevitable fact is that if another country is responsible for the defense of a country and they are dependent upon them, they are hardly likely to complain when malfeasance takes place.

 

2 How it is proven that the harassment occurred

In the first place, the science shows that my outlining of the harassment is not due to some mental illness nor indeed are my experiences as I have outlined them evidence of such a state.

In the second place, whilst the intelligence services attempted to detain and misdiagnose me, they would admit this occurred and moreover proved that they were attempting to steal from me.

In the third place, they would admit later on that the harassment occurred.

I will also outline in chapter five the way in which they showed that they

  1. Had committed criminal acts against my person as part of the harassment
  2. Attempted to conceal the fact by breaking the law.

 

1 My high level of perceptual reasoning negates the possibility of mental illness

It is proven that I have a high level of perceptual reasoning, something which has been confirmed on more than one occasion. According to the scientific evidence, a high level of perceptual reasoning not only discounts the possibility of mental ill health, but also proves that one has certain abilities. In this section, I outline how and why this should be the case.

1 Preface

I have over the course of the past 3 years asked (or rather pestered) professionals (as well as non-professionals) to point out flaws in the following essay but none has been able to do so.

Amongst others, I have communicated with Simon Baron Cohen of Trinity College, Cambridge and Dr William Wedin, a clinical psychologist from New York. In the former case, he said he did not know and in the later case I have not received a reply to my query.

In all cases where I have asked, there has either been no response to my questions. Where there are responses, they are as follows:

  • I’m sure that’s not true” but then they never provide any evidence. It’s just an assertion.
  • “We don’t wish to engage in academic debate“. This occurred as part of an FOI request subsequent which was submitted after the writing of this chapter in February 2021. The response is very obviously an admission that there is no coutnerevidence. I asked the following question:  “Do you have any evidence (peer reviewed obviously) that a person who has a high level of perceptual reasoning (or organisation) can be said to be suffering from a mental health condition. The document was merely an attachment to the main question” Evidence is another word for “information”. They responded “Having reviewed all the relevant correspondence, I support the University’s original response. It seems to me that the purpose of your request is to engage in academic debate rather than obtain specific items of recorded information.” The purpose is quite clear and obviously clear which is to ask whether they do or do not hold information which shows that an individual with a high level of perceptual reasoning (or organisation) can be said to be suffering from a mental health condition. The fact that they employ a clear example of evasion by claiming that my request for information is engaging in academic debate is proof that I am right about the fact that a high level of perceptaul reasoning negates the possibility of mental ill health. It is fanciful and indeed irrational to attempt to claim that there is another explanation or that my outlining of harassment at the hands of government which included attempts to claim that I was imagining things is imaginary given the FOIA request, given the fact that I had and have a high level of PR and given the two admissions by the FCDO that disruption activities took place. It may be the case however given that certain FOIA requests are vetted by the person responsible for authorizing the disruption activities that they will try and claim that the both the following and the admissions state something else when it is clear that they do not.As such, given the usage of the third direction, it is possible to state that the British state can and do misuse psychiatry as a weapon. When they talk about “being open about mental health” this may include “being open about mental health” but it also includes a wish on the part of the state to take advantage of people’s weaknesses, particularly those unfamiliar with the way things work or indeed to claim that deficits exist where there are none as in my case.
  • I know lots of intelligent people who suffer from mental illness”. but this ignores the rather important fact that this essay refers to an aspect of intelligence known as perceptual reasoning and not intelligence per se.
  • But what about John Nash who was intelligent and who suffered from schizophrenia“. but this ignores the rather important fact that this question is answered in the essay in that a sign of his illness was the fact that his level of perceptual reasoning deteriorated.
  • Intelligence varies from minute to minute“, which is nonsense in that there is no such thing as Schrodinger’s intelligence quotient. A measure of perceptual reasoning doesn’t go from 80 one minute to 150 the next. This possibility is discounted because of something known as the cognitive reserve.
  • Perception has nothing to do with intelligence” as stated by someone from Cambridge neuroscience. This is patently untrue in that perceptual reasoning is one of the four measures of intelligence as employed in the Weschler Acquired Intelligence Scale, which is one of the standard ways of measuring intelligence
  • Mental illness is not always accompanies by a decline in cognitive ability/IQ“. As part of this they will refer to a generalized score of cognitive ability or will exclude perceptual reasoning. The science in terms of the fact that an elevated measure of cognitive functioning negates the possibility of mental ill health refers to a submeasure of IQ, known as perceptual reasoning and not to an overall IQ score.
  • We’ve done this study which shows that human perception can be wrong and used an artificial brain to determine this.
    • Did you measure their level of perceptual reasoning? If not, then the study is junk.
    • Is there such a thing as an artificial brain? No.
    • Does corruption involve optical illusions? No
    • Is the study correct? No
    • So why did they not just answer the question I sent them about perceptual reasoning and mental illness? They can’t because they know I am right which is probably why they are trying to skirt round this issue. The reason they are trying to skirt round this issue is because science comes a cast iron second to politics (corruption and how to conceal it) because its Cambridge and Cambridge has a stereotype which is well deserved for being a place which spits on those from a different background on behalf of their favoured cliques. There are a few token efforts here and there or indeed the admission of a small proportion of students (a third) who did not go to private/grammar school or did not come from abroad but who mostly come from the home counties.
  • “We’ve got this new method of determining this”. There are four things one can state about this
    • A standard test of cognitive function for which there are decades of academic studies would offer the most precise and objective means of determining that someone does not have a mental health condition.
    • No new test would discount the correlation between a high level of PR and a lack of any mental health condition, in that to discount that correlation, evidence has to be presented that someone who has a high level of perceptual reasoning will no be suffering from mental health conditions.
    • No other test would afford a less complicated and precise way of determining whether someone does not have a mental health condition. For example this study talks about “white matter abnormality amongst those with schizophrenia” but this is also the case with autistic spectrum conditions. The structural differences between schizophrenia and autistic spectrum conditions can be found in the grey matter.
    • The reason why there should be an apparent wish for a new test when the existing test is perfectly valid is entirely obvious. You would not bother with a new and superfluous test which is inferior to the existing one unless the conclusions from the existing test were found to be inconvenient.
  • Perception is an illusion“. This is utter nonsense given that they cannot find counter-evidence to this essay. As you can see from the following tweet by Cambridge psychiatry, they even use evidence from 150 years ago before the foundation of Germany to support their argument. They might find that science has advanced somewhat since then what with radio, computers, cars and so on.
  • “We don’t wish to engage in academic debate“. This occurred as part of an FOI request subsequent which was submitted after the writing of this chapter in February 2021. The response is very obviously an admission that there is no coutnerevidence. I asked the following question:  “Do you have any evidence (peer reviewed obviously) that a person who has a high level of perceptual reasoning (or organisation) can be said to be suffering from a mental health condition. The document was merely an attachment to the main question” Evidence is another word for “information”. They responded “Having reviewed all the relevant correspondence, I support the University’s original response. It seems to me that the purpose of your request is to engage in academic debate rather than obtain specific items of recorded information.” The purpose is quite clear and obviously clear which is to ask whether they do or do not hold information which shows that an individual with a high level of perceptual reasoning (or organisation) can be said to be suffering from a mental health consition. The fact that they use what is a clear example of evasion in order to claim that my asking for information is engaging in academic debate is proof that I am right.
  • “There will be a delay to your FOI request due to coronavirus”. I had, as part of a complaint in relation to a communication which shows that Oxford psychiatry and others who form part of the establishment misuse psychiatry for political ends, submitted an FOI request to the University of Oxford university asking for evidence which is counter to that which is outlined here. I have not only not received an acknowledgement of my complaint but the university have also stated that they might not be able reply within the standard 20 working days to my FOIA apparently due to the coronavirus.
    • Here is my FOI request. Here is hoping that they have lots of evidence which is peer-reviewed
    • Here is their response
    • The fact that they are looking for excuses not to reply and are using a prospect of a delay as a pretext can be seen  through the fact that they responded to an FOI request within the standard 20 working days when the virus was more prevalent
    • The information which I have requested would be held on databases which the university hold and any studies would be easily accessible in the library of the building where oxford psychiatry is located. Given this and the fact that they have released information which is similarly accessible as part of an FOI request, one must conclude that the excuse that it might take longer than 20 days due to the coronavirus is not valid. Perhaps they were intending on commissioning a new study but my request only refers to studies which have already taken place. This is reasonable given
      • My complaint and the need for objectivity and impartiality.
      • This is how FOI requests work.
      • There is a plethora of evidence available online none of which runs counter to the conclusions in this essay.
    • Thus both the excuse of a potential delay with regards to the FOI request and more importantly that lack of an acknowledgement of my complaint does show that my complaint is a valid one and that the conclusions reached in the essay are valid.
    • The statistics are revealing.
      • Only 12.36% of people who are employed at Oxford psychiatry come from an ethnic minority
      • Only 4.48% of people who are employed at Oxford psychiatry have a disability.
      • It is easy to understand why Oxford psychiatry would act on behalf of the establishment
    • It is doubtful that they will dismiss this request along with other request to know the details of the ethnic, class and disability related background of those who who founded business with the assistance of the enterprise department of Oxford university as “vexatious” given that they have not already done so and have merely stated either that
      • It would take longer than 20 days
      • They do not hold such information. If true this indicates that, given the reduction in governmental funding, the need for cutbacks/tax rises as a result of the lockdown and the wish on the part of the government for decentralization, they along with Cambridge should not be spared cuts. Oxford might use the pretext of the vaccine which they are developing to argue that they should be spared cuts but then
        • It is quite uniquely a dangerous vaccine given that
          • People who are immunized are still contagious which would mean that it would thus destroy contact tracing in that one cannot trace people who are immunized but who spread the virus which presents a problem for foreign countries should they go abroad. Moreover people who come from abroad for business or leisure would in turn be infected by immunized people in that if the population were vaccinated, there would be no need for social distancing and the virus would thus spread amongst the population as a whole rendering everyone contagious.
          • If, as reported a large section of the population are unwilling to get immunized then this becomes an even more pressing problem for the United Kingdom as well.
          • One must not only consider public confidence in this vaccine but public confidence in vaccines as a whole. If the British government choose to push this vaccine in spite of the clear evidence that it has some rather major drawbacks (particularly when these are pointed out by competitors), then it will inevitably lead some to question whether other vaccines which are promoted by the government have problems which are being kept concealed. This in turn will lead to a decrease in people becoming immunized for other illnesses which may in turn lead to a loss of herd immunity against certain other viruses. Indeed, this is already the case, given that it would not appear evident that the yearly campaign of immunization has taken place, given the effects of the virus upon the NHS.
          • (Updated 2/2/2021) The MHRA have said in an FOI request that it is not their job to ascertain whether the vaccine is safe for other people. This demonstrates clearly the poor regulation the UK has.
          • (Updated 2/2/2021). Oxford know that there is a problem with transmissibility given the fact that Oxford have attempted to claim incorrectly, falsely and deliberately that it reduces transmissions. They have only tested those who are “immunized” with the vaccine which does not of course include those who are obese nor indeed many people who are over 65 nor indeed many people with preexisting conditions nor indeed those who are not vaccinated. Indeed the study says there were “volunteers” but a) it provides no data whatsoever in this respect, whether they came into contact and so on with the trial volunteers or how they came into contact (something which would be difficult within a lockdown) and b) it would seem dubious to claim that the rate of infection is as high as 67% amongst the population as a whole. It is safe to presume that these were people in the “transmission” study were those vaccinated. This data is taken from page 18 of the study. It is clear why Oxford is choosing to highlight this “aspect” of the study. They have done so partly in response to what I highlighted months ago concerning the vaccine and transmissibility and it is clear that the MHRA have committed a clear deriliction of duty by stating that it is not their job to collect such data nor indeed to require the collection of it. They highlighting of this claim how lacking in probity they are and how one cannot and should not not have confidence in these claims about transmissibility nor indeed other claims they make particularly given the availability of alternative vaccines and better treatments. It would not be the first time they have done this, given the fact that my findings which I have submitted as part of FOI and which would be confirmed by several regulators (in France, Sweden, Germany and Poland amongst other others), show that they have not carried out adequate testing on people over 65, something which has resulted in those regulators not recommending the vaccine to people in that age group. They have not addressed the other issues however and indeed the MHRA have not as of yet responded to the FOI request within the 20 working days which does suggest that they are afraid of replying given that they had no problem in replying to the other request in relation to the provision of information which pertains to their studies on transmissibility during lockdown. Switzerland have stated that the vaccine should not be approved. I enclose a copy of that FOI request.
        • This is not to say that vaccination is a bad thing, just that when looked at objectively
          • This particular vaccine is manifestly harmful.
          • There are better vaccines.
          • If the government was indeed concerned about the virus, it would most certainly not be promoting this particular vaccine.
        • There are better treatments which are being developed in the United Kingdom most notably at Southampton University. The treatment which has been developed by that university treats people who are suffering from the virus with a 80% success rate and this rate could no doubt be increased if it were combined with other treatments. In itself 80% is not far off the apparent success rate of the vaccine which is 93-95% but
          • Unlike the vaccine, it apparently works with all variants of the virus.
          • One must also consider the fact that 16% of population are likely to refuse any immunization which given the fact that the vaccine only has a 93%-95% success rate would mean that the vaccine has an overall success rate of 78.12%-79.8%.
          • It is an existing drug and unlike the vaccine, there is already data in relation to any safety related issues. As there do not seem to be any reports in this respect, one can avoid phase 1 of the trial which pertains to ascertaining whether there are any safety related issues. It would thus be possible to bring a treatment for the virus to market more quickly than would be possible with the vaccine.
          • In short the treatment developed by Southampton is when compared to the Oxford vaccine particularly when used in conjunction with other treatments is liable to be more effective, less dangerous in that there would not be the prospect of people who had been treated remaining contagious and works with all variants of the vaccine.
        • It is a clear example of how the United Kingdom views considerations of class and which particular university something comes from as more important than the effectiveness of a particular treatment
        • If the medical authorities are going to complain about the fact that people do not have confidence in vaccines because of Andrew Wakefield (who is by the way an old Etonian), it is not helpful if they
          • Develop and promote a vaccine which is harmful.
          • Attempt to conceal the fact that they deliberately use another area of healthcare, psychiatry, to cause harm under the pretext of “helping” people. After all if the authorities do this in one area of medicine, one should not expect people not to have confidence that it will not be the case in another area.

If there are flaws in the following, then it is not unreasonable to ask for evidence of this. By evidence, I mean studies which show that mental illness can exist at all levels of perceptual reasoning with peer reviewed studies. That being said, according to my research, there is no such evidence.

Richard Dawkins when talking about the existence of God has said on numerous occasions that, according to the scientific method, it was not up to him to prove the non-existence of god and that one had to prove his existence. In much the same way, it is not up to me to prove the non-existence of mental ill health above a certain level of perceptual reasoning but it is up to psychiatrists to prove its existence and to provide evidence of the fact.

I have nonetheless provided proof of the fact that a high level of perceptual reasoning discounts the possibility of mental ill health.

 

2 The flaw in the current methods of psychiatric diagnosis

Patients are currently diagnosed according to a list of criteria which is provided by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or indeed the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)

This is a flawed method of diagnosis in that such a diagnosis is not determined according to objective measurements and will be subject to the individual judgment of a psychiatrist who base his decision upon the aforementioned criteria. Because this involves a personal and subjective judgment rather than a scientific and objective measure, It can thus be said to be unreliable.

It is possible however to determine on an objective basis whether someone is or is not experiencing a form of mental ill health, in instances whereby an individual has a high level of a particular measure of cognitive functioning known as perceptual reasoning (PR).

Perceptual reasoning or the PRi, for reference, forms part of one of the four categories of the Weschler Acquired Intelligence Scale (WAIS), the most popular IQ test available on the market. (The others are working memory, verbal comprehension and processing speed but with particular reference to working memory which measures executive function, they do not provide a means of distinguishing between those individuals who have ADHD, dyslexia or indeed schizophrenia and other conditions.)

PRi on the one hand measures the ability or otherwise of an individual to notice patterns, details and by extension “to form logical conclusions based upon inferences from external reality.”

Mental ill health on the other hand can be summarized as an inability to form logical conclusions based upon inferences from external reality. With particular respect to delusions which are a major factor in psychosis, this is defined in the DSM as “a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly held despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.

So at the outset and in the absence of evidence, it is illogical (and perhaps therefore indicative of mental ill health) to state that a person who

  • has an high level of perceptual reasoning and who has a marked ability to form logical conclusions based upon inferences from external reality.”
  • also forms illogical conclusions based upon inferences from external reality and is mentally unwell.

And this would be expected given a phenomenon known as the cognitive reserve.

 

3 How scientific studies in relation to PR prove the correlation

The above theory is however confirmed by the following meta-analyses which I have categorized according to each particular mental health condition (As part of this, I have also elected to also include documents which pertain to personality disorders as well as traumatic brain injury). Although a mere selection is provided here, there does not appear to be any counter-evidence which disproves the conclusions which have been reached and one has to conclude that the theory is correct. thus providing confirmation of the theory.

1 Depression

 

2 Bipolar disorder (also known as manic depression and encompassing mania)

One can tell that an individual does not have bipolar through looking at not only the cognitive deficits which are present in the manic phase but also those which are present in the euthymic phase

 

3 Post traumatic stress disorder

Moreover over half of patients with PTSD have psychosis of some form or another and another condition is present in 80% of patients with PTSD. As such given that the other mental health conditions involve a deterioration in perceptual reasoning, it follows that PTSD involves a deterioration in perceptual reasoning

 

4 Psychosis

 

5 Traumatic Brian Injury

 

6 Personality Disorders

 

7 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Point 5 of the DSM-V diagnostic criteria for this condition is flawed given the fact that it states “the disturbance is not better explained by the symptoms of another mental disorder…or repetitive patterns of behavior, as in autism spectrum disorder” which is not the same as a fixed interest. As such many people on the spectrum will be misdiagnosed with OCD particularly given the need for an interview of the caregiver during childhood as part of any diagnosis for ASCs.Moreover the DSM IV which was used until very recently did not make reference to autistic spectrum conditions. Indeed the Y-BOCS for example is a deeply flawed method of diagnosis given the fact that it states “Obsessions are unwanted ideas, images or impulses that intrude on thinking against your wishes and efforts to resist them” which can include thoughts about your interests which you might wish to get away from and the scale does not make reference to this. The symptoms list includes many items without making reference to the fact that these are all symptoms of being on the spectrum “Excess concern with right/wrong, morality” “Need to know or remember” “Fear of saying certain things” “Fear of not saying just the right thing“”Ordering/Arranging complusions” “Excessive listmaking” “Need to tell, ask, or confess” The Y-BOCS tellingly is used to measure symptoms of ASCs.

 

8 Dementia

This is a decline in cognitive functioning so this needs no explanation

 

9 Mania

Mania or hypomania exist as part of other mental health disorders. Mania is a syndrome with multiple causes. Although the vast majority of cases occur in the context of bipolar disorder, it is a key component of other psychiatric disorders (such as schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type) and may also occur secondary to various general medical conditions, such as multiple sclerosis.

As such this comes under the subheading of other mental health conditions.

 

4 How Enhanced Perceptual Reasoning is the opposite of mental illness

In autistic spectrum conditions, it is common to see individuals with a high level of PR. This has been defined by academics as Enhanced Perceptual Functioning and the following documents provide an explanation of this phenomenon.

Indeed it is possible to state that an enhanced level of PR, given that it, in essence, consists amongst other things of an enhanced ability to think rationally, can in fact be said to be the opposite of mental ill health in that mental ill health is signified by an inability to think rationally.

On a personal note, my level of Perceptual Reasoning as measured from the most recent official report is 133 which places me in the top 2%. I mention this not as a boast of my intelligence, but because it just so happens that my level of PR, on the basis of the evidence, would appear to establish that mental ill health is not a possibility in my case.

It might be argued that an IQ test is taken at a specific point in time and individuals suffer a deterioration in cognitive functioning as a result of mental ill health and would report lower scores as a result. This is indeed possible, but speaking on a personal basis again, I have regularly taken various forms of IQ tests and other similar tests over the course of the past twenty years with consistently high results. Had I been experiencing a form of mental ill health, the overall score would have been lower at some point.

One of the reasons that psychiatrists misdiagnose individuals with autism and enhanced perceptual functioning with mental ill health sometimes is because:

  1. Psychiatrists, who would not be especially renowned for possessing an especially high level of PR, would sometimes be unable to spot or see or understand the significance of the patterns and details and logical conclusions which are reached by those with high level of PR. Given that it is generally the case that they would have a lower level of PR, they would sometimes be unable to understand the line of reasoning made by those with EPR and might, as a consequence, conclude that such reasoning is illogical and indicative of psychosis or another mental health condition.
  2. Psychiatrists rely primarily upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in order to diagnose illnesses such as psychosis. The diagnosis is made according to criteria which are observed in a subjective fashion by the psychiatrist rather than the more objective and scientific measures which can determine an illness and which are provided by IQ tests.
  3. It is the case that upon seeing individuals with EPR but who might have have communication difficulties, that any intellectual capacity may be disregarded.
  4. Psychiatrists quite often do not have the time or resources within state-run facilities to make such determination.

This conclusion would appear to have been confirmed by comprehensive research which has been undertaken by the Schizophrenia Research Institute (SRI) of Australia.

 

5 The case of John Nash

One might argue that given the case of John Nash who was an outstanding mathematician with a high IQ who suffered at a particular stage with schizophrenia, that it is possible to have a high IQ and to suffer from schizophrenia. However one might like to take into account the fact that his mathematical abilities, which are also measured by perceptual reasoning, deteriorated as a result of his schizophrenia. By extension this would have indicated that his level of PR deteriorated and as such the conclusion still stands

In any case, John Nash did not however have schizophrenia and his symptoms were induced in some way. Only 39% of diagnoses of schizophrenia occur amongst those over the age of 30 and moreover according to the widest ever survey of IQ and schizophrenia there are no cases of schizophrenia amongst those who have an IQ above 129, something which would have certainly been the case with John Nash judging by his ability in mathematics and languages.

As such one must conclude that it was induced in some way. To add to this, the same also applies to his son who did maths as a PhD at Rutgers universities and as such much have a high level of IQ. It would be doubly impossible for two highly intelligent mathematicians with a high IQ to fall ill with schizophrenia.

As Wikipedia states: “Although Nash’s mental illness first began to manifest in the form of paranoia, his wife later described his behavior as erratic. Nash seemed to believe that all men who wore red ties were part of a communist conspiracy against him. He mailed letters to embassies in Washington, D.C., declaring that they were establishing a government. Nash’s psychological issues crossed into his professional life when he gave an American Mathematical Society lecture at Columbia University in early 1959. Originally intended to present proof of the Riemann hypothesis, the lecture was incomprehensible. Colleagues in the audience immediately realized that something was wrong.”

As such this does sound in part rather like the plot of the Ipcress file. It works like this

Mr Nash became aware of a conspiracy to infiltrate the United States during the height of the cold war, when such plots would have and did occur particularly in relation to the type of work he was engaged in. For reference, whilst at university, Nash specialized in noncooperative game theory and also worked for the National Security Agency of the US government as part of which he helped to break enemy codes and establish ones for the US to use that could not easily be broken. He then apparently falls ill with schizophrenia.

As to why such an illness was induced and by whom, there are a few explanations

  1. The US government felt that there would be a risk were he to remain “free” after his work at the NSA given his knowledge and the fact that he was so talented and valuable. One can discount this on the basis that this occurred several years after his employment
  2. John Nash stated that his illness was precipitated by his attempt to resolve the contradictions in quantum theory, on which he embarked in the summer of 1957 and which he called, “possibly overreaching and psychologically destabilizing.” but given his IQ this does not provide an explanation and his difficulties in this respect would have resulted from being poisoned.
  3. The USSR did it because he was some kind of threat but then he had long ceased employment at Rand and in any case, he later went to the GDR where he was not accepted.
  4. He was poisoned because he was a security risk due to his arrest in 1954. There is no evidence to suggest that he was a homosexual however and indeed the charge was dropped upon his departure from RAND and there was no record kept. Moreover his “illness” occurred a full five years after his arrest whilst he was in a position with sensitive access to information and students in relation to which he would have access to sensitive information. Positions at MIT would after all have been vetted. And indeed it would not seem tenable to suggest that they allowed him to go to Europe in addition to this.
  5. He became aware of corruption/a conspiracy of communist infiltrator. The US government were uncomfortable at his knowledge of infiltration because it occurred at a high level and would thus weaken confidence in the US government. Again it would not seem tenable that they allowed him to go to Europe if this were the case nor indeed would they have accepted him back without questioning after he had visited the GDR

The most likely reason for his induced illness was because of departmental rivalry at MIT involving the theft of ideas which involved amongst other things the theft of ideas. The authorities would have gone along with this because they did not like him as one can see from the sting in 1954.

An allegations that it had to do with homosexuality is not a particularly convincing motive in that if that had  been the case they would have prosecuted him in 1954 and moreover they would have prosecuted others who were openly homosexual from his department such as an individual called Forrester.

Such dislike historically with the authorities overrides any rational considerations.

By rational considerations I mean the following, the US government not only got rid of a genius but also  decided to maintain the charade that it was schizophrenia by inducing schizophrenia in his son so that they could claim that it runs in families. Such a move is obviously self-defeating move in that it deprived the NSA of a future talent given that genetics as well as the environment would dictate that it was likely that he would have been of a similar intellectual caliber to his father.

Another precipitative factor would be the fact that the US government or rather the CIA was engaged at the time in something known as MKUltra, which involved amongst other things trying to find substances which would disable their adversaries. As part of the testing of such substances, it would seem logical to suggest that they would have in the first instance, decided to test it on one of their own citizens and indeed someone who might be considered prominent in their field. They gave up on this substance partly because of the Church committee and partly because they found that it needed several reapplications as can be ascertained by the fact that John Nash recovered. As such the substance employed was applied on John Nash during his “European tour” in much the same manner as the villagers in Pont-Saint-Esprit. The reason they continued in his case (and indeed that of his son) despite the Church committee was because they needed to cover for the initial experiment.

This I should add cannot be said to have occurred in my case given what has occurred in the last ten years as one can see from the evidence presented on this website with particular reference to the third section of this page which would render any such attempt futile in that the cat was out of the bag. Indeed to give just a couple of examples, unlike John Nash, my mathematical abilities have not declined but have increased, as can be measured from the SAT score in 2016. Moreover I have learnt to program which I wasn’t able to do before to any particularly high degree.

In any case, given that, as I shall outline, they did poison me but with another substance which had no cognitive ill effects, had they employed such a substance as was used against John Nash, they would have done so in the first instance rather than leave evidence that they were poisoning me.

Moreover I would have to state that it is a fairly mad thing to want to run a government, world or otherwise, and perhaps anyone who does want to run should be detained in a psychiatric ward.

 

6 The reason why psychiatrists will not address this issue

There is a simple reason for this in that it is not in the interest of states in the west for there to be an objective method of determining whether someone is well or unwell.

This is because they operate systems of harassment (called COINTELPRO in America and the third direction in the United Kingdom) which rely upon concealment because they need to maintain a facade of a “democratic” process and “human rights”. Some details of how these systems operate and what they are are outlined in a later section.

As such, they need to claim that a person subject to such systems of harassment “imagined things” or was mentally unwell and as part of that they will coopt medical institutions both public and private to suppress research or knowledge of this fact

The only trouble is as related in that this is ultimately to the disadvantage and destruction of countries which operate those systems of harassment. The theory behind this is explained in the next section and its practical effects are demonstrated at the end of the next sub-chapter

 

7 The problem which this poses.

This is best explained through a set of examples.

Let us state that an entity known as A finds it convenient, according to a generally policy, for individual B to be diagnosed with a mental health condition, even though his EPR, which is publicly known, invalidates such a diagnosis.

An obvious concern would be that the research studies performed by the SRI make access to scientific data of an objective, precise and verifiable kind in relation to PR and mental ill health, publicly available. In addition, through the usage of modern technology and big data, knowledge of the correlation will become increasingly available. As such, it would be difficult to sustain the view that such a diagnosis could be credible in the eye of the public.

One might also ask whether such a policy is to the advantage of entity A, given the following very probable situations:

  1. A rival of entity A, which we shall call Entity C does not have a policy to define such individuals as mentally unwell. Their policy is instead to take advantage of the abilities and intelligence of such individuals. The difference between their approaches to those with EPR means they are stronger than Entity A.
  2. Entity C wishes to seek advantage and to damage entity A by enticing individual B to work for them through a recognition of their abilities and through informing them that they are not experiencing mental ill health.
  3. Furthermore, in order to damage the reputation of entity A, entity C makes it publicly known that individual B is being deliberately harmed by entity A.

One might argue that entity A could attempt to suppress knowledge of the fact that EPR negates the possibility of mental ill health. It is however difficult to forsee how this could be achieved given that:

  1. It is doubtful whether entity A could persuade entity C or other entities to suppress knowledge of this correlation when it would be to their advantage not to do so. It is also doubtful whether entity C would suppress knowledge of that correlation as they would be able to cause reputation damage to entity A and to attract others like individual B.
  2. Through the increasingly availability of modern communications, it is difficult to see how the available data and knowledge of the correlation will not at some stage, become public knowledge. The policy of entity A will be become apparent to the public which would damage it in their eyes. As a consequence, there is a probability that others with EPR would look towards other entities.
  3. Each country wishes to gain competitive advantage through the scientific discoveries which are made by intelligent people. 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 given that countries like Russia do not employ such a system. 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 but have witnessed/been subject to a system of surveillance (this is known as COINTELPRO and I outline how this works below) and who as a consequence are labeled by the authorities as mentally unwell in order to discredit them and to conceal this system of surveillance.

As a consequence of the fact that the correlation is and will increasingly become public knowledge, one might like to ask the following questions:

  1. In cases where it is deemed advantageous for entity A to state that an individual with EPR is psychotic, how can they be aware of their level of EPR beforehand given that such data is not always currently available? In disregarding such measures, how can they avoid the possibility of encouraging that person to go toward entity C?
  2. How does one avoid a situation where those with EPR through such abilities notice that those with a low level of PR are being subject to incorrect treatment and encourage them to work for entity C?
  3. What would happen when an individual with EPR who is misdiagnosed with psychosis, realises the correlation and decides to take revenge by for example leaking information.

The conclusion which must be drawn is that it would be disadvantageous for entity A to have a general policy that for the sake of convenience, certain individuals should be diagnosed with a mental health condition.

So one might pose the question as to how it is rational for a government for the sake of apparent convenience to diagnose someone highly intelligent as mentally unwell.

 

8 Why AI is not , as some might think, a panacea for the above

Some might argue that one can obviate the above problem by investing in artificial intelligence. This however does neglects what is very obvious. Artificial intelligence, if it turns out to be as good as people claim it will be, will merely do what humans do but more quickly. As such, the correlation will still hold and indeed rival versions of AI will in any case be able to point to the existence of COINTELPRO.

It is not as if one can make a specifically defective version of AI to avoid this issue because

  1. This would lead to one form of AI being worse than that of an international rival.
  2. A rival version of AI will be able to point to the existence of COINTELPRO.
  3. It will no doubt be possible to opensource artificial intelligence at some stage leading to situation where deliberate flaws are not tolerated.

The beautiful irony is that it is those who seek to escape logic and reason by investing in or relying upon artificial intelligence will prove the existence of COINTELPRO.

 

3 The intelligence services attempted to misdiagnose me, proved they had done so, proved the fact of their own delusions and proved that they had been attempting to steal from me.

The intelligence services attempted to falsely claim that my complaints of harassment for which they were responsible were evidence of mental ill health. They did so as part of an attempt to recruit me and in order to conceal the harassment which forms part of a government directive known as the “third direction”.

They would prove that such a diagnosis is objectively false through the fact that

  1. They would admit that the harassment took place as I outline below.
  2. They would admit that the detention was arranged as part of an attempt to recruit me to SIS. I have included some selections of an audio recording which prove this in the following video and the full recording along with a commentary is available in chapter eight.

A transcript

1st section

00:24 – 00:31 Me: So er. Why did you think, erm, do you stil think MI6 is a good place for me to go.
00:31 – 00:32 Julia: Yeah
00:33 – 00:35 Me: Do you mind me asking why you think that?
00:35 – 00:37 Julia: Because you’re talented
00:39 – 00:41 Me: But I’m not extrovert
00.41 – 00:43 Julia: And you’re into computers
00:43 – 00:46 Me: Isn’t that more of a GCHQ thing though
00:46 – 00:47 Julia: No
00:47 – 00:51 Me: You see, I look upon it, on psychological lines really
00:51 – 00:52 Julia: No
00:52 – 00:58 Me: No, MI6 need people like you, “talented” people.

 

2nd section

01:22 – 01:25 Me: So you’re tapping me on the shoulder, aren’t you really
01:25 – 01:26 Julia: Yeah
01:26 – 01:32 Me: You are, OK. I’ll give it another go. *laughs*
01:32 – 01:49 Julia: Do but fully concentrate this time. Sit in your room. Focus. Only think about that.

 

3rd section

02:06 – 02:09 Me: Was this whole thing a tap on the shoulder
02:09 – 02:10 Julia: Yeah
02:10 – 02:11 Me: Being here
02:11 – 02:12 Julia: Yeah
02:12 – 02:13 Me: Oh OK

 

4th section

03:10 – 03:11 Me: Hmmm?
03:11 – 03:13 Julia: You want to be on another council estate?
03:14 – 03:34 Me: No, not particularly no. It doesn’t makes any difference really, drugs are everywhere. As you can see, you know, being to that college. Someone tries to kill themselves because of it
03:34 – 03:38 Julia: Get your father to give you some money, they’re loaded
03:38 – 03.57 Me: Are they? How do you know. They’re not but why would you think that. *pause* You must have been in contact with them or something.

 

5th section 

04:04 – 05:50 A recording of Gary Murray MI5 agent describing how he was asked by MI5 to throw someone out of a plane

 

6th section

06:12 – 06:14 Me: Oh er is that plane ride still on?
06:14 – 06:15 Julia: What
06:15 – 06:19 Me: You offered me another plane ride on Sunday
06:19 – 06:21 Julia: Thursday “its booked as”
06:21 – 06:28 Me: ah and erm. Well it was a bit short notice you know. If you’d have said a bit earlier.
06:28 – 06:30 Julia: These things are short notice
06:40 – 06:43 Me: You knew I had to leave by Tuesday though
06:44 – 06:46 Julia: It’s booked for Thursday
06:46 – 06:58 Me: Oh. Oh well. I’ve been on a plane once. It’s something I should do really
06:58 – 07:00 Julia: Do you want to do it or not
07-00 – 07:01 Me: I can’t really
07:01 – 07:02 Julia: Thursday
07:02 – 07:03 Me: I can’t really
07:03 – 07:04 Julia: You don’t have to pay for it
07:04 – 07:18 Me: I know. It’s just I can’t really sorry I’ve got, you know, stuff to do. I’m not sure how long I’ll be staying where I’m staying. Thing are a bit up in the air if you see what I mean.

 

They also proved that they they were themselves psychotic through

  1. The reasons why they attempted to recruit me
  2. Their actions subsequent to that attempt
  3. The fact that they attempted to do the same to my father even though
    1. The evidence proves that he had a traumatic brain injury which they refused to examine and which discounts the diagnosis of Alzheimers according to the official diagnostic criterai
    2. They again left proof again of the fact of what they had attempted
    3. They later killed him.

In short, as I outline in chapter eight, they managed to prove their own insanity, through the fact that

  1. In the manner of the prisoner episode “Hammer into anvil”, I managed to convince them during such attempts to misdiagnose that I was working for the FBI on the partial basis of which they attempted to recruit me.
  2. They were apparently so impressed by my methods in this respect, they attempted to copy them for the purposes of their own operations, with the strange result that, due to the fact that they, as one might expect, made a hash of it, the United Kingdom is facing no deal.
  3. They had claimed that my complaints about the fact that individuals people from the college and the intelligence services were harassing me into handing over work/attempting to copy it were “untrue” and “evidence of mental illness” which is disproven by the fact that, whilst I was detained, they copied my ideas.

Moreover with respect to my abilities and their inabilities, one must also take account of

  1. What occurred previous and subsequent to the attempt at recruitment.
  2. My discoveries after my arrival in Russia with particular respect to Russian infiltration at my college and the intelligence services, its effects upon the United States and the fact that the government of the United Kingdom does not wish to deal this.
  3. The people who are involved in the harassment include,
    1. Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6 who was responsible for the weapons of mass destruction fiasco and who was the master of Pembroke college where I worked as a cleaner.
    2. Weveral senior members of the foreign office who are alumni of my college, a college whose members have a similar record of incompetence as well as corruption as can be judged from the employment of Geoffrey Prime whose treachery occurred when Sir Arthur Bonsall was head of the organization he worked for GCHQ. There was an attempt to conceal this before Geoffrey Prime’s arrest which became untenable one the police arrest him for child sex offenses of which they were no doubt aware.
  4. The fact that they want to copy my work, part of which is available here. That work partly consists of intelligence analysis which is possible thanks to my abilities in that regards and they provide the source material in this respect by attempting to steal that work. They then attempt to give the impression that they are rational and that others are somehow unwell which is in itself irrational.

 

4 The admission by the intelligence services that the harassment took place

The following is an email which was written by Doctor Oliver in 2015 in response to my complaints of harassment which had continued throughout Europe and indeed the middle east at the behest of the intelligence services. Again this is outlined in later chapters.

For reference, as was the case with Richard Tomlinson and others, I had been around Europe and was subject to harassment by people working on behalf of the intelligence services. As a result of this, I decided to see if the middle east might offer an escape and was at the time of the correspondence, present in a hotel in Amman in Jordan.

Dr Oliver was during this period, as I shall outline in chapters 10 12 and 13, the head of admissions for St Catharines college as well as a personal tutor in which capacity he also attempted to recruit to the Secret Intelligence Service. In that capacity, he would not be making such a statement if it were not true, given the fact that in doing so he is holding the college and indeed the intelligence services and others liable for such behavior

The email from Doctor Oliver is a clear admission that there was harassment involving members of the intelligence services who were present in the college and beyond. This conclusion can be reached for the following reasons

    1. The word “foment” within the context of this email can only be said to be in reference to things which I talk about which is the harassment. As such the harassment of which I complained did occur and moreover the word foment shows that it was unprovoked
    2. He admits the fact that harassment took place whilst attempting to lay the blame on a student known as Kang Tchou who according to his linkedln profile has worked for the NSA.
    3. Given the nature of the harassment however, the existence of which Dr Oliver has admitted to and which involved amongst other things poisoning (as in the case of Gareth Williams something is outlined in Chpater two), attempted murder, smear campaigns, burglary, hacking, all of which are documented, it would not have been possible for him to have carried this out alone. Given that he was no longer at the university at that stage, he is a convenient scapegoat
    4. The fact that there was harassment and a policy of harassment is proven by the fact that, amongst other things, it also occurred to at least one other person from the college, after both myself and Kang Tchou had left the college. This was was similar but less serious in nature to that which I experienced and as a result, the person who was subject to such harassment attempted suicide.
    5. As such, Kang Tchou will have had to have the authorization and cooperation of the college. The college is of course, as I shall outline a recruitment centre for the intelligence services.
    6. For such harassment to have taken place, given the fact that it was occurring at that stage in relation to work which they were attempting to steal, it would have had to have involved someone payment on the part of someone, given that the intelligence services are not profit making concerns. The evidence shows that the harassment was carried out at the behest of Dr Hermann Hauser who is into corporate spying and whose son Michael went to that college and was taught by amongst others Dr Oliver.
    7. Given the admission that there was harassment as well as the fact that there was an attempt on the part of the intelligence services to recruit me during a period when I had complained of such harassment, the allegation that such claims on my part are evidence of mental ill health is demonstrably false. This is quite obviously the case in light of the medical evidence and the fact that a high level of perceptual reasoning discounts mental ill health
    8. There is of course much material besides this on my website and of particular note is the death threat telling me to hand over my work on behalf of the intelligence services whilst I was in Amman.

 

5 Another admission by the intelligence services that the harassment took place

I submitted a subject access request to the foreign office last month. I shall outline what was the request after I show you the initial responses where they request a delay.

1 The final reply

2 The initial response

3 The review

The fact that they are admitting that they have engaged in disruption activities since 2012 is proven by the following
  1. If they did not hold the information which I requested, they would have stated “We do not hold any information.” Instead they stated “The FCO does not hold information to which you are entitled under the above legislation” (The legistlation is the DPA and the GDPR. For reference the DPA is the UK’s implementation of the GDPR. There is no GDPR act and). The qualifying clause which is highlighted in bold is a statement to the effect that they hold information which they do not wish to provide under exemptions provided by the Data Protection Act 2018. The only exemption is under section 110 of that act which pertains to the activities of the intelligence services. As such, this statement proves that the information which I have requested does exist and because they have not denied that such activities have taken place, this is an admission that there have been disruption activities which have taken place involving the foreign office. There is another exemption which is section 7 of the intelligence services act 1994
  2. In the first update, they stated that they had to extend the deadline due to the complexity of the request. The request can only be considered complex if the information which I have requested exists. If for example, I had stated “Can you provide information about me having had tea with the permanent secretary?”, they would find that such information did not exist and that information which could not be considered complex in that it does not exist. Therefore the information does exist and they are admitting to the disruption activitiesand to that end the final reply confirms that there is information which they have exempted under section 110 of the Data protection act 2018.
  3. It is not possible for them to argue that disruption activities began after I had first reported the disruption activities in that it is not possible to state that someone who was not being subject to disruption activities but who later reported a continuation of those activities was suffering from pre-traumatic stress disorder because no such condition exists. It is as far as I am aware, apart from certain anecdotal reports of shamans and mystics, impossible for a person to have a premonition involving some feeling that they are being subject to harassment in the present because it will occur some time in the future.
  4. The review response is also clearly untrue for several reasons
    1. They have stated that the answer is “complex” and have asked for an exemption under section 110 of the data protection act. They can only consider that the issue is complex if that data exists because why would you consider stating that it is complex if such data does not exist. They would just state that such data does not exist and not to give rise to suspicions. And they would not have asked for an exemption if they as they did considered the issue complex. As such one can conclude that the information does exist and they are lying under section 7 of the intelligence services act 1994.
    2. They state that they do not hold any data about me. This a plain proven straightforward lie. They do hold data about me in relation to my applications to SIS and indeed GCHQ from 2015. I have copies of those applications and their rejections and this is not something they would delete.
  5. The timing of the final reply confirms on behalf of whom the disruption activities took place. The FCDO decided to reply to cover for the fact that Simon Baron Cohen is going ahead with a very poor copy of the work which they attempted to steal, as one can see from the timing of his advertisement of the fact and the timing of their final reply. I use a twitter to RSS client and will show some screenshots of Simon Baron Cohen’s retweet which, as you will see, occurs before the tweet from Joe Biden and after the tweet from the Irish independent and can be thus calculated as occurring between 2:15-2:20pm GMT.  Within minutes, I receive an email from the FCO with the reply to my request.It is reasonable, given the fact that they monitor my activities (as proven by their admission of disruption activities) given the sudden change in date to now as opposed to March or February, given the fact that the response occurs within minutes of Simon Baron Cohen’s retweet and given the fact that the subject access request is in relation to disruption activities which occurred on his behalf to conclude that this is in response and that they are covering for the fact that this occurred in order to help Simon. It is not in relation to my browsing activity given the fact that there is nothing to distinguish in any measure from any other day.
  6. Check the following tweet which occurred earlier on in the day which he is using to justify actions in relation to his interest in “helping” those who are neurodiverse.
    1. Even though he attempts to give such an impression to pull at our heartstrings, it is not his daughter. One can tell from the fact that
      1. He is qualified to diagnose, the fact that he operates an autism clinic which diagnoses people, the fact that he has influence and would not need clinic to get such a diagnosis and the fact that Betty Fentiman had to undergo a battle to receive her diagnosis which would not have been the case had it been his daughter. As the article states: “Betty received her diagnosis when she was 12, following two years of battling through a system that did not understand the needs of an autistic girl. Whilst I can accept that society as a whole may not be educated in the intricacies of female autism, I find it unacceptable within mental health services.
      2. It also states in relation to the mother, a Caro Fentiman, “My parenting was challenged and the state of my marriage given as the reason for my daughter’s poor health.” She was not married to Simon Baron Cohen whose wife died in 2016 and it would be somewhat difficult to imagine Simon baron Cohen having an affair in Northumberland where she lives and then depriving his daughter of the help she needs.
    2. Even if it were his daughter, this would not not excuse his behaviour or indeed the lengths to which the FCDO have gone in stopping other people developing the work in which he is so interested.

I state that it is a poor quality copy of a very early stage version, but not to sound melodramatic and grandiose and with reference to similar instances where the UK and others have jeered at my concerns or indeed any due concern about X (the reasons which lie behind my acceptance by the college, trilateration, etc, etc) whilst bearing the consequences, the concern goes beyond mere attempts to copy and to harass.

Equally, it should be considered an important issue given what the work actually is and consists of, the impact it has already had on the UK primarily and the fact that the FCDO and the UK have proven time and time again the fact that in addition to the fact that they simply cannot be trusted to handle such things they can always be trusted to mishandle them. They are very much spoilt immature brats who go “I want I want”, who have a compulsion to play with matches and to set the house on fire.

It can only reasonably be stated that one can trust either the United States potentially who have perhaps given things not been what one might call compis mentis, Russia who have in the past paid due care and attention to misuse of such things or perhaps China. It would not do well to discuss what it is however until I have certain guarantees and to be frank, I do feel that in the first instance a government should have primary responsibility rather than some grubby profit making concern which might be one avenue but which should come further down the lime.

Ultimately, upon consideration, I suspect one side will replicate what the other is doing or perhaps they won’t be able to with reference to the United States in particular. And its a rather futile action on the part of the FCDO and Simon Baron Cohen because the evidence is plain to see (and in the possession of numerous individuals and countries) in relation to what they have done and would be used against them should they attempt to claim ownership of any ideas.

From a moral standpoint, it is also worth pointing out that for all the talk about abuse in the catholic church and the turning of a blind eye by individuals, the societal attitudes which led to such abuse, amongst the establishment, organizations which are tasked with preventing abuse and indeed the public has not changed.

Again if we are talking about jeering at concerns, there is a prime example, the UK engages in abuse, attempts to copy my work, I complain and submit evidence which can and will be used against them. They then attempt to lecture whoever about human rights when the proof is there to see that they have a record of engaging in human rights abuses of the most egregious kind with respect to invasions of numerous countries in the middle east or indeed given the impact it has had, against myself and my family. They should have the self-awareness to realize that they have absolutely no business whatsoever trying to secure a position of respect in the world by lecturing others when they engage in the human rights abuses, abuses which can, should and will be pointed out by countries, which, unlike the UK, are not on the way out.

Moreover, it is not as if former members of the government do not agree. As the former prime minister, Theresa May, pointed out just the other day, The UK has ‘abandoned global moral leadership’ through the threat to break an international treaty.

I should also talk about Simon’s test, it is invalid because of the fact that it is an anonymous survey on the internet which can of course be tampered with to produce a desired outcome. It also does not test Perceptual reasoning in an objective controlled fashion.

6 Yet another admission by the intelligence services that the harassment took place

The FCDO strangely response to the subject access request which is above and which they have already made.

It pertains to the following email which was a clarification to my subject access request which also included an FOI request.  

As with the above announcement from Simon Baron Cohen involving an attempt to steal my work and the above reply or rather confession that the harassment took place, the reply occurs a few minutes after a tweet from the local British embassy in Turkey where they outline how they are going to do deals with Turkish technology companies. As such, given the previous occurrence and given the fact that, as I shall explain, this too involves an admission of harassment, this forms an obvious pattern. It can therefore be taken as an attempt to state that they are going to attempt to do dodgy deals with respect to my work or to give the impression that they are minded to do so.

 

  1. It is a clarification from the previous subject access request which has already been answered. As such the attempt to claim it is a Freedom of information request when it is clear that it is not is an attempt to avoid answering the question and to give the impression that the admission has not been made when it has. It is a clear admission that they want to continue to make fools of themselves and to engage in criminal activity.
  2. They are also well aware that this is an SAR given the statement to which they refer”I would like documentation which outlines why you have authorized bodies which do not form part of but which work in close association with the state to utilize surveillance“. The perfect tense “you have authorised” refers to a particular instance which given the context can only refer to my own experience of disruption activities at the behest of FCDO which is the reason for the SAR. If it referred to a general question it would use the continuous present “Why do you authorise” or “why are you authorising
  3. The FCDO also do not mention the disruption activities. They merely mention “surveillance”
  4. The FCDO seems to have rather too much money and time on its hands. Obviously Brexit, Covid and the loss of ARM are not problems and its not a problem that, as I outline on this site, all three occurred as a result of the FCDO’s actions in attempting to steal my work.  The attempt to stop brexit was jinxed by my discovery of their attempt to stop brexit. The Prime Minister was appointed in reaction as part of an attempt to stop brexit because the civil service thought he would fail and ARM was bought in response to my request for a visa which included details of their corruption.
  5. I will be dealing in the first instance with a nationalized or rather government owned concern who may or may not say no and I think it is fairly obvious that any attempt to steal my work on behalf of or in conjunction with the British would reflect badly on them so I don’t think they are going to bother. In particular, it would seem doubtful that, any concern would wish to be associated with those who, as I outline on this site, resorted to amongst other things Grenfell, Salisbury and the murder of Gareth Williams. These are of course just a few examples. I have also state that there would be no cooperation with the UK as part of any deal.
  6. In particular, commercially speaking it is rather pointless for the following reason. It requires a company to invest in something where someone has a preexisting version which could simply be leaked thus rendering it impossible for them to spend money. In any case it would be seen to be based in part on things which have been revealed on this website.
  7. MIT are reading this presumably and would of course monitor any Turkish tech firms for underhand dealing like for instance a dodgy copy of my work.
  8. I would of course just go through a different country if there is a denial. There are a few options in this respect.
  9. It is an attempt to diddle Turkey because I want my work to be Turkish owned.
  10. Most importantly my work encompasses the sort of intelligence analysis we see on this website so I am not sure how or why in any case, the British would want to make a copy. It’s rather like asking Fred West been madly keen to invest in the forensics firm which convicted him and whatever one might think of Fred West whose wife apparently I am told by someone who knew her is quite arrogant and full of herself, he did not kill 72 people by deliberately setting a building on fire.
  11. What has the UK got to show given this culture of corruption and corporate espionage? Not much. They lost their last big company, ARM as a direct result of this culture

 

3 How one can determine COINTELPRO exists and that it harms national security

1 An admission of the existence of COINTELPRO in the United Kingdom

The existence of COINTELPRO, the system of harassment to which I was subject, has been officially revealed in the United Kingdom (at least in part given the redactions). It is known officially as the third direction and became public knowledge in early May 2018 through a publication by the Prime Minister of the relevant guidance which outline the fact that the intelligence services are permitted to be involved in criminality

Given that at worst, as stated in the recent Investigatory Powers Tribunal hearing, and as proven by previous examples on the part of the state, such a mechanism can encompass things like murder, rape and torture, it follows that other relatively less serious forms of criminality are sanctioned and do occur. These include poisoning, rumour spreading. hacking, break-ins, stalking, intrusive surveillance and so on.

Although I have been reluctant to given that this can be misinterpreted to the effect that I somehow I have some intention of doing so having been subject to the third direction, it can also entail an intent to force a person to commit suicide.

As such, the following is evident nonsense given that the British state does have a death penalty in that it has a policy to murder and has indeed murdered people. And in case, arguably preserving the death penalty is better than the current policy because at it would occur in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom rather than occurring in a manner which is secretive and underhand.

Given the fact that

  1. The full description of mechanisms which form part of the third direction have not been made public
  2. What has actually been disclosed in relation to this policy has only been disclosed recently.
  3. There is no oversight over the intelligence service and no recourse under the law against their actions, something which in turn encourages criminality.

There must also be a policy to discredit those who complain of such behaviour because of the apparent need to keep the full extent of the third direction as well as the identies of those who might have been employed secret.

As such the third direction must necessarily encompass the misuse of psychiatry (or indeed murder) on the part of the state and on the part of bodies which form part of the state. These include the civil service, intelligence services, the national health service and indeed universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, who despite their claims that they are “concerned about mental health” are anything but.

It is rather worrying that it is inevitably the case that as a result of such a policy and as a result of the lack of oversight which the government has over the intelligence services

  1. There will be laxity and a lack of proportionality
  2. Criminal elements will become attracted to the intelligence services
  3. Criminality will abound but will be sanctioned by the state which will include infiltration which can be kept concealed through the third direction by those within the services who are either too embarrassed by the fact or who are responsible whilst being employed at a high level.
  4. There will be a reaction amongst those who are subject to such a system who inevitably and however wrongly take the law into their own hands. This partly explains why certain people become what are deemed extremists which the intelligence services in turn like because it provides what they claim is a justification for their actions where there was none.

This is just one facet of why such a system is harmful to the country which operates it.

 

2 Why western governments will not help

One might think that upon hearing that someone has experienced the above that they might be willing to help and to take action but they do not. There are two possible reasons for this:

  1. They are wholly uninformed as to this policy. This is implausible given the nature of information sharing between intelligence agencies in the west and the fact that the United States in particular would be aware of such a policy on the part of the United Kingdom in that it is the senior partner in terms of the Special relationship.
  2. They are fully aware of such a policy but operate a similar system and would not as a result be minded to take action. The fact that they do have such a policy is explained in the next section.
  3. They do not wish to upset countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States upon which they are dependent for their defence and intelligence needs.

 

3 The American version of the third direction otherwise known as COINTELPRO

When the existence of COINTELPRO was publicly revealed in 1971, the director of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover only said that a particular version of COINTELPRO, namely the centralised one, had ended. He did not say that COINTELPRO had ended.

In other words, COINTELPRO itself has never officially ceased operating but it is no longer centralised.

The following is taken from wikipedia and describes how COINTELPRO operated half a century ago. It should be borne in mind that in the intervening five decades, COINTELPRO has inevitably become more sophisticated, given that the FBI and others have the benefit of modern technology.

The intended effect of the FBI’s COINTELPRO was to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, or otherwise neutralize” groups that the FBI officials believed were “subversive” by instructing FBI field operatives to:

  1. Create a negative public image for target groups by surveiling activists and then releasing negative personal information to the public.
  2. Break down internal organization by creating conflicts by having agents exacerbate racial tensions, or send anonymous letters to try to create conflicts.
  3. Create dissension between groups by spreading rumors that other groups were stealing money.
  4. Restrict access to public resources by pressuring non-profit organizations to cut off funding or material support.
  5. Restrict the ability to organize protest.
  6. Restrict the ability of individuals to participate in group activities by character assassinations, false arrests, surveillance.

According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home, the FBI used five main methods during COINTELPRO:

  1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit, disrupt and negatively redirect action. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.
  2. Psychological warfare: The FBI and police used myriad “dirty tricks” to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists. They used bad-jacketing to create suspicion about targeted activists, sometimes with lethal consequences.
  3. Harassment via the legal system: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, “investigative” interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters. One can read about this here and here.
  4. Illegal force: The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten dissidents; to conduct illegal break-ins in order to search dissident homes; and to commit vandalism, assaults, beatings and assassinations. The objective was to frighten or eliminate dissidents and disrupt their movements.
  5. Undermine public opinion: One of the primary ways the FBI targeted organizations was by challenging their reputations in the community and denying them a platform to gain legitimacy. Hoover specifically designed programs to block leaders from “spreading their philosophy publicly or through the communications media”. Furthermore, the organization created and controlled negative media meant to undermine black power organizations. For instance, they oversaw the creation of “documentaries” skillfully edited to paint the Black Panther Party as aggressive, and false newspapers that spread misinformation about party members. The ability of the FBI to create distrust within and between revolutionary organizations tainted their public image and weakened chances at unity and public support.

 

4 How one can determine the existence of the third direction and COINTELPRO in the absence of an official admission.

1 Introduction

One can determine the existence of such a system without the need for official sources. Official sources can be disadvantageous in some respects in that even where there are leaks of such documents, these sometimes occur in order to spread disinformation. The term  “intelligence agency” in this instance is defined as including contractors such as private agencies hired by the security services and undercover police.

  1. Whilst systems of human surveillance such as Zertsetung and COINTELPRO might have been widely condemned, there is nonetheless a wish on the part of the authorities in western countries for such systems to continue. They decide to desist from the employment of tactics which form part of either system until such as awareness of these systems recedes from the public’s consciousness.
  2. Some years later such a system does reemerge and consists of a combination of the methods which formed part of COINTELPRO and Zersetung combined with a human version of the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group.
  3. With respect to the later, it iss entirely implausible to claim that there is a reticence on the part of human intelligence agencies such as MI5 and MI6 to employ methods which are the real life equivalent of those which are used by JTRIG and which will be available to those agencies.
  4. In order to conceal this system of surveillance/harassment and to discredit the victims of it,
    1. They use term the “gangstalking” to describe it and “targeted individuals” to describe those subject to it.
    2. They ensure that the majority of the reports on the internet are from false victims.
    3. That which is reported by the false victims includes much which does exist and which has been officially documented as part of the various governmental inquiries into previous systems (such as the church committee or the Central Registry of State Judicial Administrations) but also much which does not exist or which does not occur such as
      1. Microwaves technologies
      2. Brain or Body implants with a microchip
      3. Electronic weapons
      4. Directed energy Weapons (DEW)
      5. Mind control
      6. Electro magnetic weapons (EMF)
      7. Remote neural monitoring
      8. Being attacked by satellite
      9. Voice to Skull (V2K)
      10. Psychotronics
      11. RFID implants
      12. Morgellons
      13. DNA manipulation
      14. The New World Order
      15. David icke’s matrix
  5. Upon researching genuine claims which are made by those complaining about such a system of surveillance from sources such as the internet (where most people would go to do research), most people will associate the methods which do exist with the accounts of things which do not exist, given that the majority of claims of such a system of harassment originate from those false victims who make claims about things which do and do not exist. Due to this association between real and false, the person researching such claims will naturally conclude that, due to the attempt at “discreditation by association”, those who are genuinely complaining about genuine reports of harassment are experiencing some form of mental illness even though they themselves do not complain about the things which do not exist.

For reference, there is only one genuine site (at the time of writing) which outlines this phenomenon. This is available here and a full description is available here

 

2 The obvious flaws in this system

 1 It is easy to detect

  1. Whether someone is experiencing psychosis of other mental health conditions can be determined on an objective basis according to measures of cognitive functioning such as perceptual reasoning and processing speed. As such it is possible to state that a person with enhanced perceptual reasoning who is subject to such a system is not making claims due to some illness. To reiterate and you should read the essay, no psychiatrist has thus far provided counter evidence to this even when I have requested it and it therefore is true. The example of John Nash might be cited as someone who was highly intelligent but who had schizophrenia. The fact is however that his reasoning capacities as can be witnessed by his inability to do mathematics would mean that such cognitive measures in his case had deteriorated as would be ascertained from a professional IQ test. Additionally a lie detector can be used to ascertain the reliability of such accounts.
  2. Those who are good at spotting patterns and details, namely those with enhanced perceptual reasoning and a high level of inductive and deductive reasoning as measured by various psychometric measurements such as the ravens progressive matrices and the block design test will be able to distinguish the truth from falsehoods with respect to this system of surveillance. In other words they will be able to see the needle (in other words the information) in the haystack (in other words the disinformation).
  3. Were technologies such as “mind control” to exist, they would at some stage, rather like nuclear or chemical weapons, have been used in a war. ISIS or some other terrorist organisation would have made mention of such technologies either through some official news site or even some unofficial site. Strangely they have not anywhere and it is safe to conclude therefore that such technologies do not exist. It cannot be stated that claims involving technologies which do not exist are indicative of psychosis and that many people are sharing the same hallucination and experience of “V2K technologies” and “EM” because of an induced or shared delusion. Many of these people are independently having the same delusions and then sharing the experiences online rather than the other way round. This cannot be folie a deux given that is not possible for many person with that form of psychosis to claim that they can perceive the exact same thing as another person with psychosis without having encountering that person. This is confirmed by the the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for Induced Delusional Disorder (folie à deux) which is as follows:Two people share the same delusion or delusional system and support one another in this belief.
    1. They have an unusually close relationship.
    2. Temporal or contextual evidence exists that indicates the delusion was induced in the passive member by contact with the active partner.
    3. As such these claims are false.
  4. As a person who complains of being subject to such methods of surveillance person is not experiencing mental ill health and as so many people are saying the same thing without having encountered one another, it is logical to conclude that they and many others have been asked to pretend that they are experiencing something which doesn’t exist in order to discredit the genuine victims of such a system of surveillance.
  5. Such an extensive effort given the numerous instances of disinformation on the internet devoted to gang-stalking must be coordinated and headed by a powerful organization which, rather like COINTELPRO and especially given its similarity to such systems is governmental in nature and origin.

 

2 It causes major issues in relation to security, economic well being and will in itself be exploited by other powers

  1. Given the need for a competitive advantage through scientific discoveries which are made by intelligent people, 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 something like this and to conceal the existence of such a system, especially given that countries like Russia do not employ such a system.
  2. 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 but have witnessed/been subject to the third direction and who as a consequence are labeled by the authorities as psychotic in order to discredit them and to conceal the methods which are employed as part of this.
  3. Furthermore a country without such a system will no doubt attempt to draw attention to the existence of such systems in a country which does operate on such a basis in order to discredit that country.
  4. As a consequence, the country which does not have such a system will gain strength over the one which does because the intelligent people will emigrate to a country which does not.
  5. A particularly pertinent example of this is the current discord within the American political system. To quote Benjamin Franklin “Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you”. The wolves in this case are however not American as such but Russian. COINTELPRO is a form of perception management which, to put it bluntly, requires that the people which extends to staff who work in intelligence agencies are kept stupid and manipulable. The people who devised COINTELPRO however did not foresee the fact that
    1. One day information would be able to flow freely around the word.
    2. Because they have to be so “dumbed down” in order to maintain the form of perception management known as COINTELPRO, they would themselves be vulnerable to other forms of perception management
  6. The irony is that the people who run this system, namely the intelligence services, themselves make claims about things which don’t exist (WMDs) which they demand that others agree with, something which is indicative of a form of psychosis. At the same time they demand that others deny the things which do exist namely the third direction.

 

3 It is attractive for infiltrators and operates on much the same basis as the Martha Mitchell effect

  1. Should someone from the United Kingdom complain about the fact that they are experiencing the effects of such a system in order to conceal amongst other things corruption and infiltration, the United States cannot, given that it operates a similar system, use such a person as a witness to such things.As such,
    1. The United Kingdom is an attractive prospect for infiltrators in that they can rely upon that country to claim that a person complaining of such things as infiltration and corruption is delusional.
    2. The United States is vulnerable because of the special relationship and because of such a policy.

 

4 It is difficult to get rid of

  1. It would lead to a collapse of a system upon which they have become dependent in order to maintain their power.
  2. It would potentially mean those who are currently misdiagnosed as part of COINTELPRO would become aware that they had been misdiagnosed leading to much controversy and discreditation.

 

5 The harm this has caused America

COINTELPRO is proven to represent a threat to national security given the fact that, in brief,

  1. Of what happened to me in response
  2. That where infiltrators wish to keep someone quiet about infiltration, they can subject that person to COINTELPRO, as a consequence of which because the government cannot admit that the person was subject to such a system, they have to state that that person is “mentally unwell”
  3. That amongst other things, for it to function, the existence of COINTELPRO has to be kept concealed. This necessitates a lower level of perception amongst the population and staff who work in the intelligence agencies need to be, as it were, “dumbed down”. As a consequence of which both the people and the staff as a whole who work in those agencies do not have the intellectual capability to perceive threats which relate to perception management.

I pointed out in a document that a foreign power would decide to take advantage of this fact a few weeks before it occurred. Due to a infiltration within British intelligence and the leak of that document by someone known to me within an environment which has a long history of infiltration (namely British intelligence and St Catharines College), Russia with the help of the United Kingdom decided to engage in a form of perception management upon the American people known as non-linear warfare. As part of this, they also included ideas which I had expressed in audio form whilst I was in Fulbourn and which pertained to utilizing Wikileaks to affect an election. Moreover it formed part of an attempt to detract from Russian infiltration of British intelligence by claiming that there was collusion between Trump and Russia.

It is quite reasonable to conclude as much given the evidence, given

  1. The history of the college and GCHQ with respect to infiltration and indeed the fact that it would not be the only instance where someone had attempted to use my ideas.
  2. The fact that if one alerts people to the dangers of something within an environment where there are to put it mildly security issues, that will obviously attract attention as it were.
  3. The foreign office lack imagination and will have proceeded to copy my ideas based upon the fact that that’s what Russia (with the help of certain members of the foreign office) did. It is far more likely that they said “You know Russia copied his idea because of the security issues, lets do the same” rather than “I know lets copy what he did to swing an election

The account of what occurred is as stated related in chapter 12 but in brief Russia decided not to “swing the election” but to give the impression that they were attempting to swing the election through amongst other things collusion and hacking. This is a version of perception management known as non-linear warfare.

The result has been that there has been suspicion, division and upset amongst the American people and political process more generally but also amongst countries which are allied to America. They have spent four years in vain looking for collusion and evidence of the fact that Russia attempted to swing the election when there was none. As stated this formed part of an attempt to conceal Russian infiltration

The fact remains that had there been a smoking gun, it would have been easy to find, easy to deal with and would have caused far less damage than has been the case. The only reason why the American intelligence agencies stick to the delusion that Russia attempted to swing an election is because they are rather overrated and because if they admit they were wrong they fear a loss of public confidence.

To be clear, this is not to say that there wasn’t interference because there was.

The crucial point is the purpose of that interference which cannot have been to swing the election and can only have formed part of a campaign of non-linear warfare.

One only has to look at what Russia is alleged to have done in the Muller inquiry to see that they could not have swung the election if they wanted to so they decided to do something more effective and within their capabilities.

 

4 The stupidity of counter-allegations

It will no doubt be the case that there will be various counter-accusations on the part of the British intelligence agencies and related bodies but this would be rather silly for the following reasoning.

  1. At no point have the intelligence services, police, authorities in the United Kingdom or elsewhere charged or even spoken to me about any issue they may have even when I expressly went to meet them to ask even though I have emailed them. Moreover I submitted two complaints to the investigatory powers tribunal last year requesting to know if they had some sort of issue which they would like to discuss but have not received a reply
  2. Had it been the case that there had been any issue, they would have raised it by now.
  3. They did as much to others who have been in a similar situation to me. With respect to the university, one can cite the notable cases of Richard Tomlinson who wrote a book about his experiences which are not dissimilar to my own and indeed Annie Machon. With respect to the college, one can cite the example of a former member of staff who attempted to commit suicide and another member of staff who took the college to court.
  4. They attempted as much when I raised a complaint back in 2013 about the harassment and later revealed that they were lying as part of which they broke the law through refusing access to my own personal data (some CCTV) as part of a subject access request.
  5. They did the same again with INTERPOL in 2018.
  6. They would not be resorting to harassment of any kind if they had any issue because they would not need to and the fact that they do proves that they have no complaint.
  7. The people who are involved in this history of harassment include individuals such as Sir Richard Dearlove, Laurie Bristow who were involved in the Iraq debacle and a college which is best known for producing alumni which were responsible for concealing infiltration, the Geoffrey Prime affair, producing Russiagate, false allegations against Michael Flynn.
  8. They have admitted that the harassment was instigated by the intelligence services.
  9. The material in relation to Dr Hauser and others is mentioned in later chapters but the evidence does point out the futility of them attempting to make counter-allegations.
  10. Dr Hauser has bribed people which in addition to the fact of the involvement of Sir Richard Dearlove and members of a college which has a history of concealing infiltration/corruption renders such actions pointless. The people involved at the college and beyond actually worked under the orders of individuals at the college and beyond who worked for the ministry of defence, the foreign office or indeed the CIA.
  11. As I shall relate in chapter three, there has been, an alcohol issue at the college amongst members of staff (including two members of tutorial staff) and students with particular reference two individuals who formed part of the JCR (Junior Common Room) who were involved in the harassment and who consumed large quantities of alcohol (literally out of buckets) during the summer period 2012, with the acquiescence of the college authorities. One of these had mental health problems at the time.
  12. It is difficult to see who would want to be associated with protecting the reputation of people who have been involved in the criminality which I outline given that, in the process of doing so, they would damage their own reputation. This is not to say that I haven’t offered the authorities at every possible stage the possibility of talking or stating what the problem is. The fact is however, I have received no reply whatsoever and was even thrown out of the police station in Cambridge when I tried to ask what the problem was in 2015. And after a few more years of this, I started this website.
  13. Given the fact that, at the outset, they have resorted to lying continuously (and in a rather significant way) as part of which they have resorted to bribery, it is difficult to see how they can come along and make any claim which could be seen as true because they would, as stated, already have done so instead of having to resort to lies. In particular for them to put forward claims now, they would have to be in contact with whichever person they so happen to have chosen. The fact of their involvment and their record discounts any such claim.
  14. Not only is not possible to claim some form of cognitive disablement in my case given the fact that that was attempted, seen to be attempted and disproven by events but it is also not possible to claim that the misdiagnosis of my father was valid in order to claim that it “somehow runs in families”. This is for a few very simple reasons
    1. It has been attempted with me which must call into question his diagnosis
    2. He did not really drink, did not smoke, exercised, read and did lots of sudoku which discounts the possibility of his cognitive challenges being down to his lifestyle
    3. He had several head injuries which were examined by the doctor (as can be verified by the audio and textual evidence and by the fact that at that stage the NHS were too busy to diagnose him given the virus), something which according to the diagnostic criteria exclude the possibility of his diagnosis as you can see hereMoreover
    4. His cognitive challenges occurred after the head injuries, which would signify the cause.
    5. He was not “frail” given that he did a lot of gardening, used a pickaxe and a saw and so on. In fact my mother told him off at various points for not listening and working too hard in the midday sun at the age of 92. The cause of his fall will have been his usage of beta blockers which causes people to fall.
    6. Such diagnosis of Tbi and its effects is difficult at the time and even more difficult later on.
    7. Head injury is one of the most common causes of Alzheimer’s.
    8. Genetic material would disprove the possibility that it is genetic given that compared to other races the Circassians (of which my father was one) have a remarkably diminished incidence of hereditary diseases.
      1. Indeed it only the strongest (those with a lesser incidence of hereditary diseases) would have survived given the fact that there had been
        1. Invasions over millennia most of which were rebuffed..
        2. Constant fighting amongst the different tribes over centuries
        3. Deportations in the 19th century.
      2. One can therefore discount the following study given that it
        1. Was carried out by the autism research center which as I relate in Chapter five has a problem in terms of ethnics due to the person who it is run by.
        2. Is just a questionnaire as it itself acknowledges.
        3. Is not a meta-analysis.
        4. It does not take account of the fact that people on the spectrum are less likely to exercise as the study itself acknowledges. Essentially the study is saying that people who do not exercise are more likely to be ill.
        5. Does not take account of the ethnicity of my father or indeed of myself or indeed ethnicity in general (at least not properly). For reference, Circassians are as different ethnically speaking from the general population as Jews are. This is important with respect given that.
          1. My particular tribe are more likely to be on the spectrum. This is a reasonable conclusion given that we have a certain “reputation” in Russia as my father used to relate. For referencei
          2. My particular tribe were much sought after by various governments for military work and would be less likely to be physically unwell something which correlates with the evidence
          3. Someone who is on the spectrum and who is from my particular tribe is less likely to have suffer from medical conditions than the general population.
    9. My genetic material is in the possession of China, so any attempt to fraudulently claim that is is genetic would not wash particularly given the fact that the UK medical system, given the coronavirus, is not held in high regards around the world.
    10. Moreover with regards to my mother’s side,
      1. There is no history of alzheimers
      2. This is proven by the fact that it occurs in 1 out of 6 women and would have become apparent at some point
      3. It would have certainly become apparent in my mother given
        1. The fact that she was 85
        2. Certain serious health issues which she had.
      4. She was in the top of her class in mathematics indicating the fact of her cognitive reserve which reduces the chance that one can suffer from alzheimers.
    11. In any case male genes predominate over female ones especially with regards to health.
  15. It is very much confirmatory of the fact that as Jock Kane pointed out and as GCHQ used to point out a) There is corruption and b) There is therefore infiltration but only start making up things when one points out that there is corruption and infiltration.
  16. Moreover, with respect to those who support the democratic party in America, it really does you or your election campaign no credit whatsoever when you largely base your campaign on the claims (Trump is a Russian asset/Russia is trying to swing the election) of those (ie the foreign office) who seem to suffer from a verbal diarrhea and who were the first to alert you to this supposed “problem”. You might not like him and have some better alternative but pursuing this nonsense is rather like saying that Prince Philip murdered Princess Diana.

Overall it must be said that the position of the United Kingdom in respect of counter-allegations would be utterly pointless.

  1. On the one hand, the United Kingdom is faced with the economic consequences of no deal or its near equivalent as well as those from the lockdown. It should be stated of course that, at the moment, the full effects of this have not yet hit given that no deal hasn’t happened yet and the economy is on life support thanks to the support provided by the treasury. The inevitable closures of business and mass employment and permanent loss of economic stature will arrive shortly. The end result of this is that the United Kingdom is going to split up within the next decade.
  2. On the other hand, I will be around for many decades to tell the tale. It is nonsensical to suggest that
    1. Anyone would protect a non-existent country when the corruption is revealed
    2. The United Kingdom of England and Wales which will be much poorer, far less significant will be in any sort of position to spread its propaganda or to have any credibility.
    3. It is not a form of dementia to not be able to see the reality of this situation and to start claiming that others are cognitively challenged.