Movements...

   If truth were a tangible place, like a town or city, it would be a very dangerous place to live! Despite appearing like a utopian destination and for all the benefits and worth of getting there, there would be times when it would erupt into a bloody showdown like an old western frontier town. Other times you might feel like you were living in one of those Soviet based, mock American towns of the 50s or The Village – the one immortalised by the excellent 60s show: The Prisoner. Problems are always made by people though. The place is enormously incidental.

   Truth is almost always a contrivance, utilised by some as a means to manipulate and understood subjectively by others. We can partly blame the way our conscious/subconscious mind interprets information and our ‘trust’ in the source of it, some we can blame on our predispositions and bias, the rest of the blame lies firmly at the feet of those who understand perfectly how to manipulate these psychological processes in others.

   The architects of the hidden state of global affairs are singularly powered by the vast majority of humanity’s ignorance (of a situation), mass apathy or willingness to just let them get on with it. There are those that are a little more informed or proactive though. Knowledge really is power, but how can you be sure that you really do ‘know’? And if you ever do ‘know’, how do you decide to act on it?

Large scale realisations have always spawned large scale

reactions and thus, a movement is always born. History is replete with examples. From the Suffragettes and the New Age movement to Anti-War and 9/11, mass social stirrings become driven by the promise of justice, enlightenment or change.  The driving forces of these movements are decent, honest and well-intentioned people who want to make the world a better place. Without them there could be no movement. But is it naïve to think that these movements have been created solely from a collective sense of conscience? That everybody shaping, developing and driving them are equally as honourable as those with the best of intentions?

   Sadly, history also shows us that certain individuals and groups have played a hand in the nature of these movements. It shows us that while some movements have been co-opted and usurped at some stage, others have been created or instigated by agents of the global agenda players (for one reason or another) and given what we know about these agenda players, we can only assume that their intentions were not to benefit the social majority.

   In the 1960s, those opposed to the war in Vietnam were gaining momentum in bringing the injustice and hypocrisies of the conflict to the world’s attention. It became the mandate of western intelligence and military organisations to do everything they could to infiltrate and discredit those who had the ability to sway public opinion, and distract the rest. The exposure of the MKULTRA project era alone, shows how intelligence agency sourced LSD was introduced far and wide into society with the intention (amongst others) of disassociating many from their political activism.

   As for those with a visible anti-war profile (writers, artists and musicians), a leaked memorandum dated April 26th 1976 shows how several government branches were tasked with painting these individuals as “scurrilous and depraved”, highlight their “living conditions and habits” and attempt to discolour their character with sexual indiscretions, drug charges, planting narcotics, sending in women to break up marriages, misinformation (to confuse and disrupt) and alerting the media to their activities. They even obtained handwriting specimens to fake documents, enflamed existing personal conflicts and animosities, and provoked rival groups in the hope of inciting hostilities and murders. (see: “The Covert War Against Rock” – Alex Constantine)

   The Cointelpro days of the 60s and 70s are extensively documented, with everything from The Black Panthers to the Yippies being infiltrated by various agency. Officially, this infiltration was justified in order to protect the larger public from “disruptive subversion”. In reality, much of their activities involved agitating members of these various groups, often pitting them against each other through various forms of subterfuge (such as blackmail.)

On the other side of the spectrum, the apolitical New Age

movement was equally exposed to subversion via agencies such as the FBI, CIA and NSA. During the early 70s, institutions such as Esalen made it possible for a huge increase in the number of agents to infiltrate the “human potential” movement.

   These are just a few examples of the global players utilising their apparatus to redirect the power of the masses.

  In recent times, we have learned (all too painfully) how governments have advanced agendas by getting everybody on board with a certain belief system. 9/11 was the conduit through which the mantra of “threats” from new “global enemies” could dogmatise the masses into accepting not only wars of aggression, occupation of foreign countries and policies of “regime change”, but also sweeping changes that curtailed individual rights and freedoms.

   The West (particularly NATO countries) has also taken huge liberties with the desire for freedom that has grown out of the post-9/11 world. There have been claims that many of the uprisings of 2011 were infiltrated by "agent provocateurs”. According to former CIA counterterrorist analyst Michael Scheuer, the US intelligence agency gave training and logistical support to the anti-Gaddafi “resistance” and that “Obama secretly authorised this covert operation.”

   Of course, this is nothing new. You need only research Operation Gladio to understand the extent to which these operations have been carried out in the past. Gladio was a “far-right secret army, operated by the CIA and MI6 through NATO, which killed hundreds of innocent Europeans and attempted to blame the deaths on Baader Meinhof, Red Brigades and other left wing groups. Known as 'stay-behinds' these armies were given access to military equipment which was supposed to be used for sabotage after a Soviet invasion. Instead it was used in massacres across mainland Europe as part of a CIA Strategy of Tension. Gladio killing sprees in Belgium and Italy were carried out for the purpose of frightening the national political classes into adopting U.S. policies.” (see: BBC Documentary, “Timewatch: Operation Gladio”, 1992, Director Allan Frankovich) The “Timewatch” documentary (surprising for the BBC… although it was pre-9/11) shows in detail how Gladio was a quintessential example of cointelpro / agent provocateur strategy.

   The aftermath of 9/11 has also had the effect of mobilising popular opinion. One of the few examples of an effective social mobilisation appeared in the fallout from the invasion of Iraq and the WMD farce. Millions of people took to streets of numerous cities to protest against an illegal war. The sheer outrage against government policies and particular individuals, such as Bush and Blair, reminded the powers that be of the potential threat from genuine people power...  something which scared them witless.

   The 21st century is a curious time for truth. More people are now waking up to the reality of a hidden history / global truth and the alternative community has become a force to be reckoned with. For possibly the first time, a battleground of sorts has appeared with various psychological weaponry, infiltration and armaments being deployed on all sides. As much as we might want to think in terms of black and white, good and evil, goodies and baddies, there have never really been any clearly defined boundaries in truth… especially now.

   With the power of the movement now stronger than ever, there are some very controversial questions to ask. It is becoming a question of “pick your side”, rather than “what do you think?” This kind of boxed mentality makes ‘Truth’ a very dangerous place indeed… recognising and questioning it, even more so. Never the less, these questions are a responsibility of truth. Why does enlightenment need to have a representative middleman? They say that the truth speaks for itself, so why all of a sudden does it need to be led by the hand?

Questioning the nature and intentions of certain individuals in modern

movements is like opening Pandora’s Box. Every question asked by a researcher about facets of 9/11 Truth or The Occupy Movement often invites attack or counter questions of personal intentions. Yet these are important questions to ask. Andrew Johnson’s book “9/11 – Finding the Truth” raises some very important questions about the connections between certain prolific researchers and assorted military/industrial complex players and their associates. It also shows a clear and multi-pronged attack upon those supporting the idea of a connection between 9/11 and directed free-energy technology (specifically the work of Dr Judy Wood.)

   “Nanomanagement: The Disintegration of a Non-Profit Corporation” by Michael Armenia discusses (albeit from a biased perspective) the collapse of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’. Appendix C (page 236) includes the March 12, 2009 draft of the “Volunteer Vetting Procedures” of those wishing to be involved with the group. These extensive investigation procedures specify being careful to watch for those who could potentially be destructive for the movement. The ‘destructive’ criteria include those who have researched “no planes”, “directed energy weapons” and “Judy Wood.” Why is this so? ‘No-planers’ and ‘DEW’ researchers have something crucial to bring to any legitimate investigation of 9/11. Is this the reason why they are side-lined, attacked or discredited?

   I’ve heard it said that in order to get ‘non-truthers’ to take 9/11 seriously, the research needs to stay within the realms of possible /plausible reality. Only a cursory look at the directed free-energy research (relating to 9/11) shows something perfectly possible or plausible. The ramifications of this area of study are huge, maybe that’s the point. Such knowledge would need to be discredited and kept from mass public awareness, and therefore imply the necessity for subversion in some areas of 9/11 truth.

More recently, many have started to cast an eye over

aspects of the Occupy movement. Although it is much harder to point to specific concerns (unlike 9/11), it is hard to ignore the recent alleged connections between Occupy and say: George Soros, Adbusters, The Lucis Trust, and Ivan Marovic and Srdja Popovic . The last two chaps are intricately associated with OPTOR/CANVAS (Centre For Applied Non-violent Action And Strategies), which was founded as a “non-violent revolutionary group” by Serbians and responsible for driving the uprising that overthrew Slobodan Milosevic in the late 90s/early 2000s.

   Popovic claims that CANVAS is 100% privately funded with no involvement from the US government, yet it is alleged by many that OTPOR/CANVAS has become a powerful CIA front, creating the model for popular global uprisings. William Engdahl claims that OTPOR now operates as “revolutionary consultants” in over 50 countries and is geared toward finding ways to instigate “regime change”.

   Numerous individuals have come out in support of Occupy and spoken at various rallies. It is worth noting that some of these folk are big in the alternative world, yet whenever they take to these platforms of expression, they fail to even mention 9/11 or any other ‘bigger picture’ issues. Interesting that…

   On a more esoteric level, we have the likes of Kanye West (with his Rockefeller connections) spouting on about Occupy. The use of the human loudspeaker system (with its repetitive slogan aspect) and the bizarre uptake of the pyramid hand sign at rallies (allegedly symbolising a ‘point of procedure’ or something like that).

Also remember that Occupy was (in order)

totally ignored the mainstream media, then totally ridiculed, then labelled as a union-sponsored, anti-free market, pro-Marxist movement. Nowadays Occupy is often compared to the Tea Party and (much as it was) labelled as a “grassroots” movement… a buzzword that we should be very suspicious of. It almost appears as though it has now become credible in the eyes of the MSN and anything MSN speaks favourably about should be eyed very warily. I am always extremely cautious when the media changes their tune about something, let alone four times! There are also several pieces of footage floating around on the internet that show staged, small scale protests for the benefit of the cameras. One such piece was broadcast on RT, omitting the cue to the cameraman at the beginning.

   I suspect the origins of Occupy to be largely benign in nature, but this still doesn’t exclude the possibility of infiltration. It is well documented that the US Department of Homeland Security has already classified the Occupy movement as a “potential security risk”. Similar observations have been made by several western government agencies. They wouldn’t say such things and then let them just get on with it. It would actually be naïve to think that Occupy hasn’t already been infiltrated. The question is: to what extent?

   Before I am accused of sounding totally damning, I must make it clear that I have nothing against movements. I wrote, back in October, about the pride I felt when watching Occupy take to the streets across countless cities around the world. Social uprisings can change the world in wonderful ways. However, the voice of the few that starts to represent the many is exactly the same as that which we fight to expose. These people who steer or micromanage a cause (even with the best of intentions) can so easily be misdirected, misinformed or even corrupted.

   So what does this say about our little “town called truth” then?

   In order to decide what to do and how to act, we must first learn. As I pointed out in the first paragraph, the problems all stem from people. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an original thought. To learn, we must study what others have already accumulated and it is here that personal agendas (good and bad) can get in the way.  We all know that there are high profile individuals (researchers & authors in the alternative community) who are slanted by an extreme left/right political perspective, xenophobic tendencies or spiritual/religious leanings. This is a shame because within their bias lies some well researched, important and factual information. If people fail to separate stance from facts, they can be so easily and blindly led… even when it seems like a just cause.

   No matter how enlightened we think we may be, remember that we are only the hair of gnat’s knacker away from sheep! The facts remain that, with regard to our cognitive processes, we either want to be led or need to be from time to time and in the case of early age it is a practical necessity that literally forms those processes. 

Despite all this, it is important to keep in

mind that you only as powerful or awake as you want to be. It takes time but it gets easier the more you do it. A little common sense (not in the traditional sense!!) can go a long way. Learn all you can lay your hands. Get in the faces of the knowledge bearers and ask questions, get them to point you to all the places that inspired / informed them and make up your own mind. If you don’t ask, you won’t get… and never be ashamed of asking. With enough wisdom, you’ll know how to act and when. You’ll know when it is the right time to say “NO!”

Until next time…
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.


Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html

9/11 Legacy - Part 3: "The Day The Light Came On!"

   In February 2003, Tony Blair’s Labour Government issued it’s ‘proof’ of Iraq’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” capability, to UK journalists. These documents were used to justify its involvement in the invasion of Iraq. The documents became known as “The Dodgy Dossier”. The reason for this label became clear when numerous journalists and researchers quickly discovered that much of it’s content had been plagiarised from various, less than authoritative sources. “The most notable source was an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi entitled Iraq's Security & Intelligence Network: A Guide & Analysis, which was published in the September 2002 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs” (Wikipedia). Aspects were repeated verbatim (including typographical errors), certain amendments were made to strengthen the alleged findings and no reference was made to the origins of the information, other than "a number of sources, including intelligence reports".

   This dossier became the exclusive argument for the Iraq invasion and used by George Bush in his “State Of The Union” address. An address signalling the forthcoming war. It became extremely important that this dossier be taken at face value, considering that in July 21, 2002, British Cabinet Office briefing papers warned officials that any war, executed on the basis of regime change, was illegal. Also relevant is the (July 23, 2002) secret British Downing Street memo warning officials that Saddam Hussein was not a threat, that President Bush was determined to invade Iraq and U.S. officials were fixing their intelligence and facts around their policy to go to war. In September 2002, one of Tony Blair's most senior aides told intelligence chiefs their draft dossier failed to demonstrate "an imminent threat" and that Saddam Hussain “does not demonstrate the motive to attack his neighbours, let alone the West". The UK government knew the risks, yet proceeded anyway.

   With Bush‘s claims that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more" and daily news articles telling the public that such weapons were capable of hitting the west within “45 minutes”, those behind the war plans felt secure in the knowledge that an uninformed public would support the war unquestioningly. Whilst a few people could already see the true agenda at play, most were still in the dark. However, it was (ironically) the BBC that was about to change this situation.



Andrew Gilligan

   Andrew Gilligan wrote a report for the BBC, claiming that the Dossiers had been deliberately exaggerated. His research led him to an unauthorised, off the record interview with Dr David Kelly, a British scientist and expert on biological warfare (employed by the Ministry Of Defence) and formerly a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Kelly was asked by the British Government to proof-read all aspects of the Iraq Dossiers and was very concerned about many aspects of the documents, specifically the “45 minute” claim. In his interview with Gilligan, Kelly told him of his concerns over the 45-minute claim and allegedly ascribed its inclusion in the dossier to Alastair Campbell, the director of communications for Prime Minister Tony Blair, in order to “sex up” the Dossiers. He also asked Gilligan not to reveal his identity in these articles. The report was broadcast on 29 May 2003 on the Today programme, stating that the 45-minute claim had been placed in the dossier by the government, even though it knew the claim was dubious.

   In June 2003, Kelly visited Iraq to inspect (what was claimed to be) some mobile WMD production labs. Kelly was unhappy with the description of the trailers and spoke off the record to The Observer on 15 June 2003. He said, “They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons”.

   Andrew Gilligan wrote a follow up to the original item on The Today Show, in The Mail newspaper. Here, he directly identified Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for adding the 45 minute claim. The UK Government immediately denied any involvement in the intelligence content of the dossier and lambasted the BBC, calling them liars and pushing them to reveal the name of the source. Kelly subsequently contacted his superiors saying, "I am convinced that I am not his primary source of information". The MOD publicly admitted that “an employee had come forward who might be the source”. When pushed, they confirmed it was Dr David Kelly.

   It is believed that this was strategic decision made by Tony Blair in order to discredit Kelly directly. Many individuals went to great pains to muddy his character, describing him as a “Walter Mitty like, fantasist. The Government also launched a huge operation (coincidently spearheaded by Alastair Campbell) to effectively destroy any remaining independent elements of journalism in the BBC. Initially targeting Andrew Gilligan, they also successfully managed to decapitate the BBC by forcing Director General Greg Dyke out of his job. It would be fair to say that, if any independence of reportage remained in the BBC, it probably ceased to exist that day… something that we are now truly feeling the repercussions of in all media aspects of Western society.



Dr David Kelly

   Dr Kelly was called to appear (on 15 July) before the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee (which was investigating the issues Gilligan had reported) where he was aggressively scrutinised about his actions. He denied meeting with Gilligan. On July 18, Dr Kelly was found dead in some woods near his home in Oxfordshire. The ‘official’ account states that he committed suicide through an overdose of painkillers and significant blood loss caused by slashes to the wrists. ‘Depression and Stress’ was related as the reason.

  Independent investigations and research into his death has discovered some curious aspects. It appears Dr Kelly’s body was moved from it’s original resting place, to a spot that became known as the ‘official’ site of his death. It appears that both the drug intake and degree of arterial injury weren’t substantial enough to cause death. There was a strong police presence near his home just before his disappearance. Also huge aerials were reported as being erected in his garden!  A few months before his death,  British Diplomat David Boucher asked Kelly what would happen if the West were to invade Iraq. Kelly answered by claiming that he “would probably be found dead in the woods”.

   Whatever subsequent inquiries say and despite the protestations of politicians, medical examiners and journalists, it seems likely that Dr David Kelly was murdered. Was it to silence him because he didn’t exactly tow the party line? We may never know…



Robin Cook

The following awakening was astonishing. In politics, MPs and cabinet minister alike, showed their disapproval of the Iraq War and the intelligence that led to it. Politicians like Norman Baker and Clare Short raised their heads (even if briefly) above the parapet to join the growing chorus of dissent. Some like Robin Cook, who died as a result of a ‘heart attack’ on a mountain in Wales , possibly met the same fate as Dr Kelly.  Hundreds of thousands of people marched through the streets in peaceful protest against the wars, carrying placards and banners with slogans like “Not In My Name”, “No War For Oil”, “No WMDs” and “Bliar” (Blair the Liar). The powers that be had been caught, well and truly, with their pants down.

   The likes of George Bush and Tony Blair would never be looked at in the same way again. Of course, all of this is compounded by the fact that, in the end, no Weapons Of Mass Destruction were ever found anywhere in Iraq… even to this day. In January 2004, ex-US arms hunter, David Kay, stated on record that there were no WMDs in Iraq. In December of the same year, a US report from the Iraq Survey Group stated on record that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The very next day, the CIA made the same statement. In December, an ex-CIA agent claimed he was sacked for not faking intelligence reports on Iraq’s WMD capability. By the end of the year, The White House decided that it was no longer looking for WMDs.

   In 2005, George Bush made a staggering comment: That the US was in Iraq because of 9/11. The statement is misleading, 9/11 actually allowed the circumstances in order to get away with Iraq… at least initially. Today, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Western governments and mainstream media has an edict that runs scared of connecting Al-Qaeda and 9/11 to Iraq. Whether illegal or not, the instigators of the war have gone unpunished for a crime they now call “regime change”. This buzz phrase is now the tactic they have latched onto as a means to commit unspeakable acts across the world. The most important factor, though, is that with Iraq, we finally saw the truth exposed for what it was. These events proved that governments cannot always successfully hide the truth from the people. This scares them to death. In the UK, more people believe they were lied to over Iraq, than those that believe the government propaganda. This is truly a victory for the truth.

   It is here that we should remember the road travelled. Iraq came from 9/11, even though it had nothing to do with 9/11. There is a legacy to 9/11 that should be discussed. It is disrespectful to NOT ask the questions. We need to expose the lies. Those who were TRULY responsible for 9/11 should be called to account. This is how we can respect and honour the victims. All of them. People like Dr David Kelly, anybody who has been innocently accused of crimes and tortured to death as a result of the destruction of civil liberties, anybody who has spoken up and disappeared, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in illegal wars, the oppressed and all those who died on September 11, 2001.

For all this, we should continue to remember 9/11.
Not for trite reasons… but for the right reasons.
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.


Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html