El Escritor Inglés: 2019

Saturday, December 28, 2019

Vegetarian Dogs

Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-82) (Figure 121.1) observed: ‘The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial.’

Figure 121.1: Ayn Rand, a libertarian icon

Copyright expired

Rand made this point because she knew that the ‘right to disagree’ was constantly under threat from the State. A classic historical example would be the censorship of the astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) by the Roman Church. Galileo’s proof that the Earth revolved around the Sun was suppressed by the Church, not on the basis of mathematics but simply because it contradicted orthodoxy. He was forcibly denied a platform to present and debate his thesis, precisely because it was potentially convincing.

This is not to say that all forms of State-sanctioned censorship are morally wrong. Laws governing defamation, for example, are almost universally accepted. Nonetheless, everyone is still at liberty to disagree and provide a rational basis for their revocation.

Danger lurks, however, when, as in Galileo’s case, an honest, contrary view is denied rational consideration. Such censorship is abhorrent to scientists and any other honest researchers. As soon as a scientist or academic publishes a research paper, his or her head is automatically raised above the parapet of existing knowledge, ready to be blown off by superior evidence or reasoning. This is exactly how it should be. Regardless of whoever is right or wrong, the accumulation of objective knowledge continues.

Unfortunately, intellectual censorship is not a mere relic from Galileo’s time. There are many contemporary examples. One infamous case concerns the Holocaust (genocide of European Jews from 1941-5). There are libraries of overwhelming evidence of mass extermination by Nazis during World War Two. Even so, those who dispassionately dispute this (or the extent of it) surely have a right to their views. Let them raise their heads above the parapet so that the world can witness the logical outcome. Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt objected to legal censorship of Holocaust denial, stating that: ‘I don’t want politicians making a decision on what can and cannot be said. That scares me enormously.’ It ought to scare us all. At present, Holocaust denial is illegal in many European countries, regardless of its basis.

The ‘9/11’ disaster (see Article 119) is another case in point. Here, though, rejection of the State’s version of events is not explicitly outlawed. However, despite the contrary views of thousands of eminent scientists, engineers, architects, airline pilots and emergency medical staff, the U.S. government and corporate mainstream media have spent the past eighteen years denying a platform to these many learned dissenters. Instead of inviting mature debate, politicians and media sources have resorted to cheap ridicule, using phrases such as ‘outlandish conspiracy theories’. If the official version is true, then why the concerted reluctance to allow public challenge?

Perhaps the most disturbing present example of intellectual censorship stems from the subject of man-made climate change. It is telling that those who reject this belief are labelled ‘deniers’, which is designed to imply ‘deniers of truth’. On this subject, there is no doubting the State’s point of view: the argument is settled, and further debate is unwelcome. There is also no doubting that those who reject it are sidelined by government and media. Former British biologist and popular television personality Dr David Bellamy (1933-2019) (Figure 121.2) was banished years ago by the State broadcaster, the BBC, for his inconvenient views. I cannot recall a serious scientific debate on national mainstream media on the subject of man-made climate change. Why not, I wonder?

Figure 121.2: David Bellamy, who, sadly, passed away earlier this month, claimed that global warming was a natural cyclical phenomenon, and that people are being taxed vast sums in the name of a non-existent problem. These words sounded the death knell for his distinguished career in science broadcasting.

Copyright © 2019 Rex Features

The current poster girl for the multi-billion-dollar climate change industry is a Swedish schoolgirl called Greta Thunberg (Figure 121.3). All around the world, she pontificates on climate science, while at the same time complaining that her (basic) education has been rudely interrupted. It is unfortunate that poor Greta lacks the acumen to realize that being largely uneducated necessarily disqualifies her from making serious pronouncements on complex scientific matters.

Figure 121.3: Is it not clear that Greta is just a convenient political puppet, given limitless publicity purely because she supports a political narrative? If she believed that man-made climate change were a myth, I would wager that hardly anyone would know her name.

Consequently, the world is free to ask: if the views of Greta and her ilk are not their own, then whose are they? This young girl is a disturbing example, not of education, but of indoctrination by State and corporate media for their own ends. Such activists are what I can only call ‘vegetarian dogs’. That is, it is obvious who is – and who is not – making the choice.

Today’s young people should, therefore, tread warily. If any subject matter is considered by authority to be discouraged from open debate, then its veracity should be considered suspect.

Sunday, November 03, 2019

Second Civil War (Antebellum)

It has been pointed out to me that this is only the second article of this year. No, I am not stuck for something to write, nor losing interest in doing so. The previous article, 9/11: The Silent Witnesses, prompted a larger email response than all my other 118 articles combined, and I have spent hours, week after week since January, answering questions and exchanging views and ideas with people from across the world, mainly the USA. Being British, I suppose it was inevitable that some correspondents would raise the subject of the so-called ‘7/7’ bombings, which took place in London in 2005, asking whether I believed this to have been a similar ‘false flag’ event. Very well; I’ll bite. Having seen some of the forensic evidence, it is clear that 7/7 was an inside job, but I would prefer to summarize my case another day.

I should like, instead, to refer back to Article 96, which I compiled on 21st June, 2016, just two days prior to the UK’s referendum on whether it should leave or remain in the EU. Having been a ‘Eurosceptic’ since my student days (see Article 31), I unhesitatingly voted Leave. When the result was announced, on the 24th, pleasing though it was, I reckoned that the battle to break free from EU authority had only just begun – and it would inevitably be long, uphill, into the wind and conceivably bloody.

The decisive Leave victory was an eye-watering kick in the balls for the British Establishment. Since 1993, when the EU came into being, following the Maastricht Treaty (1992), all major political parties in the UK have been its willing puppets. True, the Conservative party’s grassroots have since been strongly Eurosceptic, but its post-Maastricht prime ministers, Major (1992-7) and Cameron (2010-6), passively accepted EU diktat. The Conservatives’ mantra, ‘in Europe, but not run by Europe’, was never more than a disingenuous sop to its increasingly anti-EU rank and file.

Before the political dam threatened to break, Cameron offered an ‘in-or-out’ referendum to the British people, having assumed that, however strongly Eurosceptic we had become, inertia would prevail and we would never summon the courage to vote to leave. Despite Cameron’s (taxpayer-funded) propaganda (Figure 120.1), deservedly dismissed as ‘Project Fear’, but delivered to every British home prior to the poll, his gamble backfired. Cameron resigned as prime minister the next day, but the Establishment’s efforts to reverse the people’s decision began immediately thereafter.

Figure 120.1: This infamous leaflet was the centrepiece of the Cameron government’s shameless propaganda drive, designed to convince the British people that a Leave vote would unleash immediate economic catastrophe. None of it has come to pass.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

Step One was to install another pro-EU stooge as Cameron’s replacement. Enter, without even a party ballot, the inept Theresa May, a remainer masquerading to the nation as a Brexiteer (Figure 120.2). Whether a consequence of her innate stupidity, or something even less forgivable – perfidiousness – ‘Theresa the Appeaser’ offered near-limitless concessions to the EU’s grateful negotiators and did her best to serve up the UK’s sovereignty and national interests on a Brexit-shaped plate. The ‘deal’ that she presented to her Cabinet, and subsequently Parliament, had been prepared word-for-word by the unelected EU Commission, and was arguably the most one-sided international document – a treaty, in fact – since Versailles (1919) (Figure 120.3).

Figure 120.2: (Former) Prime Minister Theresa May, flanked by other hardline Remainers, David Lidington (left) and Philip Hammond (right), epitomized intellectual dishonesty by doing everything possible to stymie the very policy (Brexit) that they had been elected to implement.

Figure 120.3: Greek politician Yanis Varoufakis (1961-), who has first-hand experience in dealing with the EU, described Theresa May’s ‘deal’ as something that ‘a nation signs only after having been defeated at war’.

By serendipity more than anything else, Parliament rejected the execrable offering three times. Had the imbecilic May not botched her 2017 General Election campaign, resulting in a ‘hung’ (non-majority) parliament, her inescapable ‘Surrender Treaty’ might now be in effect.

After three years spent deviously striving to thrust a humiliating ‘Brexit-in-name-only’ onto the British people, the stroppy, self-pitying May was belatedly booted out of office.

Her replacement, Boris Johnson, was elected by the party members, but only after he had promised unequivocally that the UK would leave the EU, come what may, last week. Not only did Johnson break his word into 17,410,742 pieces, but he had the audacity to re-present the bulk of May’s abominable agreement and advocate its immediate acceptance. Parliament, mercifully, saw through his outrageous deception, rejected it and agreed to another General Election, to be held next month.

Three-and-a-half years have passed since we voted to leave the EU. Our parliamentary representatives have spent that entire time trying to prostrate the country at the feet of an unaccountable foreign bureaucracy, while simultaneously claiming that they are respecting democratic public will and reasserting national independence.

Of all the political parties contesting next month’s poll, only one respects the outcome of the largest democratic exercise ever conducted in British history. It is the Brexit Party, led by Nigel Farage. All the others – Conservative, Labour, Scottish Nationalist, Welsh Nationalist, Green, Monster Raving Loony and Liberal Democrats – are mere Establishment tools who believe that British sovereignty should be sacrificed to a corrupt, antidemocratic supranational regime which calls itself ‘The European Union’.

Vote Brexit Party on 12th December (Figure 120.4).

Figure 120.4: The link below references Boris Johnson’s ‘Surrender Treaty 2.0’. Its potential consequences should alarm all self-respecting Brits.

https://www.thebrexitparty.org/read-this/

Tuesday, January 08, 2019

9/11: The Silent Witnesses

DOUBLE-LENGTH ARTICLE

While out walking with my sons, a few days after Christmas, the younger one asked: ‘Dad, what happened on 9/11?’ I do not know what prompted him to ask – perhaps something he had just read online or heard on television.

The official narrative, approved and heavily propagandized by the US government (Figure 119.1), was that four huge passenger aircraft were simultaneously hijacked by a motley bunch of undistinguished foreign nationals. Three were subsequently flown squarely into iconic buildings, two of which disintegrated, whereas the other crashed in a field. Is this true?

Figure 119.1: The US government waited more than a year to set up a commission to investigate 9/11. Its funding was an insignificant $15 million. (This contrasts with $60 million allocated to the inquiry into President Clinton’s sexual shenanigans with a White House intern.) Several commissioners resigned in protest, claiming they were ‘set up to fail’.

It is often said that all objective research starts with a hypothesis – yet it does not. It begins with painstaking collection and evaluation of validated pre-existing evidence, from which a hypothesis may subsequently be derived. I began, therefore, by trying to recall the bare facts.

First, regarding the two planes that crashed into the Twin Towers of New York City’s World Trade Center (WTC):

* Two of the four scheduled flights (AA11 & AA77) did not officially exist. There was no record of them ever having taken off.

* Many experienced airline pilots have since testified, quite vociferously, to the impossibility of commercial airliners travelling at such high speeds at altitudes low enough to strike the towers. This is because, at sea level, air density is too great. The aircraft would have disintegrated on descent. This is why (a) cruising altitudes lie between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, and (b) airliners have to slow to 150 mph in order to land.

* Bodies of such aircraft consist of aluminium, a low-density ‘soft’ metal, with a fibreglass nose cone. The outer walls of the towers consisted of thick, load-bearing steel, designed, with in-built redundancy, to withstand aircraft impact. Any 300-500 mph collision between a 200-tonne aluminium tube and a 100,000-tonne reinforced steel block would, in accordance with Newton’s Third Law of Motion, result in spectacular destruction of the former, with the latter remaining structurally sound. (It matters not which of them is in motion, relative to the earth.)

* On initial impact with the towers, the aircraft would immediately have decelerated to zero, almost all wreckage crashing to the ground below. They could not possibly have penetrated thick steel walls without the slightest resistance, like a hot, sharp knife passing through butter. This would contravene Newton’s First Law of Motion.

* Multiple witnesses, including experienced First Responders, reported distinctive scenes and sounds of explosions prior to the towers being hit.

* No steel-framed building has ever collapsed owing to fire. This is because the melting point of steel is approximately 1500-1600°C, whereas aviation fuel, for example, burns at a mere 800°C. Some high-rise buildings have burned throughout for more than twenty-four hours, but structural integrity has always remained intact (Figure 119.2). This is why fire-fighters never hesitate to enter them.

Figure 119.2: The Windsor Building, Madrid, Spain was totally consumed by fire on 12th February, 2005, but its steel frame was largely undamaged.

* The towers collapsed to the ground at near free-fall acceleration. This means that 60,000 to 80,000 tonnes of steel, and multiple floors of reinforced concrete, offered negligible resistance from below. This, too, flies in the face of Newton’s Third Law, as well as the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

* Despite insignificant, arbitrary, asymmetric structural damage, both towers collapsed neatly downward into their own footprints.

* The towers’ concrete floors did not fall to earth; they were pulverised to dust and blasted across the whole of Lower Manhattan. Four-tonne steel sections were propelled, horizontally at 60 mph, distances up to six hundred feet, impossible by gravity alone.

* An adjacent steel-framed tower, WTC 7, was not struck by an aircraft, but collapsed, nonetheless. This, likewise, occurred almost at free-fall acceleration, with perfect vertical symmetry, precisely into its own footprint. Its destruction was announced by a BBC reporter, when, in fact, the intact building was still visible behind her.

* Analysis of building débris proved the existence of chemical derivatives of thermite, a pyrotechnic which burns at a high enough temperature to cut rapidly and violently through steel.

A third impact occurred into the Pentagon (US Military HQ) in Washington, DC.

* Again, such a complex, high-speed manoeuvre at ground level would have been physically impossible, even for experienced airline pilots.

* A 757 airliner (with a fibreglass nose cone) could not have penetrated the Pentagon’s multiple walls of thick, reinforced concrete, yet no wreckage was found outside the building, not even a tail or wing-tips. None was found inside either.

* The resultant hole in the wall was, in any case, too small to allow the entry of the body of a 757, let alone its full wing-span (Figure 119.3).

Figure 119.3: Adding to the self-evident absurdity of this graphic, had the ground floor been struck in this fashion, as detailed in the 9/11 report, the aircraft’s jet engines would have ripped up the lawn. Instead, it was found to be pristine.

The fourth crash site was a wooded field, a few miles north of Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

* First Responders noted, incredulously, that traces of neither aircraft parts, nor human remains and belongings were present at the site.

* The official explanation is that the entire airliner was swallowed up by the earth, which then closed neatly over the hole, concealing all evidence (Figure 119.4). Such a phenomenon is, not surprisingly, unprecedented.

Figure 119.4: We are led to believe that this field in rural Pennsylvania is the only ever aircraft crash site not to have been strewn with wreckage.

Furthermore:

* The Eastern region of the USA, despite being the most strictly-controlled air space in the world, supposedly permitted four hijacked airliners to fly unchallenged for up to an hour and a half. Even with transponders switched off, primary surveillance radar would have located and tracked them, allowing swift interception by military fighter jets.

* None of the supposed hijackers had ever sat in the cockpit of a commercial airliner, let alone taken sudden control of one, flying in unfamiliar air space at maximum speed.

* Audio recordings of passengers speaking to relatives via mobile phones, purportedly from altitudes exceeding 30,000 feet, were broadcast by mainstream media, despite such communication being technologically unfeasible at the time.

* Since 9/11, two of the airliners have retained registration and been identified, by means of their tail numbers, as being still in service. After 9/11, six of the nineteen named hijackers, all confirmed as dead, were proved to be still alive and elsewhere.

* The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were bought (leased for 99 years) by businessman Larry Silverstein just months prior to their destruction. This was despite decreasing tenant occupancy (following a bomb blast in 1993) and an urgent need for asbestos removal, whose cost was estimated at a prohibitive one billion dollars.

* Silverstein purchased additional insurance, appertaining specifically to terrorism, worth billions of dollars, just two months before 9/11. On the fateful morning, he broke from his daily routine of eating breakfast on the 95th floor of one of the towers, to attend a medical appointment.

* WTC ground fires, containing molten steel, burned for three months after 9/11, despite intensive efforts to extinguish them. This precludes the theory of fire alone, and indicates strongly the use of thermite or something similar.

* Even though the fallen buildings constituted a vast crime scene, all steel débris was summarily shipped to China for recycling, thereby destroying much physical, chemical and biological forensic evidence.

* Scientific analysis was undertaken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency and thus non-independent. In its 12,000-word report, it fails to posit a theory for the WTC buildings collapse, stating only that, following impact, it was ‘inevitable’.

* Despite the destruction caused by aircraft flying at great speed into skyscrapers, the government claimed that the hijackers’ ringleader’s passport managed to escape the crash and survive intact, to be found in a nearby street.

These are all verifiable facts. Up to this point, I had given my sons no subjective opinions, less still an overall conclusion. They were intrigued, to say the least. Only then, based on the above evidence, and because of continued questioning, did I postulate the following:

† No commercial airliners flew, as claimed, on 9/11. Such manoeuvres would have been aeronautically impossible, the impact physics impossible; and no identifiable physical evidence was ever seen or has ever been recovered.

† The collapse of each of the three WTC skyscrapers has yielded distinct videographic, chemical and seismic hallmarks of controlled demolition, using incendiaries or explosives hot enough to melt steel. It follows that such a complex operation would have taken months of meticulous planning and preparation.

† The damage done to the Pentagon clearly resembled that from a (non-ballistic) missile strike.

These conclusions invite further questions. First and foremost, what were the flying objects, if not commercial airliners? There are several theories, about none of which I would claim to be sufficiently knowledgeable either to accept or reject. One is that the aircraft were unmanned, laser-guided weapons, disguised as civilian aircraft, the technology and capability for which have been available to the US military for decades. Another, which is beyond me utterly, is that there were no planes at all, only holographic projections ‘impacting’ buildings pre-set with explosives.

Second is a question that I can barely contemplate. If the two objects that struck the Twin Towers did not carry hundreds of passengers, what happened to them?

Whatever the full truth, it was with some sadness that I told my boys that the depravity of 9/11 was not simply the mass killings of three thousand innocents. Even worse was that it had to have been pre-planned, strategically and tactically, by those with power. Furthermore, the subsequent cover-up has been pathetically unconvincing to anyone with a logical, scientific mind. Did the perpetrators not realize that events of such magnitude would yield vast quantities of indisputable, publicly-available evidence (Figure 119.5)?

Figure 119.5: For the benefit of my sons, I was able to quote the great American scientist, Paul Leland Kirk (1902-70), who made this immortal statement about forensic evidence: ‘Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value.’

The events of that sunny September day changed the world, particularly the relationship between individuals and the State. The post-9/11 world is all my sons have ever known – or ever will know. As their father, who spent 35 years living in the pre-9/11 world (Figure 119.6), I feel obliged not just to give them hard facts, but also to warn them of the evil inherent in political authority, especially as the real 9/11 perpetrators remain in power, unpunished, undeterred, with the capability to pull a similar stunt in future.

Figure 119.6: A picture of Lower Manhattan, taken from Liberty Island. The South Tower of the World Trade Center appears to be sprouting from the top of my head.

Happy New Year.