in Blog

Able Seaman William McNeilly: Entrapped by MI5?

It’s only May, but Able Seaman William McNeilly is already leading the pack for Worst Whistleblower of the Year Award. McNeilly is – or was – a Royal Navy sailor assigned to one of our Vanguard-class nuclear deterrent submarines. He went on leave, tried unsuccessfully to get his self-authored report published in the national press (it was two days before the election), then went AWOL. It finally started to circulate in the national press after it was picked up by the (Scottish) Sunday Herald.

Essentially, McNeilly maintains that the Vanguard subs are poorly maintained, insufficiently secure, easy to infiltrate and not-fit-for-purpose. With the sardonic wit characteristic of the British military, his report was summarised by one anonymous ARRSE poster thus:

“So all a terrorist needs to do to access the missile control centre of a nuclear sub is to join the Royal Navy. I bet they are kicking theirselves over not figuring that one out.”

But broadly speaking, McNeilly might have a point. The secrecy which has long shrouded our Vanguard subs may be wholly necessary for reasons of national security, but equally, that self-same secrecy would also cloak severe levels of incompetence and inadequacy. One does wonder sometimes. Even so, McNeilly’s whistle-blowing is distinctly unconvincing. He has committed very serious breaches of secrecy and protocol for a report that isn’t really any more damning than a bad editorial. My initial impression, when I first heard the story, was that McNeilly is a young and not especially worldly man, who went on shore leave and desperately wanted an excuse not to go back. So this report is his excuse.

But this is a far murkier story than that. Instead of embracing anonymity, McNeilly went public from the gate. He even posted his passport and RN ID card on the net.

_83050586_idcard

Looks old for 25, doesn’t he?

Specifically, McNeilly posted it on Scribd, which, nudged by the security services, promptly took it down, as it did his report (whistleblowers take note). Wikileaks, still a far more reliable channel for this sort of thing, has snatched and uploaded it all here. The report has gone through three revisions, and in the last  McNeilly also trumpeted how he had been able to take three flights unmolested since he went public. So that’s all a bit weird. Where he lost me, however, was here (I’ve bolded the key bits):

“This [my report] contains references to CB8890: The instructions for the safety and security of the Trident II D5 strategic weapon system. I’m sure all the Strategic Weapon System (SWS) personnel are scratching their heads and wondering how I’m writing this on my personnel laptop and referencing a book, which is contained within a safe in the Missile Control Centre (MCC). The MCC is the compartment used to control the launch of the nuclear missiles. It can only be accessed by people on the access list, and no personnel electronics are allowed. I was on the access list but how could I have gotten a copy of every single chapter on to my phone? A hidden camera? No. Smuggled the book out then filmed it? No. What I did was walk into a room were no recording devices are allowed. I sat down; took my Samsung Galaxy SII (white) out of my pocket, and recorded the entire book word for word.

That doesn’t sound like whistleblower to me. That sounds like a spy.

Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, both in my opinion genuine whistleblowers, released huge amounts of information. In fact the number of documents leaked by Snowden is in fact so large it is extremely difficult to quantify. But despite repeated (and dishonest) assertions to contrary, none of it got anybody killed; none of it “aided the enemy”; none of it even put anyone in danger. Consider the context too. With Manning and Snowden, their government was doing something illegal; their military and intelligence apparatus was facilitating that illegality; and the spooks and the generals were lying routinely lying to both the public and the politicians about it. McNeilly’s case is drastically different. The Vanguard subs are legal, and the secrecy that surrounds them is entirely justified.

Now consider this: in 2012, Petty Officer Edward Devenny (also from Northern Ireland, as is William McNeilly) was entrapped by MI5 agents posing as Russian spies. Over three months they ploughed him with drink and offerered him a number of inducements to provide classified information. Devenny, whose service record was until then pretty exemplary, eventually succumbed. When he was tried, it emerged that one of the things “Dima” and Vladimir” wanted him to do was use his mobile phone to record some classified manuals inside the sub. McNeilly, for reasons which defy any explanation other than espionage, has done exactly the same thing.

McNeilly’s long statement reminded me very much of the stereotypical defector. He exaggerates his importance, experience, and knowledge; he boasts of his intelligence; he complains of his mistreatment; he repeatedly insists that he isn’t interested in money; he avers that deep down he is loyal to his country and his branch of service – in fact he is doing this for the greater good. This is pretty much a bullet-point list of the attitudes struck by your stereotypical defector, and with good reason: they are pampered and pressured into believing this garbage by their handlers.

During Devenny’s trial, it emerged he was hugely suspicious he was being entrapped. This isn’t surprising, considering every Vanguard sailor knows it’s something MI5 and the MOD police occasionally attempt. In fact this is public knowledge, and has been ever since Chapman Pincher started writing counter-intelligence manuals. Devenny even told the officers entrapping him he believed that was exactly what they were doing. But the Security Service persisted, and eventually, after a night on the booze, Devenny crossed the line and took some snaps.

Reading McNeilly’s statement it is all but too apparent that someone – and almost certainly our own people – had been buttering him up. Perhaps they posed as concerned liberals, and lured him into “doing a Snowden” with offers of money and fame. Or they may have faked being foreign spies, as with Devenny, in which case McNeilly realised last-minute what was going on, and has re-styled himself as a whistleblower to furnish himself with a nobler motivation. One or the other. But if the story tells us anything, it’s that MI5’s Ulster office has very little to do these days. Either that or Northern Irish submariners are inherently inclined to treachery – but that is something I would stridently deny, having a touch of the Orangeman in my lineage.

(Incidentally, if counter-intelligence officers entrap a servicemen like this, and then keep his crime a secret, they have an agent for life – and that’s how Lee Harvey Oswalds are made.)

 

What’s at the end of the GCHQ rainbow?

Did you know that the 17th of May is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia? I didn’t. IDAHTB (or whatever clonking acronym it goes by) has been going since 2004, and I’m sure it’s probably a well-intentioned and positive thing. GCHQ celebrated the day by getting itself lit up in rainbow colours. Dave Cameron promptly tweeted about it.

gchqgay

Looks quite nice, doesn’t it?

Cameron mentioned Turing, of course, because the life and suicide (in 1954) of Britain’s greatest code-breaker, Alan Turing, is a sorry episode of homophobia at work. But I’m sure that GCHQ is now as meticulously impartial and institutionally tolerant as any other government department, which is a good thing. In fact, I doubt the private sector will ever be able to match the public sector in this or any other aspect of employee welfare. Nevertheless, you have to give this light-show a thumbs-up. Except. Except, except, except. There are some humongous caveats.

GCHQ is an institution with no regard for privacy, that helps disseminates propaganda, and which facilitates death and division – and this is simply assertion of fact, not a criticism. Which is why, over on The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald describes this rainbow gesture as “a deeply cynical but highly effective tactic… Support for institutions of militarism and policies of imperialism is now manufactured by parading them under the emotionally manipulative banners of progressive social causes.”

He does have a point. Issues of equality are increasingly used as justification for military action. There’s a crowd of people, here and in the US, who believe we can achieve greater sexual equality in Iran, for example, by bombing and starving their people, and then forcibly imposing an undemocratic government on them. There are even people stridently insistent that this should happen, who consider any contrary position to be moral cowardice.

Most recently, this tactic reared its head in Russia, over the winter olympics at Sochi in 2014, in the aftermath of the Urkainian Euromaidan, and concurrent with Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The media, and a swathe of government-funded NGOs, relentlessly pushed the line that Russia was a homophobic country worthy of sanction and boycott – policies which by no small coincidence were at that same time being pushed by Washington, Langley and the Pentagon for entirely geopolitical reasons. Russia certainly looks like a homophobic country to me (a Levada poll had 85% of Russians against same-sex marriages, for example, and a further 87% against gay pride marches) but let’s not forget that according to several studies, the Ukraine is more homophobic still. Russia’s vaguely worded law against “gay propaganda”, which proved so controverisal in the west, was passed in Kiev without a murmur of disapproval – or even awareness. And the extremely right-wing street thugs at the forefront of the Kiev coup, so ardently supported by the West, are the ones in the vanguard of Ukraine’s violent intolerance.

Ukrainian nationalists scaring the country's first Gay Pride march off the streets.

Ukrainian nationalists scaring the country’s first Gay Pride march off the streets.

At exactly the same time Western governments were vilifying Russia for homophobia, they were effectively encouraging it in her Ukrainian neighbour. So these LGBT concerns are transpararently hypocritcal, even without taking into account the gross sexual prejudice to be found in other Western allies, such as Saudi Arabia. It’s worth stressing that homosexuality is not a crime in Russia, as it is in Nigeria, India, or all the Arab emirates, for example.

Incidentally, this “gay propaganda” we’re talking about? Much of it appears to be distributed by US- and NATO-funded NGOs, and it would be considered pretty provocative in many parts of the US and the UK, let alone Russia.

34c_zpsd15d6df3

A provocative, counter-productive waste of money, unless you’re a neocon propagandist.

A final point. Russia’s biggest LGBT organization, the Russian LGBT Network, opposed the sanctions and boycotts and general Western hysteria over Sochi. It wasn’t really helping, they said. But all the organizations that beat the drum over Sochi were either Western, or Western-funded, and they did not care. Russian gays, like Russian Crimeans, Russian Ukrainians, like the Russians of South Osettia and Transnistria, like the Shia of Iraq and Yemen, like the secular Arabs of Assad’s Syria, or the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, simply do not exist in the eyes of the West. They are invisible people, and so they cannot really suffer. Their opinions do not count.

Before we send over the bombers, before we freeze the bank accounts, and before we commence our finger-wagging, holier-than-thou diatribes over the importance of sexual equality, or gender equality, or religious equality, or any other force-fed issue de jour, we need to respect our common humanity first. Tolerance comes from love and acceptance. It does not come from bombing, from spying, from propaganda, from hatred, from intimidation, from capitalist greed or imperial avarice.

There is something sickening and transparent about a regime which trumpets its tolerance for lesbians and gays and bisexuals and all other members of the sexual spectrum while denying the most basic human rights to Palestinians, or Russian Ukranians, or any other ethnic group. But it happens an awful lot these days.

Russia cracks down on foreign NGOs

Legislation like this is the direct result of Western attitudes like this.

Makes you wonder what really lay under the hood of “revolutions” like the Euro Maidan, the fall of Gaddaffi, and the Syrian insurgency if they all needed foreign money and foreign NGOs to take off.

More on English Communitarianism

Once you perceive communitarianism to be the dominant ethos in English political culture, you start seeing it everywhere. As has been extensively reported, the new Tory government is rushing to pass even more draconian anti-terror legislation.

“For too long,” Cameron announced, “we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.’”

The people of Britain will lose even more freedom of expression, and even more of their privacy, all to target “extremism”. Really any sane person could write at length about the myriad dangers and multiple stupidities this legislation presents, but the question remains, exactly what is extremism? Radio 4’s Today programme asked the Home Secretary, Theresa May, the very same question. May could not answer.

“People who seek to divide us” was one of her attempts. “People who seek to undermine British values” was another. “We are together as one society, as One Nation,” she added.

That is, plainly, the language and atittude of communitarianism. Question, division, doubt: these things can not be tolerated. Ironically, the real impetus for all this truly awful legislation is probably our subservience to America, but that’s another matter. The government’s justifications show how Britain and British politics works.

Communities (whether real or imagined) are justified and defined by the external threats (whether real or imagined) they resist. Labour’s campaign error was to see threats which were internal. The Tories are, cunningly, effectively creating one which sits outside the electorate. There will be arrests, of course. Many, many arrests. But actual danger? There has been less and less of that since 7/7, and nothing to justify laws like this.

“We just wanna be togevva,” as that bloke used to say, in the advert for that building society. Remember building societies? We have lost what made us truly communitarian. Now we are just a tangle of fears and desires, drifting on a sea of lies.

 

EDIT TO ADD: See also Charles Moore’s post-election editorial in The Telegraph. “Over the past five years, in Britain as a whole, we have learnt how a country that forgets to defend itself properly starts to lose a sense of its identity. In the next five years, that sense must be restored.” Italics mine.

Seymour Hersh, the death of Bin Laden, and the New Orthodoxy

The Zero Dark Thirty narrative rests on a cocktail of troublesome inconsistencies and propagandistic lies. The news, which will surely not come as a suprise to anyone remotely objective, comes from Seymour Hersh. Hersh has been a formidable journalist ever since his exclusive with the junior field officer reasponsible for the Mai Lai massacre, and he has always been known to boast superb CIA contacts. Perhaps these contacts may be getting on a bit now, perhaps they may be slightly biased towards the Agency over other institutions, perhaps, like all human sources, they are never entirely neutral nor 100% accurate. Nevertheless, Hersh is the best old-school spook writer in the business. He warned us, last year, that this story was coming, and this month he delivered.

Seymour Hersh

Seymour Hersh (AP)

It’s an interesting article, although it doesn’t contain any knock-out revelations. It’s more a collection of smaller exposures: President Obama and the White House press machine deliberately lied about the assassination, repeatedly, to the public and Pakistan. For example: the US did not determine Bin Laden’s location through torture, but from a Pakistani walk-in, who was probably acting in accordance with the wishes of Pakistani intelligence. Bin Laden was an unarmed invalid when he was shot. There was no resistance. His death yielded no actionable intelligence. His killing was supposed to be secret, instead it became “political theatre designed to burnish Obama’s military credentials”. And so on, and so on.

An interesting read, but not especially explosive.  I think the reason Hersh sat on the story for so long is because he was hoping to piece more of it together, in particular Bin Laden’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Sadly Hersh doesn’t appear to have nailed this, but what is just as interesting, for those interested in seeing the New Orthodoxy in action, is the reception Hersh is getting from many of his journalistic peers (or people who aspire to be). Inevitably, Hersh’s refusal to support the line unquestioningly pushed by mainstream media has seen him branded a conspiracy theorist. This is despite the fact that Hersh isn’t pushing a theory. He is simply deconstructing a narrative.

In many cases his “debunkers” clearly haven’t read or understood the central claims of his 10,000 word article, or else they are deliberatebly misrepresenting them. This episode reveals the true nature of today’s American press corps, and illimunates what “conspiracy theory” really means.

Hersh split from his previous magazine, the New Yorker, because of the New Orthodoxy. Citing some excellent sources, Hersh wrote that the evidence Assad’s forces has used CW inside Syria was, at best, ambiguous, whereas the rest of the mainstream media, and the entire Western potitical establishment, had claimed it was irrefutable. The New Yorker spiked the piece and Hersh ended up at the LRB, which was when the New Orthodoxy first started to label him a conspiracy theorist. Doubt can no longer be tolerated.

The 2015 General Election: English Communitarianism at work

I have finally reached an understanding about the election result. England is not socialist, obviously. So what is it? England is essentially communitarian. Despite how the word sounds, there is a fierce difference between socialism and communitarianism. The values of communitarianism, and the values of England, which are both far older than either socialism or the industrial revolution, are roughly to do with conformism and shared identity. You are who you are because of your standing and relationships within an acknowledged group. In today’s Britain the community is largely imaginary, but the principles and dynamics of communitarianism still stand. Everyone must know their place. Everyone must pull their weight. Everyone must take their due, and no more: communitarianism holds there is a common treasury, a ‘pot’ to which all members are entitled a share (which is reflective of communitarianism’s agrarian origins). Some people get a bigger share than others, of course, but that’s because they are perceived to hold important roles in the (mutually imagined) community.

I am now convinced, on reflection and further reading, that the election result principally reflected the communitarian notion that certain people had been taking more than they were due, and the majority voted to stop it. It is the first election in my lifetime to have been influenced by such an ethos, but I am convinced that this is what swung it. Benefit scroungers; immigrants; whining lefties; champagne socialists; the professional political class (being predominantly upper class affords the Tories the illusion that they are uninfluenced by the material gain inherent in folding power); the nagging, nanny state non-job holders of New Labour; the whole gamut of types and stereotypes which dot our social landscape, this is what England gave the heave-ho on the 7th of May. This is what accounts for the majority Tory government, and UKIP’s 3.8 million too.

This analysis explains why the Lib Dems lost ground to the Tories: because they revealed themselves to be pointless parasites. The Tories, on the other hand, offer a kind of patriotic nobless oblige which the communitarian has Brit has always respected.  It was probably little different in Anglo-Saxon times. Everyone from Labour leftwards would only have continued to hand out more money to the people and phantoms listed above, who are perceived as taking more than their due.

Yes, the economy is struggling. But England did not want to go after the bankers, the rich, or the powerful. They have always been there, in their towers and castles and mansions. Every community, real or imagined, has always had its inequalities. Instead, England went after a demographic which was comparatively new: that element of society which Atlee and Bevan’s 1945 welfare state was created to protect. England went after the people it thought weren’t pulling their weight. Read the language used in the comments sections of the major news websites, it’s saturated with this sort of language.

When the right-wing Englander talks about the economy and the budget and “living within our means”, he is complaining about people who he thinks are working less (or less usefully) than him, but somehow get to be happier. He has no bugbear with the City. They work long hours in the City, after all. It’s hard to get a job there. It’s socially elite.

Communitarian England rejects the food bank, for example, as a fraud perpetrated against the gullible by the greedy and the lazy. It does not occur to the English communitarian that the rich can be greedy and lazy too. Rich people wear suits fifty or sixty hours a week. They get up early in the morning and strut around the place talking knowledgeably about business and capital and the future. They are the ones who pay you, and you need their pay. It doesn’t matter that they risk nothing and contribute less. Those issues are impossible to discuss or accept, because simply asking such questions requires perspective that you cannot obtain from within the community – and the one thing the communitarian can never question is the community itself.

Which is why anybody who has read Marx will never be at home in England.

 

FOOTNOTE: The observation that England is communitarian was first made, to my knowledge, by the popular philosopher Julian Baggini in his book Welcome To Everytown: A Journey Into The English Mind (Granta, 2007). The book rests on an interesting concept: Baggini worked out, statistically, which was the most average part of England, and then went and lived there for a year. And thus Baggini, an upper-middle-class sort from Clifton in Bristol, ended up in Rotherham. This was before we all found out about the Rotherham grooming scandal, and actually I cannot remember if the book addresses immigration and ethnicity at all. Suffice to say, if Rotherham is indeed England’s Everytown, it’s not surprising that the English are deeply concerned about immigration – or more precisely, integration. Integration is a vital part of communitarianism, after all.

The Economist now supports regime change in Russia

The leader in the latest Economist (the cover of which displays yet another “evil Putin mastermind” image) has made it pretty clear where the magazine stands on Russia.

“…the West should use every available means to help ordinary Russians, including Russian-sympathisers in the Baltics and Ukraine, learn the bloody, venal truth about Mr Putin. It should let them know that Russia, a great nation dragged down a terrible path, will be embraced when it has rulers who treat the world, and their own people, with respect not contempt, however long that takes.”

It’s a ridiculous and contemptible article, filled with faux-concern for hypothetical “good Russians” (those who want Western integration) while full of doom-laden, fear-mongering invective against the figurehead of Putin himself.

Part of the reason the Russian people no longer want Western integration is because magazines like The Economist publish articles like this. They understand what the West really means when it says integration – it means roll over and die, but hand over your markets and mineral resources first.

The vast majority of humanity understand that the world’s greatest military danger is Washington, not Moscow.

I am struggling to understand how this article came to be written.

Russia-bashing on May Day

May Day is significant for a number of reasons. A traditional Spring holiday in many agrarian cultures, it has since the Second International been designated as  International Workers’ Day. In over a hundred countries around the world it is officially recognised as a state holiday to celebrate the debt society owes to its labouring classes. Appropriately enough, it also marks the end of Nazi Europe, because in 1944 the first of May saw the last full day’s fighting between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in the streets of Berlin. The iconic photograph of a Red Army soldier hoisting the hammer and sickle up the Reichstag roof was taken on May the second.

The day after May Day, Berlin, 1944. Close enough, Ivan.

The day after May Day, Berlin, 1944.

Here is how the BBC celebrated May Day this year. The day marks not socialism, nor the end of the Nazi Regime, nor Soviet and Allied victory, but “the most infamous rape in history”. The Rape Of Berlin, the accompanying documentary, aired on BBC World Service the day after. This was emphatically not a news story. It was a re-tread of material that had been extensively covered by popular historian Antony Beevor in his 2002 book Berlin: The Downfall. It received widespread media coverage at the time, both in the BBC and the national press, even though it wasn’t exactly original research then either. There is nothing but anecdotal evidence to support the idea that Red Army soldiers raped a lot of German women after Berlin fell, but what evidence there is comes from Germans and Russians alike, and appears credible. I would not deny for a moment that it happened, and that it was widespread.

The rape of German woman by Red Army troopers is a perfectly valid historical subject, but it is not news, and this is the anniversary of many other important things too. It heralded the end of World War Two, and the thousands of rapes these soldiers probably committed were only one terrible episode in a series of larger atrocities. The Nazis killed almost twenty seven million Russians in their misbegotten blitzkrieg for lebensraum. The war they began, and the holocaust it accelerated, ended when the Red Army finished fighting its 1700 mile counter-attack from Stalingrad to Berlin. The Soviet Union lost 80,000 men during the Battle of Berlin alone. Why this attempt, at this time, to fix “The Rape of Berlin” in the popular consciousness?

The article and documentary above are the work of Lucy Ash, who happens to be the wife of John Kampfner. She began her radio career as a producer for the BBC’s Moscow bureau in 1990. Since the Euromaidan, Ash has reportedly extensively on developments in the Ukraine, from the usual MSM position that Russia is an aggressive, duplicitous, tyrannical, expansionist enemy to freedom and democracy, two values she inevitably portrays as inalienable Western traits. See, for example, here, here, and here (this last one is particularly interesting for those who believe the LGBT drive against the Winter Olympics constituted hypocritical, propagandist Russia-bashing fed by Washington-funded NGOs).

Lucy Ash, Professional Russophobe.

Lucy Ash, Professional Russophobe.

Ash subscribes to a weltanschauung in which the pro-Russian inhabitants of eastern Ukraine do not exist. They are something between victims and mannequins, behind which hind Putin’s covert commandos. Tweeting an Anne Applebaum article (unsurprisingly, she’s an Applebaum fan) Ash observes the Ukrainian civil war is an artificial construct, and that there is no history of ethnic conflict between the people of the Ukraine. How strange that Ash, with her abiding interest in Russia’s World War Two history, should appear ignorant of Stepan Bandera, and the neo-Nazis who now comprise the mainstay of Kiev’s military forces.

It is this selective and political viewpoint which underpins “The Rape of Berlin”. Ash managed to get her May Day Rape of Berlin story in the Daily Telegraph too, under her own by-line, where it was echoed by the paper’s Moscow correspondent Roland Oliphant. Olpihant reported from Moscow that this year’s May Day parade had a turnout of over 100,000. Events in the Ukraine, he wrote, had given it a certain flavour – many marchers wore the orange and black ribbons of St George, invoking military valour in defence of the Motherland. This was totally predictable, given that Kiev’s US-endorsed coup government is currently busy killing the Russian majority inhabiting its eastern regions. This, however, is not something Oliphant (or Ash) can admit to.

May Day in Russia, Oliphant insists, is merely “the beginning of a week of days off and general skiving that is the highlight of the working calendar”. More egregious still is Oliphant’s further insistence that May Day is only celebrated at all because “the cult of the Second World War” is “the nearest thing Vladimir Putin’s state has to an official ideology.” Plainly Oliphant, who hails from East Sussex, has never once witnessed the chest-beating way his own country, and his own paper, regard Britain’s sacrifices in both world wars.

Neither Oliphant, nor Ash, has reported that since the Kiev coup, May Day is now banned in the Ukraine, where the Communist and Socialist parties are now also banned, as was, briefly, the Russian language itself. But then anti-communism has always been one of the hallmarks of fascism.

After last year’s May Day, in Odessa, Ukrainian neo-nazis burnt forty-two pro-Russian trade unionists to death in their own headquarters while the police looked on and did nothing. Svobada‘s press office have said the party wants to celebrate that day – the 2nd of May, 2014 – as “a day of victory over the Kremlin terrorist groups, the day of purification from the Kremlin infection”. President Petro Poroshenko even told journalists that the Russians had secretly placed “toxic substances” in the Trade Unions House to increase the number of civilian deaths, and that the whole thing was a false flag. No one in the Western press has condemned Poroshenko as a conspiracy theorist, and it appears neither Oliphant nor Ash consider any of this relevant as regards their May Day reportage.

The fire in Odessa. Pic courtesy of the Fort Russ blog.

The fire in Odessa. Pic courtesy of the Fort Russ blog.

Perhaps if Lucy Ash is interested in the sexual crimes of World War Two soldiers, she might also like to investigate the millions of rapes committed by German soldiers during Operation Barbarossa, or the thousands of rapes committed by American GIs in Europe (estimates for this figure varying wildly between 11,ooo and 190,000). If Ash was feeling particularly reflective, she might like to ponder that mass rape has always been how the hegemonic state demonises its enemies, as was seen recently during NATO’s regime change in Libya. But none of that would serve the purposes of the New Orthodoxy.

 

EDIT TO ADD: This May Day, US-led air strikes in northern Syria killed “at least” 52 civilians. Perhaps Ash might also like to consider why the West can support anti-government forces in Syria but Moscow cannot support anti-government forces in Novorussia.

EDIT TO FURTHER ADD: Also this May Day, US-supported air strikes in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is trying to reinstall its unpopular puppet leader, hit a hospital and medical camp, killing at least 58 civilians and injuring at least 67. Again, perhaps Ash or some other proponent of the New Orthodoxy might care to explain how the Saudis can bomb another country in order to return its ousted dictator to power without a word of disagreement from the mainstream media.

Miliband and Syria: No UN resolution needed

I was suprised to hear Ed Miliband, during the five leaders debate, claim that he represented a break from Blairist Atlanticism because he had privately told Cameron that he would refuse to bomb Syria without a UN resolution. Has Labour finally learnt the lessons of the past? Labour apologists like Owen Jones think so, describing Milliband as “a dramatic rupture with the bomb-happy leadership of Tony Blair.”

The truth, sadly, suggests otherwise, as Gabriel Carlyle’s letter in the Guardian makes clear:

“[Virtually all] of Labour’s list of requirements for supporting military action in 2013 ‘appear[ed] in the government’s own motion’ (Malcolm Rifkind), and Miliband himself explained that he was prepared to back military action without a UN resolution. As Jonathan Steele observed, ‘Cameron and Miliband used dubious legal grounds to try to justify bypassing a veto in the UN security council by saying western military strikes were needed to protect Syrians’.”

Quite. When, during the same debate, Miliband went on to outline the importance of resisting Russian military aggression (or some such formulation), I realised that Labour’s US-flavoured militarism – and dishonesty – is still firmly in place.

 

Amerithrax, Deep State policing, and conspiracy theory

For four years former FBI Agent Richard L Lambert was nominally in charge of the Amerithrax investigation. Lambert now claims he has been dissmissed from his current job (senior counterintelligence officer at the Energy Department) because of his continued insistence that the Bureau deliberately mishandled the case. He is now suing the FBI, and for those who haven’t been paying attention, his court filings comprise a series of explosive revelations.

Richard Lambert, in his FBI days.

Richard Lambert, in his FBI days.

Those with long memories will recall that one week after 9/11, somebody started using the US postal service to send anthrax to unsuspecting and seemingly random journalists and politicians. As well as anthrax, the envelopes contained letters which identified the acts as Islamist terrorism (“Allah is great”, “death to America”, “death to Israel”, etc). Thus a bridge was established between this Islamist terrorism and WMD. This link became the keystone of the entire war on terror, and ultimately provided the rationale for invading Iraq. As I make clear in my biography of David Kelly, Dark Actors, the claims that Iraq possessed WMD always tended to centre around biological WMD (and specifically anthrax), because bioweapons are the easiest WMD to make, and can be produced with the least infrastructure, thus making them the hardest WMD to detect. Amerithrax, as this news story was called, helped point 9/11 very quickly to Iraq. By October corporate media was blaming Baghdad.

The anthrax accompanying this came from US military labs.

The anthrax accompanying this came from US military labs.

9/11 brought conspiracy theory to the fore. Hundreds of millions of people believed it was an inside job, a false flag operation to enable the next chapter of American foreign policy. Their numbers have doubtlessly dwindled, but the Truth movement, as it tends to call itself, is still going strong. It has been met with something that has not yet been named, but might be described as the New Orthodoxy. Essentially this was an elite and anti-populist tendency to a) brand all those who doubt the corporate media as conspiracy theorists whilst b) classifying conspiracy theory as a dangerous, destablizing, anti-Semitic force. Notable proponents of this New Orthodoxy in the UK are David Aaronovitch (see Voodoo Histories) and Nick Cohen (“Conspiracy theories led to the calamitous movements of communism and nazism.”) In the US, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who happens to be the husband of Samantha Power, argued that conspiracy theory is a catalyst for anti-state violence, and that the government should infiltrate conspiracy theory groups (Sunstein classes the 9/11 ‘Truthers’ as domestic extremists). Closer to home, Cambridge University’s Leverholme-funded Conspiracy and Democracy project may provide an institutional example of the New Orthodoxy (“Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?”), although I hope not.

I don’t think the Truth movement has proven that 9/11 was an inside job. But Amerithrax was. It is possible to be incredibly specific about strains of anthrax – because they are bacterial, they have DNA. Additionally, there are the processing treatments the anthrax in these letters recevied, which reduces the number of sources even further. This anthrax was a very finely ground, dry powder, with every granule given an anti-static polyglass coating, and electrocharged to aid aerial dispersal. It was a designer bioweapon. The Bureau found it could only have been produced by the US Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, or the private sector Batelle Memorial Institute at Ohio.

Faced with this incontrovertible evidence, the guy the FBI evenutally went after was a harmless, community-minded, Roman Catholic juggler and Celtic music afficianado with thirty six years’ service as a biodefence researcher at USAMRIID in Maryland. Military scientists can be a very prickly bunch (I’ve met dozens of them) but Bruce Ivins seems to have well regarded by almost everyone he worked with. The FBI let him know he was their chief suspect and the Bureau followed him, overtly and covertly, with great scrutiny.

The pressure must have been immense. From released transcripts, which make for tragic reading, its clear that his questioners leant on him hard. His children were bribed to testify against him, even if they could only provide the most circumstantial evidence. They refused. Ivins, who suffered from depression, was also seeing a counsellor, who did not refuse these inducements. Her co-operation with the FBI was not only a fundamental breach of patient confidentiality, it amounted to asking leading and incriminating questions during their therapy sessions, something I suspect Ivins came to realise. Ivins was also, according to some of the agents involved, a closet crossdresser (much like J. Edgar Hoover). Distressed and disturbed, he killed himself with a Tylenol overdose as a consqeuence of FBI harassment on the 29th of July, 2008. More than 200 of his co-workers attended his memorial.

I often thought of Ivins when I was writing the biography of David Kelly. The Oxfordshire scientist may have been mistreated by the state, but it was nothing compared to what the FBI did to Ivins.

Bruce Ivins RIP.

Bruce Ivins RIP.

“They took an innocent man, a distinguished scientist, and smeared his reputation, dishonored him, questioned his children and drove him to take his life,” one anonymous colleague told ABC News. “He just didn’t have the swagger, the ego to pull off that kind of thing, and he didn’t have the lab skills to make the fine powder anthrax that was used in the letters.”

(One might also wonder about the wisdom of letting a dangerous bioterrorist know full well they’re your chief suspect, but then that’s exactly what Agent Lambert did with the previous suspect, Steven Hatfill. Either Lambert’s team never wanted to build a viable case, and/or they believed themselves, from the outset, to be working against a highly organized conspiracy that involved elements of the intelligence community.)

As soon as Ivins committed suicide the FBI and the Department of Justice promptly announced that he was the Amerithrax terrorist and closed the case. Scrabbling for a likely motive, the Feds said Ivins held a patent on an anthrax vaccine he had developed, and hoped to make money from the resulting scare. This was nonsense: Ivins had helped develop it, but the money went to the US Military. In fact the entire case against Ivins was ridiculous and dishonest. The catalogue of lies, distortions, and errors is extensive, and far too long to go into here, but many decent people have made comprehensive rebuttals here, here and here.

Lambert says he is still sitting on a wealth of classified information, but the gist of his filings thus far make clear that he was ordered to make Ivins the chief suspect, and that head office repeatedly denied him staff and support to pursue any other avenues. He says the FBI hid vast amounts of evidence that showed Ivins was innocent, while leaking tangential pointers that Ivins could be guilty as definitive fact.

So, these are explosive revelations, but they will suprise few who have followed the case. After all, the argument for flase flag operations is not hard for certain quarters to morally support. For example: you want to start a war, you have accepted there will be a “blood price”, and you understand there is a risk of failure. Based on those terms, why should you shrink from paying that blood price before the war formally begins? Otherwise you might not get to have your war at all. When we understand what false flags are, when our media can acknowledge their existence, these operations will become far less effective. Perhaps one day we will mature.

In the meantime it is surely self-evident that the rise of conspiracy theory is not destroying democracy, but a symptom of its decline. The lessons of Bruce Ivins and Amerithrax are obvious, but I am not aware of a single MSM personality prepared to acknowledge them.