Saturday, 28 May 2016

Newspaper Report on Killing For Britain

Last weekend a newspaper reported the death of an alleged UVF member and further alleged that he was the author of Killing For Britain, by John Black. We will never betray the identity of any source under any circumstances.

The newspaper article contained many errors. It states that Killing For Britain was published “15 years ago”. It was published in 2008.

Also, the article refers to the FRU (Force Research Unit) as being active in 1975. However, the FRU was only formed in 1979. Certainly, it was a later incarnation of what had started as the MRF (Military Reaction Force) formed in late 1971. But, is was not, as has been contended, simply the same organisation under a different badge. The structure of the FRU was different to the MRF and it was more acknowledged within the Army.

It surely performed many of the same types of operations (selecting targets for assassination, assisting Loyalist paramilitaries to execute actions the British Army did not want to be intimately associated with). It also had a similar raison d'etre, namely to discourage the Irish Nationalist community from either supporting or tolerating Irish Republican paramilitaries. FRU contacts however claimed that the FRU did so by targeting known Republican activists as opposed to simply any Catholics. The selection of Catholics for assassination by British Army intelligence and MRF in the early 1970s was mostly random, or if based on “intelligence”, it was based on deeply-flawed “intelligence”. Some MRF operatives, like John Black, believed most of the time the targets of their actions were either IRA men or close supporters and enablers. However, the truth was darker.

Those directing the MRF and other “secret squirrel” operations were using a millennium old strategy; hurt your enemy at home and he can’t come to war. Hitting ordinary uninvolved Catholics in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s was simply the continuation of counter-insurgency techniques used since Roman times, if not before. The intended effect was to put so much pressure on the civilian population that they “gave up” the gunmen or at least stopped “providing succour”. Stating such obvious truths was considered giving voice to republican propaganda – until very recently, when the reality of Collusion became impossible to deny without looking silly.

The FRU’s activities in the mid to late 1980s were described to me by an intelligence officer of the time as “Nearest and Dearest”. By this he meant that they aimed for the “terrorists” but if they were not “at home” then they’d hit the nearest target “by accident” which in turn would put pressure on said “terrorists” to desist for fear of what other “accidents” might befall their family. This was, without any hint of irony, considered by this contact “a refinement” of the early 1970s random target selection.

It should also be noted that many of the targets for assassination were provided by Brian Nelson, a former British soldier who was head of the Loyalist UDA/UFF intelligence and, at the same time, of course, a proven paid British agent handled and directed by the British Amy’s FRU.

When you consider all the above, it puts John Black’s claims (once considered outlandish, but not now) into some sort of logical frame.

Wednesday, 18 May 2016


There's nothing new or unusual about Mainstream Media either undervaluing or even ignoring stories of gigantic interest to the public. Often, incessant pressure from social media has the opposite effect logic might expect it to. For instance, social media is still seen as 'uppity' and too 'unqualified' to comment on issues. And so, the more the clamour for discussion from 'ordinary' people, the more resistant the 'paid' (some might replace 'paid' with 'bought') opinion formers are to 'stoop' to acknowledge.

So, what results is a stand off between the great unqualified and the superannuated. Social media is competition and its competition that often has its finger on the pulse more than MSM does. For MSM  to pick up a major story it previously ignored is seen by MSM as a climb down, an acknowledgment that it was off the pace, behind the pack.

The examples are legion. My lifelong observation is that the media in our supposed democracy, far from being impartial and fearless is riven with self-interest and timidity. There are exceptions of course. But why are they only exceptions? What retards the natural impulse of journalists to forage for stories?

My interest in media coverage of Northern Ireland was inspired by being there for the equivent of three months a year for over 15 years and seeing the biggest story of the Troubles, that of institutionalised Collusion, being ignored by all but a few courageous journalists. The notion that it existed was the preserve of 'extremists', 'IRA propagandists' and the like. Because people on the ground experienced it, and saw it being ignored, this created a disconnect between many people and the media - and the state that the media proported to report on. Such alienation 'inspired' a generation of conflict. Collusion is now universally accepted by all apart from some flatearthers, but so what? The secret of its existence survived long enough for Collusion to serve its purpose. 

Of course, Collusion survives in other theatres; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (there are UK boots on the ground there. MSM might tell you that in like ten years). And of course, there's the gigantic Collusion between Turkey, Saudi and ISIS. Just as in Northern Ireland, those of us who can see clearly the patterns are decried as 'extremists' 'conspiracy theorists' etc etc. But, just in Northern Ireland, our 'extremist' narrative will become the universally accepted one - only after though the Collusion had served its purpose. In this instance, the purpose is regime change in Syria. That will happen under a different guise (the canonisation of Syria into NATO friendly areas, and others, thus threatening the viability of the state).

The question is though, why are the big stories (NATO via Turkey Colluding with ISIS whom we are in theory 'fighting') ignored by the vested-interest ridden MSM? That's answering my own question. Why are gigantic stories left to social media guys, both 'qualified' and 'unqualified' non-beholden types. Answering myself again there.

Then look at the people who swallow the MSM narrative and respond with anything between hysteria and disdain to claims that they are not bring told the whole story and that their innate decency is being played by cynical forces. This is the very essence of unconscious Collusion.

Let's hope that Social Media continues to be a conscience for both MSM journalists and those of wider public who sense something is not adding up here. Don't be afraid to smeared as 'extreme'. 20 years later, they'll be calling you 'right'.