M.I'5`Persecution . wh y t he secu rity services ?
feie...@bigfoot.com
-=. why the security services? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You may. ask, why do I think the "they" referred to are the security
services? Is there any. evidence that there is a single source, as opposed
to a loosely based "whispering campaign" amongst many people?. Even if there
is a single source, is there any. evidence that "they" are professional
"buggers" as opposed to amateurs, or perhaps. people working for a privately
funded. organization?
a) As to the question of a single source. versus something more fragmented;
it is. quite obvious that there is a single source from the way the campaign
has been carried out. Since things have been repeated verbatim. which were
said in. my home, there must be one group which does the watching and
listening. Since on several occasions (mainly during travel). people have
been planted in close proximity and rehearsed. in what they were to say, it
follows that someone must have done the planning for that, and. again a
single. source is indicated.
b) So why couldn't it. be amateurs? Why couldn't it be a private
organisation, for example a private detective agency paid. to manage the
campaign and undertake the technical aspects? Some detective. agencies are
unscrupulous as has been. proved on the occasions in the past when they've
been exposed or caught; they too can have access. to the bugging technology
deployed; and there are reported cases of MI5 paying private. eyes to do
their dirty work (against peace campaigners and. similar enemies of the
state) on the understanding that if they were. caught then they could deny
all knowledge. Why. couldn't that be the case?
The main factor pointing to direct. security service involvement (as opposed
to amateurs or MI5 proxies). is the breadth of their access to the media in
particular, and the fact that the television. companies are so involved in
the campaign. The BBC would not directly invade someone's. home themselves,
since it. would not be within their remit to allocate personnel or financial
resources to do so. An organisation. of their stature would not take part in
a campaign set up by private sources. The. only people they would take
material from would. be the security services, presumably on the assumption
that if the cat ever flew out of the bag. yowling it would be MI5 who would
take. the consequences.
State. sponsorship for these acts of psychological terrorism is also
indicated by duration; support for over six years for a. team of three or
four people would be beyond the. means and will of most private sources.
The. viciousness of the slanders and personal denigration also points to
MI5; they traditionally "protect" the British state from. politicians of the
wrong hue by character assassination, and in this case are using. their
tried and. tested methods to murder with words an enemy they have invented
for. themselves.
And there are precedents. Diana and Hewitt were alleged to have been. filmed
"at it" by an Army intelligence team which had operated. in Northern
Ireland, these allegations were made by someone called Jones who had. been
on the team. His statements were denied. by the defence establishment who
tried to character-assassinate by describing him as the. "Jones twins".
Funny how if you tell the truth, then you must be. ill, isn't it? Thought
only communists. behaved like that?
Hewitt later said that he'd been spoken to by someone. in the army who
revealed the existence of videotapes of him and Diana, and that the. tapes
would be published if any. attempt was made by them to resume their
association.
56
feie...@bigfoot.com
would not have been culpable for not believing in Him before His death had
the miracles not sufficed without doctrine. Now those who did not believe in
Him, when He was still alive, were sinners, as He said himself, and without
excuse. Therefore they must have had proof beyond doubt, which they
resisted. Now, they had not the prophecies, but only the miracles. Therefore
the latter suffice, when the doctrine is not inconsistent with them; and
they ought to be believed.
John 7:40. Dispute among the Jews as among the Christians of to-day. Some
believed in Jesus Christ; others believed Him not, because of the prophecies
which said that He should be born in Bethlehem. They should have considered
more carefully whether He was not. For His miracles being convincing, they
should have been quite sure of these supposed contradictions of His teaching
to Scripture; and this obscurity did not excuse, but blinded them. Thus
those who refuse to believe in the miracles in the present day on account of
a supposed contradiction, which is unreal, are not excused.
The Pharisees said to the people, who believed in Him, because of His
miracles: "This people who knoweth not the law are cursed. But have any of
the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? For we know that out of
Galilee ariseth no prophet." Nicodemus answered: "Doth our law judge any man
before it hear him, and specially such a man wh