Thursday, 31 July 2014


There is currently an outbreak of Ebola fever going on which has killed over seven hundred people. This viral disease was first identified in 1976 and is centred on western and central Africa. There were several other epidemics since then including the present one which is the most severe yet. It's a very nasty disease to catch; it begins with malaria-like symptoms, but then develops into haemorrhagic fever which means the body's tissues start spontaneously bleeding. This eventually leads to multiple organ failure and death. However a minority of cases, 10 to 50% never progress that far and the patient eventually recovers. There is no specific treatment, no cure and no vaccine, but good general hospital care in the early stages of the illness increases the chances of recovery. There are currently many stories in the media over the latest Ebola outbreak because of the fear that the disease could spread beyond Africa to the West, for example: The disease broke out in Guinea and spread to neighbouring Sierra Leone and Liberia. Authorities in those countries have closed all the schools, set up secure wards in hospitals and have been disinfecting public places in an attempt to stop the virus spreading. The worry is that somebody infected will board an aircraft and thenceforth carry the epidemic to another part of the world. This has already happened because a single case has been reported in Nigeria, a man who had just travelled from Liberia by air.
There is indeed a genuine risk involved here that needs to be calmly and sensibly dealt with, but the hysterical panic in the tone of the media coverage is totally unjustified and is frankly suspicious. They're treating the subject as if it's some horror movie come to life, when in fact the prospect of a global epidemic of Ebola is highly unlikely. The virus is fairly easy to contain compared to most others. It's not airborne like the flu; it is contagious only through contact with blood or other body fluids. You won't catch it by sitting next to somebody on a bus; you could even shake their hand and probably not pick it up. Preventing its spread in hospital can be achieved by setting up quarantine zones and giving the staff personal protective clothing to wear; this consists of a splashproof boiler suit, gloves, boots and a hood. A mask should be worn over the face. When entering or leaving the zone this garment should be removed and disinfected and the staff member should wash themselves carefully. This is something that's already being done in local African hospitals and I've done it myself in disease containment drills at the John Radcliffe when I was a Porter. However I've never had to deal with a real Ebola outbreak in my career, indeed the disease has never appeared in the UK ever. Why should it manage to get here now? Somebody who catches the Ebola virus will not be contagious until they start displaying symptoms and this is usually not long after infection. Ebola has a short incubation period; a few days to three weeks. This means epidemics are not hard to identify and encircle before they spread too far; indeed it appears from the figures on this page that the prevalence of the illness is already past its peak and will now decline as fewer new patients are infected, see: Compared to AIDS, containing Ebola is a piece of cake. AIDS has an incubation period of many years which means it can infect people in every corner of the world before anybody even knows what's happened. I strongly suspect that Ebola is being used by the media as another attempt to harness the anti-immigration tendency to the New World Order agenda.
There's also reason to believe that Ebola is a product of the biological warfare industry. This film is a must-see for anybody who is curious where deadly diseases come from:; the segment specifically dealing with Ebola begins at 1.48.51. In 1967 a haemorrhagic fever broke out among staff at several pharmaceutical laboratories producing vaccines in Germany and Serbia. It was called the "Marburg virus" and it infected thirty-one people, killing seven of them. Its symptoms were very similar to Ebola and the organizations where it emerged are controlled by Litton Bionetics, a company involved in the US military biowarfare programme; how odd that Ebola "appeared" just a few years later in a region of the world where these weapons have traditionally always been tested, see: So if a massive epidemic of Ebola does emerge on the streets of Britain, don't assume it was brought to us by members of some undesirable underclass from the Third World that we need a new authoritarian government to protect us from.

Tuesday, 29 July 2014

Lynmouth Flood

Lynmouth is one of the most picturesque of seaside towns with its small harbour and promenade with old stone houses stacked up on the steep wooded hillsides behind it, leading up to the wilds of Exmoor in north Devon. It's a major tourist attraction and has been the feature of many postcards. It's hard to imagine that the place was almost destroyed once by an enormous flash flood. On the night of the 15th of August 1952 a freak storm dumped nine inches of rain onto Exmoor, which was already saturated from a very wet summer. The water thundered down the rivers of East and West Lyn carrying trees and rocks with it until it reached Lynmouth where it inundated the entire town. Houses were submerged by waves and then demolished from impacts by the debris from the rivers. Cars and lamposts were washed out to sea. A hundred buildings were destroyed and all the town's bridges. The entire harbour was washed away. Thirty-four people were killed and almost 500 made homeless; some of the bodies were never recovered. The Met Office said that the disaster was caused by an unusually deep area of low pressure and a weather front exacerbated by the geography of Exmoor; the lack of satellite photography in those days made such storms hard to predict. Here's original raw footage of the incident from the BBC:

However not everybody is satisfied with that explanation, including a group of the survivors. Fingers have been pointing, not upwards at the sky, but eastwards towards the Ministry of Defence in London. For a number of years the UK Government had been experimenting with weather modification techniques which involved filling rain clouds with artificial material to make them larger and more powerful. This is known as "cloud seeding" and it's been tested since the 18th century when people discovered that smoke from large fires lit on the tops of hills could effect the clouds around them. Since the invention of aircraft this has became much more effective because material could be released directly inside the cloud by an aeroplane or helicopter flying around inside it. Tests were done, including the UK's "Project Cumulus" which might be responsible for the Lynmouth flood. They seeded clouds with salt, silver iodide and dry ice- frozen carbon dioxide, over the three year period. This is one of many similar experiments that have been carried out all over the world. Proponents of cloud seeding justify it by claiming it can be very useful and could even save lives by alleviating droughts and heatwaves. But in truth it was always intended to be a weapon of war. It has been deployed already with devastating effect. During the Vietnam War American forces initiated "Project Popeye", a highly classified mass cloud seeding programme along the western borders of Vietnam to increase the monsoon rains and flood out the Viet Cong's supply routes from the North. The roads of the "Ho Chi Minh Trail" were all washed away or covered with landsides, bridges were destroyed and the supply routes cut off. Was the Lynmouth flood caused by a similar experimental operation? Attempts to investigate have been fruitless so far; the MoD has apparently "lost" the papers relating to Project Cumulus. Nevertheless several RAF officials have spoken out and they've produced flight-plans and log books which show that cloud seeding in the area did take place. Also analysis of the local environment has revealed the residues of chemicals that could be associated with cloud seeding. This radio documentary explores the possibility: Obviously the UK Government is not too eager to admit this. They'd obviously not like to be found guilty of killing thirty-four people and almost wiping out a whole town through gross negligence; imagine the compensation payouts! However there could be another motive to be furtive. Any admission of accountability for Lynmouth might make people ask more questions about weather modification experiments, including any active operations. Are they still going on today? Another incident that was nearly as bad happened in 2004 at Boscastle in Cornwall; miraculously nobody was killed, see: Were any strange aircraft seen buzzing around the area in the days and months beforehand?

Monday, 28 July 2014

Chimps' Sign Language

Most living organisms have developed ways of communicating with others, with varying degrees of complexity. Anybody who watches animal behaviour, from ants to antelopes, can see quite clearly that they're aware of each other's presence and disperse information between individuals and groups. Animal language is generally more elaborate among more intelligent creatures; and also in species which are very social and who live in families and groups, and therefore spend a lot of their time having to focus their attention on other members of their group. It was thought for a long time that human beings alone have evolved the ability to use the kind of complex language we do, with structured sentences, grammar and deep abstract ideas, but in recent years that notion has been disputed. It's now a completely acceptable idea that whales and dolphins have a humanoid language. Thanks to researchers like Dr Denise Herzing, we now know that dolphin noise obeys Zipf's Law, in other words the whistles and clicks dolphins produce are not merely random noise at all; they appear to be connected together and related to some intelligent meaning, see: Dr Herzing's twenty-eight year research project is to decipher this language, for that is what it is. If we can do that then humans should be able to talk with dolphins in the same way we talk with each other. Sure, we can't use our own voices because human and dolphin vocal organs can't articulate each other's sounds, but we could achieve it using a computer and audio synthesizer. This was a scenario in one of Arthur C Clarke's books, Dolphin Island, see: Researchers studying chimpanzees in Africa have also noticed that they make sounds and gesture a lot at each other and it was quickly understood that this was a form of communication. However, when chimps in captivity were taught human language the researchers were astonished at how well they picked it up. Chimps can't be taught to speak because their mouths and vocal chords are only able to utter chimp noises, but they can learn sign language, the same kind deaf people use. One chimp, a female called Washoe, ended up with a vocabulary of 350 signs, enough to have a simple conversation with a human who knew sign language. What's more she and other chimps began speaking to each other the same way and even invented new signs of their own using compounds of words they'd been taught. These compound words displayed logical features, for example their word for swan was "water bird" and thermos flask was "metal cup drink". Some natural human languages contain a lot of compound words like this too; Chinese and German have a particularly high number of them. It's also been shown that chimps can read, up to a point; they can comprehend simple pictograms, a series of images that represent various concepts. This was totally groundbreaking and it sent the researchers scurrying back into the jungle to take another look at the chimps in the wild again. Their theory was confirmed, chimps do indeed have a complicated language involving simple sounds and many gestures. This is new research, but so far sixty-six signs have been identified by the team led by Dr Catherine Hobaiter and Dr Richard Byrne, who are writing a book on the subject. A mother displaying the sole of her foot to a baby means "climb on my back", scratching one's arm means "groom me please" and nibbling on a leaf is flirting with the opposite sex. There may be more signs that the researchers have not yet isolated, see:

This is quite remarkable, especially when you combine the chimpanzee study with Dr Herzing's work. How many other animals also have a complex language? Poodles? Pigs? Pigeons? It's amazing to think that one day we may be able to have conversations with other creatures just like Dr Doolittle. What will they say to us? Will we be able to understand all the information they want to convey or will the differences in their mental structure be so diverged from our own that it will make their speech sound like gibberish (To be honest, I have this problem with some of my fellow specimens of Homo sapiens). Incidentally, it makes me wonder what chance we have with projects like SETI that plan to contact intelligent beings out in space. What surprises me is that this area of scholarship has not had more attention; do so few people really want to know what their pet guinea pig has to say to them? But as always, this knowledge has implications and I think a lot of people are frightened of those implications, especially people in power. It has always been the convention in society to emphasize the differences between humans and other animals, to give the impression that human beings are set apart from, and are above, other beasts, almost as if we're a separate biological kingdom. This was probably the real reason Charles Darwin's discoveries were greeted with such hostility. The theory of evolution didn't damage the church on a theological level because it disproved biblical creation; after all, Darwin himself was a Christian who went to church every Sunday. No, the real threat came from the fact that we don't like to think of ourselves as being animals. Darwin threw us right back into the natural world which we believed we'd risen above. Today evolution has been accepted by most people, except in some very staunch Christian communities in the USA and a few other places. However we still like to see ourselves on a pedestal above the other beasts and our superiority in intelligence from them is our biggest source for this worldview. Complex language is one of the hallmarks of high intelligence, self-awareness and consciousness; as long as we think only humans have this we can still maintain the comforting belief that humans are special. The revelation that even complex language is not unique to our species would be a huge game-changer; it would make us see our place on the planet very differently. The biggest shift would have to be in bioethics, animal rights under law would have to be totally reassessed. Things we take for granted today like circuses, farming, the meat industry, animal experimentation, equestrian sports, dolphin performances, whaling etc etc would come under a scrutiny that they've never had to endure before. Maybe what scares these people is the guilt; it certainly scares me. If we decide that mistreatment of animals is wrong in light of the new knowledge about their languages, then acknowledgment of that fact would mean we'd have to face up to what we've done to animals in the past. If we eventually manage to decode the grunts of a factory farmed pig he might not have many pleasant things to say about we humans. Wouldn't it be more convenient just to pretend it's not true?

Sunday, 27 July 2014

Women Against Feminism

The BBC's trending service has reported something very encouraging, and I'm glad they didn't get away with suppressing it, because they almost certainly will have tried. More and more women are speaking out against feminism, see: As the video explains, women have begun to see through the lies and cultural manipulation that they've been subjected to. We see the same phenomenon, for example, in opposition to racism against black people. Many people who oppose racism are white, those whom the racists often claim to benefit and support. More and more white people feel distress at the mistreatment of black people by whites and see it the same way many women now see feminism. It takes a lot of courage for women to say these things because I imagine feminists will be even angrier with them than they are with men for taking an anti-feminist stance. From the narrow and bigoted perspective of feminism these are "traitors!" or, as some of these ladies say in the video: "stupid!" "ignorant!" and "uneducated!" I'm not surprised that the Facebook page curator was harassed online and now needs to stay anonymous. I can't applaud their courage and intelligence enough. What is most interesting in the video is at the 1.45 mark where a woman provides a reasonable rebuttal, but in doing so she herself makes a major concession to the anti-feminists, calling herself a "true feminist" who doesn't want to "trample over men"; that's all very well if she's being sincere. The problem is that feminism and women's rights are conflated so deeply that the two are seen as synonymous and inseparable. To support one you have to support the other; if you're against one then you're automatically against the other. I don't see Womenagainstfeminism as anything negative at all, in the same way that I don't regard white people who oppose racism as negative. Remember that some of the most extreme feminist rhetoric is as brutal and hateful as that from the Ku Klux Klan; you just replace "black people" with "men". From my own perspective, I've lost friends because of my opinions on feminism, but this is a price I have to pay and I'm willing to pay it. In these background articles below I explain how feminism is nothing to do with women's rights, but instead is a form of mind control and an attempt to break down society so that it can be rebuilt into a new form, that of the New World Order.

Saturday, 26 July 2014

Jobcentre Minus

I have been contacted by somebody who works at a Jobcentre Plus outlet who has told me a shocking story about his duties. Many years ago when I had just left school and was looking for work, Jobcentres were run by the Employment Service and were quite relaxed places with shelves full of cards and helpful, friendly advisors. If you needed to apply for benefits it was dealt with by an entirely separate office, run by the Department of Social Security and you had to go to another location to apply. It was in 2002 that the two services were amalgamated along with the establishment of the Department of Work and Pensions; from that day onwards job seeking and benefits became inextricably linked. Luckily I've never needed to use a modern Jobcentre Plus; I was in Hospital Portering from 1989 until 2012 when I went straight from that into my new job, self-employed gardening and house cleaning. However I've been into a branch to keep somebody else company. JCP's are tense and intimidating places; frightened people queue up in the entrance and are watched over by rough-looking security guards. The "advisors" are abrupt and acidic in their treatment of their "customers".
I've spoken a lot about unemployment in the past, see here for background:

I'll call the person who contacted me "Terry". Terry is a JCP advisor and he told me that he joined the service many years ago because he wanted to help people, but the entire objective of the JCP and the benefits system has changed. He no longer helps people, he polices people. Like all public services the JCP has performance targets and these used to be based on helping unemployed people find work; today the goal is to disqualify as many people from receiving benefits as possible. This process goes by the Orwellian euphemism: sanction. Advisors are required to sanction at least 2% of their case load each month; if they fail to do so they are given a bad report and can be sacked from their own jobs. Advisors with the highest sanction rates are rewarded with a bonus payments. Staff target vulnerable people like those who can't speak very good English and those with learning difficulties. More recently, advisors have been given instructions to agitate customers as much as possible by robust interviews and excessive intrusive questioning. The hope is that the customer will be so upset that they will close their claim. Agitation can take many forms; for example, excessive requirement to attend the office, mandatory "work experience", which I've discussed in the links above. Also classroom based information sessions. Some advisers will even give their customers fraudulent referrals. Terry says that these changes came about when David Cameron's Tory government was elected and he urges people to vote them out off office as quickly as possible. Personally I wonder if a Labour government would be any better these days. Terry does not want to identify himself because he's worried about losing his own job. I don't think we should judge him in that respect; he knows better than anybody how awful it is to be out of work today. Let's just be grateful to him for contacting me. At the moment it's hard to prove what he says because a lot of these policies are unofficial and there's little official paperwork attached to them. However I've sent the following letter to the Department of Work and Pensions' press office. Their email is on their very glossy and cuddly website: I'll let you know if I get a reply:

Dear DWP
I have been contacted by an anonymous person who says that they work at a branch of Job Centre Plus. They have made some disturbing allegations about service practices at their office. This includes the improper sanctioning of customers' benefits, fraudulent job referrals, the bullying and intimidating of customers to persuade them to cancel their claims, and the bribing of staff members with bonuses for the highest sanction rates on their case load.
Would you like to comment?
Yours faithfully
Ben Emlyn-Jones-
Hospital Porters Against the New World Order

Thursday, 24 July 2014

Did Thatcher cover it Up?

A short time ago I wrote about how a former Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, knew something about organized child abuse going on in the Houses of Parliament, see: Now another former official has come forward with fresh allegations. Anthony Gilberthorpe was a youth activist in the Conservative Party who met Margaret Thatcher several times and even made her a birthday cake in 1983. In 1989, shortly before she was deposed as Prime Minister, he also handed her a dossier alleging that senior members of her Cabinet had sexually abused young boys at parties. This was also a confession because Gilberthorpe admits that he was a procurer whose job it was to recruit the boys, aged fifteen or sixteen, into servicing the ministers and secretaries in this way. Several people were nominated individually as being involved including Education Secretary Keith Joseph and Sir Rhodes Boyson; ironically they were two of the most right-wing MP's in the house who constantly preached the need for "discipline in schools" and "family values" in society. At the moment Westminster is carrying out its own inquiry into its personal wrongdoings, seeing as Michael Gove has firmly ruled out a public inquiry. This is being run by a former High Court Judge Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, however she is the sister of former Lord Chancellor Michael Havers one of the men accused; this makes the UK Government's "self-inquiry" an even bigger joke than it should already be. If Gilberthorpe is right then the cover-up went, and maybe still does, right up to the highest office in the land, that of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the "Iron Lady", the "believer in freedom", the portrait of traditionalist British virtue. Do we need any more proof of how extreme the brutality, hypocrisy and corruption of Government is? I recommend watching Michael Dobbs' House of Cards trilogy, or reading the books; it satirizes Parliament from a man who has seen it from the inside; and even this is pretty mild compared to the whole truth, see:

Wednesday, 23 July 2014

Fracking Good News!

A few weeks ago I wrote about how people can challenge the roughshod trampling by fracking companies through various legal loopholes, see: There has already been a victory in a courtroom battle against the frackers, albeit in the United States. Not to worry it, can easily spread to other countries if we're willing to embrace it. This is what you need to show people whenever they start complaining: "What can we do against a massive gas corporation. We're helpless!" No, we are not helpless at all and it's been proven; let this tide of defiance flow!

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Ben Emlyn-Jones on the Critical Mass Show

I have been interviewed by my friend and colleague Paul Giovanni on the Critical Mass Show on Critical Mass Radio, see:
Subjects discussed include: psychopaths in politics and in our personal lives, the role of the UFO phenomnon in the Truth movement and much much more.

Monday, 21 July 2014

"Putin did it!"

The crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 on Thursday should be generating a lot of questions, and it is luckily. The aircraft was flying at 33,000 feet en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it suddenly crashed in the disputed Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine; all 283 people on board were killed. It is believed to have been downed by a surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile. However the local ethnic Russian militia which rules the area are restricting access by air safety investigators. They're also clearing the debris and bodies, thereby destroying forensic evidence. This is highly irregular and should worry us. However the reaction from the media has been grotesquely misleading, as the headlines in the image above show. Also US Secretary of State... and member of the Skull and Bones Society... John Kerry has been particularly vehement, see: The blame for the incident has been laid squarely on the shoulders of Russian president Vladimir Putin so silently and stealthily few people have noticed. It's now simply become a truism that Putin did it. This is despite the fact that the investigation is incomplete and Putin has denied any Russian involvement. This reminds me of the hysteria that flowed following the 9/11 attacks when almost instantly the phrase "bin Laden did it!" became accepted universally, even legally, without any due process at all. I've spoken before about how there is definitely a plan for a new world war; it may have been decided that Russia is to play a prominent role, one similar to Hitler's Germany in World War II, see: It's also very clear that Putin is not doing exactly what he's told by his superiors. This has caused some conspiratorial researchers to label him a "white knight" who is opposed to the New World Order. Not me, I don't accept that Putin is somehow on our side just because he refused a couple of IMF loans; the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. However he is definitely a loose cannon and the elite will want to bring him into line. Maybe they'll use him to start the war even if he's not completely on side. Supposing the air safety investigators decided Russia did not shoot the plane down; maybe that's why evidence is being destroyed.

Sunday, 20 July 2014

Time for Disclosure and Orme Skywatch

Here’s a short film by Miles Johnston of the Bases Project reporting on the Time for Disclosure event last week in London. It also contains coverage of the recent Skywatch on the Orme which I deeply regret having to miss, see:
Miles asked Heidi and me to wear official Bases Project T-shirts for his update; it’s amusing to realize that during the shooting of this film I was technically a model. The first international Bases Project conference is coming up in a few weeks and I heartily recommend it. Along with the other excellent attractions it will also a live location broadcast of Sarah Goodley’s The Irate Women Show on Critical Mass Radio, and it will be co-hosted by myself, Ben Emlyn-Jones, see:
See here for background to Time for Disclosure:

Friday, 18 July 2014

House of Cards

Democracy is one of the biggest buzz-words in the English language; it is loaded down like no other with emotional, cultural and political baggage. Wars have been fought over democracy which have cost the lives of millions. Some people will start weeping at the very mention of the word. The quest for democracy has produced some of the most dramatic tales in history, from the Chartists to the Suffragettes to Mandela. Yet most democratic countries, even very old democracies, are suffering from a malaise. Democratic governments have a major credibility problem in their relationship with their citizens; some political leaders even have approval ratings in single figures. Cynicism is endemic and electoral turnout is low. Citizens also will vote for negative reasons instead of positive; they’ll vote in order to keep somebody they don’t like out of office, rather than to elect somebody they do like. Democratic countries today are ruled by some of the most loathsome people imaginable and, despite the fact that nominally we can “choose our leaders”, these kinds of people always rise to the top and nobody seems to know why, let alone how to stop them. This malaise is growing and the House of Cards trilogy is a satirical illustration of that malaise.
This trilogy of novels has been adapted into two TV series, the best known one is American, however the story is set in the United Kingdom and so this review is of the BBC production based on the novels. The books were written by Michael Dobbs, a former Member of Parliament who has seen the political world from the inside and so his insight holds some validity. The plot follows the political career of Francis Urquhart MP who is the Conservative chief whip in the near future, relative to the time of writing, just after the resignation of Margaret Thatcher; this shows remarkable foresight on Dobbs’ part. It also reveals that what becomes public in politics is often brewing in secret a long time beforehand. Urquhart’s job as the chief whip is to try and maintain loyalty to the party among the MP’s in government and this puts him in a position to know a lot of the secrets of his charges. Urquhart is brilliantly played by Ian Richardson. He won a BAFTA for his performance and I think he is one of only two actors who could play that character; the other being Christopher Lee. Urquhart has ambitions to become Prime Minister and he uses the insider information he has on his political rivals to blackmail and discredit them, and in doing so he worms his way to power. At first these machinations are quite light-hearted; he addresses the audience with monologues about his personal feelings. Later on though it becomes clear that there is no level he won’t stoop to in his quest. By the end of the first series he’s murdered two people. He poisons the party’s press secretary and throws a young journalist off a roof garden. By the end of the second series he kills two more people by planting bombs in their cars and blaming the IRA, a satisfying reference to a false flag attack. He justifies it to himself by saying it’s “necessary for the country”. It came as no surprise to me when it revealed that his favourite book is The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. He is extremely clever, an evil genius, and he can always tell intuitively when people are lying to him. Eventually he achieves his goal and becomes Prime Minister and is nicknamed “F.U.” which is appropriate because it sums up his attitude to the people. He finds an unexpected challenge when a new king is crowned and the monarch is a kind and caring man who is openly hostile to Urquhart’s government. As always, the PM digs up some dirt on the king and turns it into a weapon to fight him. Several times the viewer is given hope that F.U. is about to get his comeuppance, and again and again he thwarts his enemies. It takes a long time before justice is done. One of the most instrumental characters is Corder, Urquhart’s bodyguard, who pays an overtly background role. Rather like Brutus in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, in the end is the crucial lynchpin in the downfall of the emperor. There are some admirable people involved in the programme, like the king, Urquhart’s secretary Clare Carlson, and Tom Makepeace who is sacked as foreign secretary by F.U. and so works with Carlson and others to bring him down.
After watching the trilogy, you might wonder why there is anything of interest within in from a HPANWO-esque perspective. The only conspiracies are ones feasible from a mainstream standpoint, no hidden hand, no Freemasonic influence and no sign of Illuminati control. The series shows a distinct lack of conspiratorial awareness. This is not to say that the plot specifically precludes those things, just that it appears oblivious to the possibility. Nevertheless I think House of Cards and its sequels are revealing about how dysfunctional and corrupt a government can become due to the moral decrepitude of those involved. Urquhart himself is a merciless and deeply cunning individual. He lies effortlessly and manipulates people as easily as he breathes. His victims in the House are themselves almost as bad: selfish, shady, weak, amoral, materialistic and foolish, culminating in the repugnant Geoffrey Booza-Pitt, Urquhart’s most loyal minister. They prostitute their own wives, step on their own allies for the promise of a knighthood and cower before Urquhart the moment he threatens to take away their position. The image the story gives us of the world inside politics is like Yes Minister without the laughs, a dark and confusing maelstrom of degeneracy and deceit. In such an environment any kind of conspiracy is possible.
The series is available on YouTube at the time of writing:
House of Cards episodes:
To Play the King episodes:
The Final Cut episodes:

Thursday, 17 July 2014

Ben Emlyn-Jones live- REAL Zombies!

The official recording from We Are Change Manchester of my 14th of July 2014 lecture, REAL Zombies- the Horror to Come! is now available, see:   
Zombies are well-known figures of mythology and horror fiction, and their profile is steadily increasing in recent books and films. However more and more they have been appearing in the media and in official government publications portrayed as real or semi-real. What’s going on? This lecture contains disturbing information and is not suitable for small children.
See here for the HPANWO TV recording of this event:

Sunday, 13 July 2014

Big Brother Emergency

(Illustration by Ryan Carr)
It's funny how the word "emergency" evokes such a complex and extensive response in mass consciousness; the authorities know this and that's why they use it so cleverly. The UK Cameron Government plc has announced that it is introducing "emergency" measures to give police and intelligence services greater ability to monitor the electronic communications of British citizens. Cameron has said: "I think the public should be worried if we didn't act. As Prime Minster, I'm standing here and saying very clearly that if we don't do anything our ability to solve serious crimes... and our ability to prevent terrorist acts will be radically reduced... We need to legislate very rapidly". How convenient! We only get to debate on whether these actions are right or wrong when they've already been passed into law. See: As always, this has been justified by the need to tackle such undesirables as paedophiles, serious criminals and terrorists. How does this compute when the worst examples I can image in all three of those categories appear to be involved in the very same institutions demanding these emergency powers to tackle them?
Is it just a coincidence that this announcement was made a few days after a set of news stories like this? See: and:

Saturday, 12 July 2014

Chopra's Challenge

Prof. Brian Cox, whom I've discussed many times before, for example see:, has just Tweeted this: "I claim your million dollars, @deepakchopra, for showing that your understanding of quantum theory is flawed. Is there a form to fill in?" The reason for this Tweet was because Deepak Chopra has recently offered his own version of James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. This Challenge is a legendary undertaking in the Skeptic community. In 1964 Randi offered a thousand US dollars to anybody who could prove the existence of supernatural phenomena or paranormal abilities in a properly controlled scientific test. Over the years this prize has increased as new funds were pledged until in 1996 when it plateaued at one million dollars. Over a thousand people have applied during the fifty years it's been running, but Randi has never agreed that any of them deserve the prize. The Challenge is held by Skeptics to be... The... Last... Word... relating to any doubt over whether the supernatural and paranormal are true or not; however I don't think it is as watertight as it is promoted to be, see: Robert McLuhan has written a book that's extremely critical of Randi and his activities, one I highly recommend, see: Since the advent of the Challenge there have been many others posed, mostly by people on "the enemy side"; for example by paranormal investigator and broadcaster Ross Hemsworth, see: No Skeptic, not even James Randi himself, has ever accepted any of these challenges offered to them, which is very suspicious in my view.

The most recent of these Randi-style antithetic $million challenges has come from Deepak Chopra, a bestselling author and media personality on spiritual and healing matters. A few weeks ago he issues his challenge personally on video, see: What Chopra demands is for Randi, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and others like them to explain how electrical currents running through neuronal circuits in our brains can possibly generate the feelings, sensations and thoughts that make up our conscious experiences. This is known as the "hard problem" of consciousness, and it's not a new one; in fact it is one of the oldest scientific and philosophical conundrums in the world. People have been pondering it throughout all of history. How Chopra thinks anybody can solve it right now at his request I don't know. However, then again, the point I think he might be making is not really a serious demand for contestants; he's essentially performing a parody of atheo-Skeptic materialist foolishness. He knows very well that his targeted audience cannot meet his challenge, and because of this their own professed certainties about the non-existence of God, ghosts, the soul etc can also be legitimately disregarded. If "normal" experience is a mystery then how on Earth can the paranormal be so manifestly explicable? As Chopra says: "You take such pride in saying that the so-called 'paranormal' is a perceptual trick, a magic show; then explain to me the ultimate magic show, the universe." The response from the Skeptic movement has been extremely predictable, in fact it echoes almost exactly their attitude to last year's Crop Circle Challenge, see: It has also resulted in the aforementioned hashtag war between Chopra and Prof. Brian Cox, see: The Coxxer has demanded the million dollars from Chopra and Chopra has not given it to him; the thread is reproduced at the bottom of the New Statesman article. The SGU presenters call it a "fake challenge mocking James Randi's $Million Challenge", see at 12.16: It's certainly mocking it, but does this automatically mean Randi's Challenge is not fake?

In a way, the Skeppers have this time a more reasonable gripe than they did with the crop circles. Even if everything the non-manmade hypothesis theorists say about crop circles is correct, it hardly comes close on an intellectual level to solving the hard problem of consciousness. However I am still disappointed in the Skeppers' handling of Chopra's challenge. It would be nice to have seen a slightly more positive and creative approach. A lot of the Skeppers' criticism, that its conditions and objectives are too ambiguous, are valid points, but instead of scornfully dismissing Chopra in this impulsive way, why not encourage him to modify the test? Negotiate more stringent and comprehensive rules and criteria, ask him to be more transparent. Both Chopra and the applicants should cooperate to design the tests beforehand. Make sure the applicants know in advance what is required of them; and, once the test is underway, leave no doubt in the minds of either party if they achieve the pre-stated objective. After all, this is what Randi always throws back whenever people accuse him of designing an "unwinnable" challenge. Skeptics need to practice what they preach. With a little adaptation Deepak Chopra's Million Dollar Challenge could be made far more interesting and educational, even if the prize is as far beyond our grasp as it always has been. The real quandary, what is underlying this entire dispute, is that one of the most popular current perceptions of the hard problem is simply to see it as a non-issue. This idea is most famously proposed by Daniel Dennett and Susan Blackmore. It states that qualia, conscious experience, the mental state that the hard problem centres around, doesn't exist at all as an actual structure. It is simply an emergent collective effect of more basic sensory and cognitive processes in the brain, see: This means in practice that you don't exist... you heard me right... and neither do I. Our sense of self, the feeling of "I" and "me" are nothing but a grand delusion. Dennett and Blackmore claim to have found evidence for their notion. But can this really be the case? As Anthony Peake piercingly asked of Dennett: "Who writes your books then?", see: This is surely the most audacious proposal that anybody has ever suggested. How can it possibly be true? I'm not alone in feeling dubious about this subject. If you'll permit me to play amateur psychologist for a moment, it might provide an explanation. As I said above, for thousands of years thinking men and women have quested to find an answer to the hard problem. When neuroscience began in earnest in the 20th century there was hope that the answer was within our grasp. For the first time ever, scientists began to learn how the human brain works. It was a heady and exciting era; expectations were very high. The scientists worked hard over the course of the century, and into the current 21st, and the brain slowly but surely gave up its secrets... except one. I can't help wondering if, as David Malone also suggests in his outstanding documentary film Soul Searching, see:, this tentative and half-hearted solution to the hard problem of consciousness is merely a frustrated and disappointed reaction to our failure in solving it.  

Friday, 11 July 2014

Quakers on Armed Forces Day

The Quakers, or Religious Society of Friends as they call themselves, are a very loose circle of unspecified liberal, spiritual and humanist associations that emerged in the 17th century during the aftermath of the English Civil War. One of their most common features is opposition to war. The weekend before last I was hosting the Exopolitics ET Communications Conference in Leeds, see:, and the day of the conference fell on Saturday the 28th of June which happened to be Armed Forces Day. I've spoken before about this event and also what I call the "Military Religion", which is the source of it, see: As I walked through Leeds city centre towards the venue, a lot of the roads were being closed off and army lorries were driving in and parking. Soldiers and other servicemen began unpacking equipment and setting up stalls. When I walked back there during our lunch break a full-scale street pageant was in progress for Armed Forces Day. I didn't take part myself; I just walked on by. As I explain in the background link above, I intensely dislike these kinds of celebrations and was glad that the Exopolitics conference had been booked that day with such unintended irreverence. This year the Quakers have spoken out about what they call "militarization", which sounds to me like the same concept as the Military Religion, see: One of their number was interviewed on BBC Radio 2 as well, although this is not currently available as a podcast, see: At the bottom of their statement the Quakers say: "Quakers reject the notion that war is inevitable and advocate putting resources into non-violent ways of solving conflicts and averting wars". I'm not sure I agree that war can always be avoided in all circumstances, yet when I look at the various wars that have started, both in history and those in the present day, I almost always locate some form of manipulation, provocation and deceit. If those elements were removed, how many of those wars would have taken place?

Thursday, 10 July 2014

Yet More Zombies

In a few days I will be heading to St Annes, Lancashire to perform my lecture Real Zombies, see:, and it seems synchronous that zombie themes are once again invading the information coming towards me. Following the grotesque actions of footballer Luis Suarez, see:, another man has been apprehended for using his teeth inappropriately in a public place. This time the biter was a British man on holiday in Magluf on Mallorca, one of the Balearic Islands of the Mediterranean. The man was arrested after walking down the beach trying to bite everybody he saw. He had to be forcibly restrained by a large contingent of police and paramedics, and the source article includes a disturbing video in which the man roars incoherently like a trapped animal, see: This is not the first of such incidents in the region; another Briton was handcuffed by police in San Antonio on Ibiza after biting one of them. This bizarre behaviour has been blamed on a drug with the descriptive name of "cannibal". The Balearics are renowned as destinations for holidays in the sun and many of the resorts cater to young singles who want to make merry; this inevitably includes using drugs. This rumoured new drug seems to have a similar effect as "bath salts", the narcotic which caused problems in the United States, including when an intoxicated man attacked another and ate part of his face; the police had to shoot the assailant dead to stop the attack. Is this related to the wider agenda I've been trying to expose see:

Heidi King has informed me that the BBC have announced they are in preproduction of a new BBC3 TV show entitled I Survived a Zombie Apocalypse (Amusingly it is listed on the source reference page above another project with the working title: All You can Eat). They say: "Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be hunted down by the walking dead? If an apocalypse struck this could happen to you! Male or female. Old or young. Would you have the creativity, mental ability and survival skills to pass the ultimate test? A brand new BBC 3 reality series is looking for contestants; so whether you're a zombie fanatic, love the thrill of being scared or just think you'll look good being chased by zombies, we want to hear from you." This programme sounds like it was inspired by Derren Brown's Apocalypse, see: Once again we see the zombie trope being inserted into the media, deliberately or accidentally? Who knows where this path will lead us? I'll try to provide the answers next Monday at New Horizons; I do hope you can all join me.

Wednesday, 9 July 2014

Time for Disclosure- the Report

Over the last few weeks I've been writing about the upcoming Time for Disclosure, for example see: and: Yesterday, the 18th of July 2014, was when it happened. It was a fantastic event. Lots of people accepted the flyers we offered them, and we only got two people ridiculing us, far fewer than I thought. Heidi brought her megaphone, but it didn't work so I shouted myself a bit hoarse during my afternoon's tirade. However Exhibition Road is quite narrow and is lined by tall buildings so there was good acoustics. A few people stopped to talk to us, including an Ethiopian woman who discussed free energy and Nikola Tesla with us, and she told me that there was a major oil war in her country that was totally misrepresented by the Western press. Another man told me he'd seen the film Sirius, and it was clear he was keen on UFO's and didn't watch just to drool over Dr Steven Greer in tight jeans. The weather was perfect, dry without being too hot. At one point a policeman approached us to find out what we were doing. He was very nice and even seemed genuinely interested; he took a flyer. I think I made the right decision to notify the Metropolitan Police, see links above. The officer spoke on the phone to his station and then just walked off. If he had attempted to stop Time for Disclosure we would have forcibly resisted. There were a few setbacks; apart from Heidi and me, the two organizers, only one other person showed up, Miles Johnston. And he didn't join us until close to the end; through no fault of his own, it was the best he could do with his schedule. It would have been nice to have had a few more feet on the ground, but I realize there may well have been good reasons why lots of the others couldn't get there. And considering it was just the two of us, Heidi and I did a lot of good work. As regular HPANWO-readers will know, I am very ambivalent about the concept of willing Disclosure, for example see:, but I still think it's a quest to be perused. Many thanks to Miles and Heidi, and to Stephen Bassett for advising us. We plan do the same next year, and also we have other protests planned. Most urgently, the BBC needs to be challenged over the recent scandals related to child abuse; I suspect that there is an organized paedophile ring there, see here for more details:
I've made a film about Time for Disclosure, see:

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

Happy World Disclosure Day

Happy World Disclosure Day everybody! It was sixty-seven years ago today that the decision was made to quash all media coverage of the Roswell Incident. On July the 4th 1947 a strange flying object came to grief on a remote ranch near Roswell, New Mexico USA. It was quickly salvaged by the Roswell Army Air Force. The announcement was made in the media that they had "captured a flying disk". However on July the 8th General Roger Ramey called a press conference at Fort Worth, Texas where he changed the official position of the Roswell Incident saying that there was no strange object; all that had been found was a weather balloon. This marks the beginning of the sixty-seven year "truth embargo" relating to the existence of UFO's and aliens beings. The moment Disclosure takes place the date of World Disclosure Day will switch to the date on which it happens and it will be celebrated thus every year afterwards, see:

As I've been writing about for the last few weeks, some friends and I are organizing an activism event in central London to mark World Disclosure Day called Time for Disclosure. Please do come along and attend this event if you can. If you live close by and are reading this in the morning then there's still time for you to get there. See here for more details: Below are the placards we're going to use. Well done to Heidi for getting the main large one made up. I've also designed two mini-placards by sticking A4 printouts on some used bubblewrap envelopes. It was Heidi's idea to include Nikola Tesla; he is not a figure in Exopolitics, but he is still connected to the issue through the free energy coverup:

Monday, 7 July 2014

Ben Emlyn-Jones on Enemy Within Radio 13

I have been interviewed again on Enemy Within Radio with Thomas Barnes, see:

Subjects discussed include: The Royal Family in Scotland, secrets of the Knights Templar, paedophiles in Parliament, 9/11, airline security and much much more.
See here for my previous appearance on Enemy Within Radio:

Sunday, 6 July 2014

Brittan Warned?

A dossier on alleged paedophile activities in Parliament has come to light. It was supposedly in the possession of Leon Lord Brittan, who used to be the Home Secretary under Margaret Thatcher, and he had it since 1984 when it was handed to him by Geoffrey Dickens MP. Apparently now, thirty years later, it is "missing"; this is after he vacillated on whether he could even remember whether the dossier existed. This is extremely suspicious and Labour MP Keith Vaz has called for a public inquiry on this loss of information on "an industrial scale", see: As always, if the parties in office and Opposition were reversed Vaz would no doubt be dithering as much as Brittan is. What could be in those files that Brittan is so keen to avoid the people seeing? Well, the rumour states that it refers to a ring of organized abusers of young boys in care homes, perhaps connected to the secret crimes of the vicious Liberal MP Cyril Smith, see: Perhaps Smith was no more a "bad apple" than I suspect Rolf Harris is, see:, and that there was, and maybe still is, a developed paedophile ring in the Palace of Westminster. The truth is, if Brittan overlooked... either accidentally or on purpose... the evidence in this dossier then he guilty of betrayal and disregard for his office, at best. At worse he is aiding and abetting the most horrific crimes imaginable. Norman Tebbit has commented on the Andrew Marr show, see source link above, and confesses that in those days Parliament always prioritized "protecting the system" at all costs and that there could well have been a cover-up. Michael Gove MP, after trying to dodge the question by umming and ahhing with enormous skill, has rejected calls for a public inquiry. What's interesting is it has just been revealed that a woman has come forward claiming to have been raped in 1967 and that the police have questioned Lord Brittan about it, see: Is this just coincidence? Could this be a veiled warning to Brittan? Has he said the wrong things and needs to be brought back into line? Perhaps he is keeping schtum about a lot more detail and needs to be reminded not to change that stance. Or perhaps this is a threat directed at other MP's who have information and are thinking of speaking out? 

Saturday, 5 July 2014

A Drop from the Blue

Something very unusual happened to me yesterday. Not for the first time either; it's happened a couple of times now. It took me a while to realize how strange the occurrence it was. I was hit on the arm by a drop of water. Judging from the angle it struck me, I estimate that the drop descended vertically, or close to vertically, downwards. The volume of the drop was approximately a quarter of a teaspoon. The incident happened at about midday on Friday July the 4th 2014 at Meadow Lane in Iffley, Oxford. The peculiar thing was that the sky was clear and blue with only minimal thin high cloud; there were no visible aircraft contrails and no chemtrails at all. The sun was shining brightly and the temperature was about 80 degrees Fahrenheit; there was little wind. Rain can sometimes fall from a cloudless sky, this is known by a French word, serein. It is caused by condensation at a very low altitude. However serein always occurs at dusk takes the form of a light drizzle; in my case this was just a single large drop. Sometimes rain can fall from a cloudless sky during daylight and indeed this happened in 1935 not far from me at Benson, Oxfordshire (Modern Mysteries of Britain by Janet and Colin Bord). Rain can be carried by the wind without evaporating under certain conditions for many miles, but this was not a shower of rain; I checked the ground and air around me and couldn't see any other drops. Also no rainbow formed. The drop looked like water, and when I smelled the residual wet spot on my skin where it had hit I found it to be odourless, like water. I didn't risk tasting it in case it was a toxic solution, but the wet spot eventually dried normally and it did not injure or irritate my skin at all. I assume that the liquid was simply water.

If it were not a raindrop then what was it and where did it come from? There are no trees nearby where it could have blown from, at least considering the lightness of the breeze at the time. If you look at the location of Google Maps you'll see that the Iffley end of Meadow Lane is an upmarket residential street with large houses and gardens. Somebody might have been using a hosepipe and accidentally aimed it upwards sending a stream of water in my direction. I didn't see anybody spraying with such an appliance at the time, but I did a ballistic experiment myself with a hosepipe to test the theory. I found that if I aimed the stream upwards at 45 degrees I could soak an area of the ground as far as thirty feet away, but this was only if I set the nozzle to a straight stream; if I set it to wide angle it didn't have such a long range. No matter what I did I couldn't get the hose to toss a solitary drop, and anyway there's no way I could wet anybody, accidentally or on purpose, without them knowing the hosepipe was there and that it was where the water had come from. Could it be a drop of water that had fallen from an aircraft? Water can sometimes fall from aircraft, either from condensation on its hull or leaks from its plumbing. I didn't see any aircraft above me at the time it happened. Of course one could have been flying at an altitude too high for me to see it, especially as none were leaving contrails that day. However, at that height any water falling would probably be frozen and it would take the hazardous form of an ice bomb, and these often smell either of chemicals or sewage; just as well I never put it in my mouth! See the background links below for more details. I'm beginning to wonder if this phenomenon could have a paranormal explanation; it might be related to the kind of things Dr Manjir Samanta-Laughton talks about. According to her theories, water can be produced interdimensionally and emerges from black holes. Also rain falling from clouds is not just condensed vapour, but is in fact water from a hyperspatial source, see: This is why I speculate that disorders or anomalies in this transit system are the cause of the strange occurrences like fish, frogs and other unusual objects falling from the sky, see the background links below for more detail. Relevant study has also been done by the chemist Andrew Crosse. In 1836 he was doing an elecrocrystalization experiment when he unexpectedly saw insects forming inside the apparatus. How on Earth could that have happened? Were these also created out of thin air as a result of Crosse accidentally tapping into this cosmic highway? Sadly Crosse had to abandon his research because of death threats from militant Christians, see: As I said, this is not the first time this has happened to me. I can't remember exactly when the last time was that I experienced this enigmatic baptism from the heavens. I never gave it much thought because I didn't realize that it was significant. But if, or when, it happens again, I'll be sure to make a note of it and let HPANWO-readers know.

Friday, 4 July 2014

How Many More, Rolf?

The TV celebrity Rolf Harris has been sentenced to five years and nine months in prison for four sexual assaults against young girls between 1968 and 1985, see: Harris has this image of geniality, eccentricity and light-heartedness that made him a star entertainer for children, including me when I was a young TV viewer. Amazingly, he even took part in a child abuse helpline fundraiser, see: If Rolf Harris can be a closet paedophile, then anybody can. I wonder how many other top media stars have this covert dark side. In his home town in Australia all his photos have been taken down; there was even a "Rolf Harris Appreciation Society", but I expect it has now been disbanded. This whole affair follows the investigation into the crimes of Jimmy Savile, see:

It's high time people started asking some serious questions. If any establishment in the world had two of its leading figures convicted of rape and sexual assault against minors the police should tear the place to bits, questions everybody and suspend whatever regulatory permission that outfit has to operate until the matter was resolved. Yet the BBC retains its broadcasting licence and is still on the air; it continues to take the Queen's Shilling from the taxpayer and the organization itself has never been analysed in any criminal investigation; the exception being "Operation Yewtree", but that deals solely with the prolific offences of Jimmy Savile. The general consensus right now is that the BBC is completely innocent in these affairs and were as shocked as everybody else that at least two of its leading on-screen personalities were leading a double life which involved the sexual abuse of underage boys and girls, including alleged crimes committed on its premises and in its care. "Oh my God! We had no idea!" (Raises hands in shock). And this wasn't even just a one-off blunder; it went on for a very long time. Jimmy Savile's criminal activities date back to his earliest appearances on BBC radio and TV, that's nearly fifty years ago. As we've heard, Rolf Harris has been carrying out attacks for almost as long. Are these really just two "bad apples" who coincidentally got away with what they did through some monumental oversight by the Corporation? Does anybody actually believe that? In my view there is no way these evil men could have achieved what they did without a massive network of institutional collusion; it must have a large numbers of members in highly powerful positions in the heart of the BBC. As far as we know this network is still at large, we must assume that; and so far there has been no investigation into its existence at all. The good news is that public scepticism and defiance is growing; plenty of people are asking the necessary questions. TV Licence evasion has now reached endemic levels, see: When will this monstrous sickness be healed? Soon I hope. Harris and Savile were just little titbits thrown to the tiger, an attempt to pacify the quest for truth. But the tiger is getting hungry again and they're running out of titbits!