Andrew MacGregor reflects on London 77

“I doubt whether the planners knew that one of the target areas, that in Russell Square, was within a stone’s throw of a building that served as the first headquarters of the World Zionist Organization that preceded the State of Israel.” Efraim Halevi, who heads the ‘Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a former head of the Mossad.

I have already commented on the article written by Efraim Halevi, that was carried by the Jerusalem Post on the 7^th July 2005, the same day as the bombings took place in London, and have queried the time factor in receiving such information, disseminating that information, and then writing this article for inclusion in the Israeli newspaper. Not being a Londoner made it a bit difficult in comprehending at first just when and where the bombs went off. It was in fact the London Bus that was targeted in Russell Square. So let us look a bit more closely at what has been observed by others since this attack was featured in the media.

Let us concentrate on the bus bomb for a start, especially considering what Efraim Halevi has told us, that is that the bus was either in or near Russell Square. To quote a passage from “7/7 Bombings Final Word: Her Majesty’s Terrorist Network”:

“Why did the cameras on the targeted bus malfunction that day? Why was the bus diverted from its usual route? We personally visited the site of the bus bombing at Tavistock Place and verified that no number 30 bus travels down that road.”

So just how close is Russell Square from Tavistock Place? Just how did Halevi get the name ‘Russell Square’ as the site of the bus bomb blast, when it actually took place in Tavistock Place? You could state that one should never let the facts spoil a good story, as Halevi brings in his history of Dr Chaim Weizmann and the Balfour Declaration which in actual fact digresses away from the actual incident Halevi was writing about. So what was the error? Was Halevi in error when he wrote ‘Russell Square’?

“Some background is in order here. The explosion did not occur at a bus-stop. According to the majority of eye-witness accounts available – the driver had stopped to ask for directions from a parking attendant who was talking to someone else on the curb, in Tavistock Square, near “77” Russell Street, after the bus was diverted and please note well – could not possibly have arrived at any passenger’s legitimate destination.”

But it is the name Tavistock that conjures up other images. Tavistock and General John Rawlings Rees and his theories on ‘Low Intensity Warfare’ aka ‘Terrorism’. Tavistock which in WW2 produced the SOE and the OSS which became the CIA and it was Tavistock that helped set up the ‘Rand Corporation’ the CIA think-tank.

But I have digressed, so it is back to the bus. In my original articles I have referred to a witness who claimed that he saw one of the bombers going through his rucksack just prior to the explosion. On further study I find that the witness I had referred to was ‘Richard Jones’. Again I can thank ‘Skywalker’ who has done all the hard work in collecting the various statements made by ‘Richard Jones’ some of which are as follows:

“I’m just feeling unbelievably lucky. I had just stepped off the bus when I felt a huge explosion and heard a huge noise….I kept saying to people, I just got off that bus’.

“Richard, originally of Ardrossan, Ayrshire, ended up on the bus after the tube was evacuated because of earlier bombs.”

“He spoke of his astonishing escape yesterday and said he only got off because he was so annoyed by the man next to him fiddling with a rucksack.”

“The young man got on at the same stop and immediately began to annoy Richard with his constant fidgeting. Finally, Richard got up from his seat and asked the driver to let him off.”

“The fact this guy was annoying me so much was another reason why I was happy to get off.”

“Richard said, ‘I had to bang on the front door and shouted something like, ‘Come on, Jimmy, we want off.”

“About half a dozen people got out the back door just before us and the same number, including me, left by the front.”

“Richard, 61, said: “I noticed him as he looked nervous. He was continuously diving into his bag, rummaging round and looking in it.”

“Richard stepped off the bus at his destination. Seconds later it exploded behind him – with the “bomber” still on board.”

“please be aware of a very important factor in this “77” equation – Richard Jones’ account is the ONLY “solid” (?) evidence the Main Stream Media have in this investigation so far,”

“Terence Mutasa, 27, a staff nurse at University College hospital, said, “I treated two girls in their 20s who were involved in the bus bomb. They were saying some guy came in and sat down and that he exploded. The girls received minor injuries and were in shock and distressed. “They said the guy just sat down and the explosion happened. They thought it was a suicide bomber.”

Skywalker states that there is no credence in what this nurse has stated as it is second hand. In a normal Court of Law, that is correct, the evidence is ‘hearsay’ and thus not competent in a normal Court of Law. However it is competent in a ‘Coronial Inquiry’. Now you may understand why Tony Blair has ruled out any Coronial Inquiry into the London Bombings.

So now let us consider just what Richard Jones has told us. Richard tells us that he boarded the bus after the tube was evacuated because of earlier bombs. However, the Australian girl interviewed by John Howard was on the train that was damaged by one of the bombs and she and thus most of the commuters were unaware that their train had suffered a bomb blast. Also again, please remember that the original reports were of damage caused by ‘power surges’. No bombs mentioned as yet.

Richard Jones has in fact inferred that he was one of those commuters. He hasn’t stated that he was, but simply that he was on the bus because of the tube evacuation.

Richard Jones has stated that the ‘young man’ got on at the same stop. Again the inference is that the ‘bomber’ would have also been on the same train. Question: Why would two ‘Suicide bombers’ travel on the same train, when one of them would be attacking that very train?

So, both Richard Jones and the ‘Suicide bomber’ board the bus at the same bus-stop, and then they sit together. Richard states that he was annoyed by the man sitting next to him, his fidgeting and so-forth. But then Richard Jones states that he never saw this man’s face. Please! They’ve caught the bus at the same bus-stop. They’ve waited in the same queue, they’ve sat down together, and the young man has irked the heck out of this 61 year-old Scot from Ardrossan, Ayrshire, so much so that Jones has had to get up and actually get off the bus. Not simply change seats thank-you, or move somewhere else, but actually get off the bus. Richard Jones states that this man was annoying him so much so that he was happy to get off the bus, and yet was unable to identify the man, because the ‘young man’ was constantly looking down??

Now the bus is diverted. It cannot be due to any bomb alarms, as the bombs have not yet been identified as such, but rather as power surges, but the bus is diverted. The only possible reason that comes to mind would be the ‘mock drills’ carried out by Peter Power’s Visor Consultants, the so-called ‘anti-terrorist drills’ that were being carried out simultaneously as the real thing.

Now I have no idea of how far the bus was diverted prior to Richard Jones getting off in Tavistock Place, or Tavistock Square as it is also called in some articles, but Richard Jones tells us that 6 passengers alighted from the rear door and he and five others alighted from the front door. Jones states that within seconds of his alighting from the bus, the bomb went off.

Richard Jones tells us that he banged on the front door of the bus and shouted something like, “Come on, Jimmy, we want off.” And only then did the driver open the doors to let his passengers alight. But here’s the thing that Skywalker noticed. The eleven people who supposedly alighted from the bus with Richard Jones did not react when the bus exploded. Nor did they hang around for the police and of course the media, but Richard Jones did.

None of these eleven people stayed to help the victims, none of these people went to corroborate Richard Jones story, and even Richard Jones tells us with, “I kept saying to people, I just got off that bus!” Not we, not them and I, just me. How did Richard Jones feel about his good fortune? “I’m just feeling unbelievably lucky.” A more prudent man would have been thinking of the victims. Oh, by the way, if you were a ‘Suicide bomber’ on a bus ready to blow it up and kill as many of the passengers as you could, would you blow the bus up before or after twelve of those passengers, including that cantankerous old Scot who had been seated next to you had a chance to escape?

There are though a couple of signs about Richard Jones. We are not told his occupation, or supposed occupation, nor are we told of the area where he resides, not even the city. All we are told is that he originates from Ayrshire and that could be 60 years out of date.

Again, it was only Richard Jones that got up in front of the media and told everybody his story. It is strange that there was no corroboration from any other source, and there must have been a number of onlookers. What is even stranger was the fact that Richard Jones was able to give his story to the media.

You see, with this particular ‘crime scene’ the police in charge would be from one of the ‘specialist squads’ most probably the ‘anti-terrorist’ squad, and they would not want any damaging information to be leaked out to the supposed ‘terrorists’. Also again in these types of situations, and it is parallel to Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre of April 1996, the media is ‘drip fed’, and you would have noticed that Richard Jones’ story followed the ‘official’ line of young men with rucksacks.

So the ‘Anti-Terrorist Squad’ has their first major lead in regard to the London bombing, and they then go and let this vital witness spread to story loud and clear. Apparently what the ‘Anti-Terrorist Squad’ didn’t do was to take Richard Jones to a quiet location and try to as much information from him as possible, a task by the way that would have taken several hours. No, they just let him blab to the media, the last thing they would want from such a vital witness.

So where is the corroborating evidence in regard to Richard Jones evidence? There will be a lot of people who after hearing Richard Jones proclaim, “I just got off that bus!” would believe that was fact, but in truth there is no supporting evidence. In fact there is no evidence to support any of Richard Jones’ statements, but consider what the nurse has stated.

“I treated two girls in their 20s who were involved in the bus bomb. They were saying some guy came in and sat down and that he exploded. The girls received minor injuries and were in shock and distressed. “They said the guy just sat down and the explosion happened. They thought it was a suicide bomber.”

The guy came in and sat down and that he exploded. No mention of the rucksack, no mention of the fidgeting, no mention of the passenger beside him becoming so annoyed that he up and left, and no mention of the eleven other passengers alighting just prior to the explosion.

Now if you had been on that bus and witnessed a dozen people alighting just prior to the explosion, would that have made an impact on you? 20%, 25%, or even 30% of the passengers alighting just prior to the explosion and yet these two girls missed that? And of course the cameras on the bus were not operating at that particular time and the head of MI6, Richard Dearlove knows all about switching off cameras, as he was Head of Paris Station in 1997 when Princess Diana died.

But back to what the two girls said they saw, “some guy came in and sat down and that he exploded”. So how did witnesses describe the other explosions on the trains? Again from the work of Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones:

“The first eyewitness to report this was Bruce Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing.

He told the Cambridge Evening News, “The policeman said ‘mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was’. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag.”

Now another credible source, Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum, talked to eyewitnesses at the Edgware Road bombing, who essentially described the same thing.

Eyewitnesses told Honigsbaum that “tiles, the covers on the floor of the train, suddenly flew up, were raised up.”

There is a complete difference in what was described as the guy exploding on the bus, and the explosions on the two trains. But what we have is one witness telling the world exactly what Efraim Halevi the former head of Mossad wanted the world to hear, ‘suicide bombers’.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to show that Richard Jones was at the very least a ‘Professional Witness’, and he is the only person recorded to have been in the area just prior to the bomb on the bus being detonated. That inference can be quite staggering, since it can be argued that the bombs were not carried in rucksacks, and were not detonated by ‘Suicide bombers’, then the next question must be, just how was this particular bomb set off at the desired location of outside 77 Great Russell Street, and by whom?

I have previously mentioned Peter Power of Visor Consultants so perhaps it is now time to look at what we are told about Peter Power by Fintan Dunne, Editor BreakForNews.com on 11^th July, 2005:

“Peter Power, a crisis management consultant and former member of Britain’s anti-terror police to a “terrorism drill” which (Alex) Jones alleges was used to provide cover for State perpetrators of the multiple blasts.”

“Peter Power, MD of Visor Consultants is a gent who is well worth a much closer look. He is the ultimate insider in the coyly-named Business Continuity (BC) marketplace.

He was selected by the UK Government to write the Best management Practice Guide on Crisis and BC Planning & Risk Management, a hotly-trafficed download from the DTI web site [pdf]. He also wrote the book on BC for the British Bankers Association. He is all over the media and was a previous award winner for BC ‘personality of the year’.

His firm’s clients in London have included JP Morgan Chase, ING, Mellon, Lloyds TSB, Morley Fund management, Bank of New York, Arcadia Group, FCO and Universal Music.

All of which is not surprising, as he has a senior Scotland yard background which included a stint at the Anti Terrorist Branch, and a deputy forward control role at the Libyan People Bureau siege. He frequently speaks on TV & radio, and is the darling of BBC news and talk shows.

Power surely still has close links with Anti Terror branch, and seems to operate as a “good cop” for the establishment –in PR terms. Whenever there is a terror incident, there is Peter on the BBC with a relaxed attitude; with a habitual, understanding line about how “stretched” are the security services; and with a reassuring tone which implies that all is jolly good, top-notch and well in hand.

But some of those many appearances by Power stand out in the context of the latest London Underground bombings.

One was the occasion of the rocket attack on the MI6 spy headquarters itself –in central London at Vauxhall Cross, just before 2200 on 21 September, 2000. The missile smashed an eighth floor window on the southern side of the building, home of the Foreign Intelligence Service.

Although dissident Irish republicans were the prime suspects, no group ever claimed responsibility.

Another was the curious bombing of the BBC just six months later on 5 march, 2001. About 15 pounds of high explosive left in a taxi abandoned outside BBC Television Centre caused only minor damage. Attacks against the media are pretty rare. The same dissident republicans were suspected.

After the MI6 rocket attack, as usual Power was quoted by the BBC. He described the MI6 building as one of the most high profile in central London

“If you wanted to make a name for yourself, get yourself back onto the front pages, why not go for something that’s high profile and minimal risk,” he said.

What we have just been told here is that Peter Power was the deputy forward controller of the siege at the Libyan People Bureau, the scene of the shooting murder of Policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, which was later to be exposed by an American Intelligence Officer, Lester Coleman, as a psyops. Then Joe Vialls in several articles stated that he was the gunman that shot PWC Fletcher. Joe Vialls aka Ari Ben Menashe also claimed links to Mossad and other intelligence groups.

What this means is that we can now link Peter Power to a psyops incident that occurred on the 19^th April 1984, as well as the possibility of an involvement by Mossad. If we look at the last two ‘terrorist attacks’ mentioned by Fintan Dunne, that is against the MI6 building and outside the BBC and Power’s reactions to them, and then consider the latest London bombings, then we should become very concerned. Finally consider that a former head of Mossad, Efraim Halevi appears to have inside knowledge of these London bombings, of which Peter Power is running a parallel ‘mock’ scenario then the links appear to have been strengthened.

From: Andrew S. MacGregor
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2005 11:03 AM
To: JAH
Cc: Adelaide Institute
Subject: Re: Richard Jones

Thank you very much for this. I do appreciate it, and it does raise certain questions. Also please thank Skywalker for the work that he/she put in, it was excellent.

Being an old retired walloper (policeman) one of the first thoughts I had when I read Richard Jones comments about how he continually told people that he had just got off the bus reminded me of the ploy used to backup a lie. Since Richard kept telling everybody he had just got off that bus, I think for the moment we can presume that he was never on the bus. Would you knowingly travel on a bus with a bomb on board? Neither would Richard, thus he was standing around waiting for the bus so that he could then perform his lines.

Rightio, somebody mentioned that there was only one entrance to that particular bus. Does that mean there was only one exit? Richard stated that there were two the rear and the front doors and that 6 persons alighted from the bus at each door. How did he see that, and why bother counting? Was this another ploy to reinforce his first statement of just getting off the bus?

By the way, in regards to the bus driver, be kind to him for the moment. My experiences in relation to major crashes is that the driver naturally experiences a mental block of just what happened the moments immediately prior to the accident. Furthermore, unless a passenger entering the bus was totally different from the other passengers, the driver wouldn't notice. Too many passengers, too many other needs to consider. In most cases of mind-control here in Australia the victim normally has a very low IQ and most have been schizophrenic. However there are too many variables for someone to consider in applying mind-control to one particlular bus driver.

The bus diversion is interesting. Are the bus drivers in communication with their base? Could such orders be sent via communications with the bus driver, or would it have to have been someone on the street, say a uniformed policeman directing traffic?

What is the distance from the tube station where the majority of passengers were picked up to Tavistock Place? Somebody please answer as this is important

Again, thanks to the person who wrote: "Note that in one account attributed to the driver~he was asleep prior to that" I totally disagree with your argument, due to experiences I've had whilst in the Police Farce. The driver would also have been suffering from the shock of the explosion and would have been trying to work out what had happened before coming to the conclusion that his bus had a bomb go off in it. What the driver has said here is perfectly logical in this situation, but you have given us more information that I was seeking. The bus was not near the kerb when the bomb went off. I believe that is important.

I believe that in one of the articles I read that the bus had stopped and the driver was conversing with a parking attendent just prior to the explosion.

Now, do London bus drivers stop their buses in the middle of the street?

Are bus drivers permitted to let passengers off whilst moving or stopped in the middle of the street?

Now the people who are trying to identify Richard Jones will love this one. Dear Richard, in his initial statements stated that he got off the bus because he was being totally annoyed by the young man beside him fidgetting with his rucksack. In other words, Richard broke off his journey to his destination because of the behaviour of the supposed bomber. But in a later interview Richard changed his story stating that he had arrived at his destination. In other words at Tavistock! Somebody outside the loop (somebody not connected with the plan) must have recognised Richard and spoken to him, and so Richard has had to change his story. Furthermore, if the route 30 bus didn't normally drive down this street, then why would Richard Jones have travelled on the bus in the first place? How does Richard normally travel to Tavistock, by car or public transport? Does he have a parking bay at Tavistock? Could somebody check that one out?

It would be lovely if someone did travel to Leeds and see Richard, as I believe he is our man, but I would like to know if Richard is the type of person who would bang on the bus front door and say to the driver, "Come on Jimmy, we want out". That sounds like a rough lower class person to me, and I wonder if that is within Richard's character?

Lastly Richard Jones wrote the manual on the Mental Health Act, and Peter Powers wrote the manual on BC. Coincidence?

Oh, by the way, what my friends and I discovered when we started looking into the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania in 1996 was the number of spooks that were involved. ASIO lost two of their staff inside the Broad Arrow Cafe, and there were at least another 10 ASIO members involved including one who last year received a 6 figure payout for mental injuries received at the massacre. We were even able to identify Martin Bryant's controller, Sgt Michael Charles Dyson, Tasmania Police SOG, and the actual gunman. If you can collect and collate all the information on the London bombings, you will certainly find much more than what the planners ever realised.

Andrew S. MacGregor

----- Original Message -----

From: JAH

To: Adelaide Institute ; ama18870@bigpond.net.au

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:48 AM

Subject: FW: Richard Jones (for Andrew - Adelaide Institute)

------ Forwarded Message
From: Skywalker
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:20:48 +0200
To: JAH <jahpublications@eircom.net>
Subject: Richard Jones (for Andrew - Adelaide Institute)

There's a Richard Jones who is the author of the Mental Health Act Manual. That, would tie in with Tavistock mind-control.

Link http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0421881909/ref=pd_sim_b_dp_5/026-0667314-6217227

Check this http://www.unsaccodicanapa.com/htmlpages/globalcorporatepower.html out.

Quote:

In 1944, Bank of England chief Montagu Norman suddenly quit his banking post in order to start a Tavistock spin-off called the National Association for Mental Health. Norman had been at the apex of the international financial oligarchy.

This is the person, in my opinion, who is currently prime candidate for the real identity of the "witness" Richard Jones.

The author of the Mental Health Act Manual, of the same name, is described as a solicitor.

I believe his real identity is the smoking smoking gun of this case.

LLTF,

Danny.

The ONLY solution is to enforce The Plan against the traitorous Zionist NWO False Flag Op mass-murderers Plan http://i.am/jah/plan.htm & The Way home http://i.am/jah/twh.pdf
Quote:

Other places recognized as major programming sites are Langley Research Center, Los Alamos National Laboratories, Tavistock Institute and areas in or by Mt. Shasta, CA, Lampe, MO and Las Vegas, NV.

...

[11] A marionette is a puppet that is attached to strings and is controlled by the puppet master, hence MONARCH programming is also referred to as the “Marionette Syndrome.” “Imperial Conditioning” is another term used, while some mental health therapists know it as “Conditioned Stimulus Response Sequences.” Project MONARCH could be best described as a form of structured dissociation and occultic integration, in order to compartmentalize the mind into multiple personalities within a systematic framework.

Source http://www.aches-mc.org/monarch.html

Here, getting warmer it seems:-

Quote:

Richard Jones, Consultant, Mental Health and Community Law, Morgan Cole Solicitors; Hon. President, Institute of Mental Health Practitioners;

Source http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PressReleases/PressReleasesNotices/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4100853&chk=LTzRU2

So now we have the solicitor mentioned as a "consultant", which is one of the two descriptions (the other being "Project Manager") of Richard Jones' type of work.

Quote:

Morgan Cole Solicitors

Address:Apex Plaza, Forbury Road

City/Town:Reading

County:Berkshire

Country:UK

Telephone:0870 3664644

Email:employment@morgan-cole.com

Web:http://www.morgan-cole.com/employment

We combine analysis and understanding of complex legal issues with a commercial and flexible approach. The group has four partners, 19 lawyers, 2 of which are barristers and 12 support staff providing specialists in all employment, pensions and benefits issues. We provide advice on:

bla bla bla

Our training services are highly regarded, utilising various methods of learning including lecturing, case studies, role-plays and quizzes, all supported by our HR training software package @ once.

Source http://www.personneltoday.co.uk/Companies/1846/Morgan+Cole+Solicitors.htm

So Morgan Cole solicitors, for whom a Richard Jones works for, and who is the author of the Mental Health Act Manual, and is described as the authority on the Mental Health Act, is based in Berkshire. Interesting. Binfield, Bracknell (where Richard Jones the "witness" lives) is in Berkshire, is it not?

Role-plays too. Oh my.

LLTF,

Danny.

Here's one way of confirming if he is the same guy or not:-

Quote:

Dementia Service Development Centre Events

Description:

Weds 21st September 2005

9:30 to 12:30 at Town Hall, Leeds

Richard Jones, solicitor and social worker, and consultant in Mental Health and Community Care Law at Morgan Cole, Solicitors

Further information from: www.leedsmentalhealth.nhs.uk/andrew-sims/

http://www.dsdcengland.org.uk/events.php

Anyone know a friend in Leeds?

Note the age. How old is the other Mr Jones?

Noted. I've been looking for any clue whatsoever, including the given age, to establish whether he is or isn't the same guy. I have found none so far.

Thing is, if what Richard Jones (the "witness") said about getting off at his destination has some truth to it, then it would tie in with being the President of Mental Health Practioners and going to the BMA Residence.

The President of M.H.P is a solicitor who works in Berkshire, so that's another tie-in.

In my eyes, this is worth following-up on.

Tavistock & "Mental Health" go hand in hand, do they not?

And this Richard Jones is the present "authority" on the subject.

The bus driver, if he was not in on it, was mind-controlled. Because he can't remember anything at all worthwhile about the incident.

We have not heard the driver confirming that the bus was diverted (or commandeered), nor that he ever asked for directions. All this has come from other sources, not the driver himself. The driver has not confirmed that Richard Jones ever got on the bus nor that the person Richard Jones described as the "bomber" got on the bus. Nor even where the bus was heading in the first place and why it ended up outside the original Tavistock Clinic, the British Medical Association Residence and Fortress GB's (biometric solutions people responsible for smart-card applications for London Underground) headquarters. All right next to one another in that Square. Bear in mind the only entrance to that bus was by the front so the driver would have to have seen all the passengers that boarded it.

For all we know, he could have been drugged (or hypnotised or whatever) when the bus was commandeered, and then set walking around the area when the explosion occurred.

Note that in one account attributed to the driver, he(?) says that he thought he had hit a kerb and burst a tyre when the blast happened. That doesn't sound like a person totally in control does it? If not, he would have known the bus he was driving was nowhere near the kerb. I believe it was at that moment he "woke up" from his induced trance and is why he immediately thought it was a kerb he had hit (because for all intents and purposes he was ASLEEP prior to that).

------ End of Forwarded Message

2. Will the Italians bend to Jewish pressure?

From: debunks
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2005 9:07 AM
To: Adelaide Institute
Subject: Italian Rabbi demands crucifix be outlawed

Italian Jews’ Crucifix Stand

By Daniel Mosseri in Rome
Updated: 23/Aug/2005 17:13

The leader of the Italian Jewish community has called for public displays of crucifixes to be outlawed.

In a statement released last week, Amos Luzzatto, Chair of the Italian Union of Jewish Communities (UCEI) spoke out against the symbols as irreflective of all members of society.

"We do respect the Christian people,” Luzzato said. “But a symbol of divine presence in a public school should be recognisable by the citizens of all faiths and it should address them all in an equal manner.
“Now, since every school hosts citizens with different beliefs or no belief at all, we should rather avoid displaying any symbol".

Silence broken

The new declaration broke the August quiet of Italian politics and followed Pope Benedict XVI’s homily on Assumption of the Virgin Day, August 15.

From his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, a village on a hill close to Rome, the Pope said that it is important to continuously display the divine presence "through the cross symbol in privates homes as well as in public buildings".

Since the revision of the 1929 Lateran Pacts of between Italy and the Holy See in 1984, the issue of displaying the crucifix in public buildings such as schools, hospitals and law-courts has been controversial and the subject of much debate.

In 2000, the Court of Cassation ruled as illegitimate the presence of the crucifix in polling stations. And, in its court order four year later, the Italian Constitutional Court, recognised that "The mandatory display of the Crucifix in classrooms would violate the state’s duty of equidistance with respect to different faiths and would contradict the need for a neutral public space".

However, the Court has somehow delegated the local authorities to decide whether to display the cross or not.

Rabbi reacts

Rome’s Chief Rabbi Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, reacted with detachment to the situation. He said: "I think there’s absolutely no new official position of the Church on the issue" he declared.

"It is important that the Pope underlined the religious aspect of the symbol. Benedict XVI is a Pope who talks very openly. In the previous controversies the defence that the crucifix is a cultural symbol is clearly not the case and we must take note of this clarification."

Harvard Hates The White Race?
By Paul Craig Roberts

Is the multicultural campaign really about diversity? Or is it about stamping out Western civilization and the "white race" itself?

College students will tell you that a university education today is a guilt trip for whites. The purpose is to prevent whites from appreciating and absorbing their own culture and to make it difficult for whites to resist the unreasonable demands (quotas, reparations, etc.) from "people of color."

To the questions, "who am I, what am I," the white university graduate answers: "a racist, sexist, homophobic oppressor."

Neither parents, trustees, alumni, nor the public are aware of the anti-white propaganda that masquerades as education. When someone who is aware tells them, they think the person is exaggerating in order to make a point.

Now comes Harvard educated Noel Ignatiev, an academic at Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African-American Research. Dr. Ignatiev is the founder of a journal, Race Traitor, which has as its motto, "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity."

The journal's purpose is "to abolish the white race."

At the least, Dr. Ignatiev intends cultural and psychological genocide for whites. It is unclear whether physical extermination is part of the program. A statement by the editors on the web site says that the new abolitionists "do not limit themselves to socially acceptable means of protest, but reject in advance no means of attaining their goal."

Dr. Ignatiev does not believe his agenda is controversial. He writes:
"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists." Thus does he put whites on notice. If they oppose their abolition, they are "white supremacists."

According to Dr. Ignatiev, "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race."

"Make no mistake about it," he says, "we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as `the white race' is destroyed--not `deconstructed' but destroyed."

What "social construct" will be left? A black one? An Hispanic one? Muslim? Asian? What about Jewish?

The Washington Times reports that Dr. Ignatiev is himself Jewish. If Jewish intellectuals and Israeli political leaders can be believed, Jews have a cultural and racial consciousness. Israel is the Jewish homeland, and Israelis seem determined to keep it that way. Can anyone imagine a gentile at an Israeli university founding a magazine devoted to abolishing the Jewish race?

Yet, Dr. Ignatiev believes that it is self-evident that whites in their homelands should be abolished.

Where did he get this view? His only education was at Harvard where he received two graduate degrees.

Is Harvard embarrassed? No. Dr. Ignatiev [ignatiev@f...] is showcased in the current issue of Harvard Magazine. Getting rid of whiteness is not controversial at Harvard, because it is the business of American universities.

A white skin, you see, is a mark of privilege. It is not the privilege of being admitted to Harvard even though you don't meet the entrance requirements. It is not the privilege of being hired independently of ability because of government enforced racial quotas. It is not the privilege of being able to sue whites and "white companies" if blacks are not proportionately represented in the work force. It is not the privilege of being able to call whites every name in the book and sue if a white replies in kind.

The privilege of being white is that whites can secretly believe they are superior and, as long as they don't mention it, be loyal to the white race.

"The white race is like a private club," says Dr. Ignatiev.

I am sure Dr. Ignatiev is well-informed, but I see no signs of this white loyalty.

3)Despite widespread opposition to quotas, neither "white" political party will act to stop unconstitutional quotas, which have made a mockery of equality under law.

To the contrary, both parties pander to the immigrants.

But Dr. Ignatiev has an idea like Hitler. A race is guilty and must go. The communists said it was a guilty class that had to go.

If you thought genocide was left behind in the 20th century, be apprised that today genocide has a home in the educational system.

---------------------
Paul Craig Roberts is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The
Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are
Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
September 04, 2002