Von Wolfgang Eggert
„I´ll not be surprised if there´s a big, noisy security/terror scare jut pre-referendum that´s best dealt with by the UK being in the EU.“ (Guardian contributor Charlie Skelton, May 31th)
„Let us suppose you are losing an argument. The facts are overwhelmingly against you, and the more people focus on the reality the worse it is for you and your case. Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as “throwing a dead cat on the table, mate”.That is because there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point is that everyone will shout “Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!”; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief. …A referendum! The very word is one, as we all know, that causes the Eurocrats to choke on their Douwe Egberts and spray the room with fragments of hysterical Speculoos biscuit. Mon dieu, dio mio, Gott in Himmel, they cry. Anything but democracy! …That is the beauty of the dead cat manoeuvre. But as any campaign strategist will tell you, it won’t work for long.“ (Boris Johnson on the Italian plea to have an Anti-Euro-Referendum, own arcticle in The Telegraph, March 3rd, 2013)
Charts to be remembered:
In forensics/criminalistics we have to deal with the following terms:
- on the whole: proofs/evidence, plausibility
- on side of the circumstances, proofs and witnesses: credibility, plausibility
- on side of the suspect: motive/benefit/advantage, intention/plan, opportunity
- and a closer look to the crime scene, deed/execution is needed.
let´s apply that in regard to „the murder of Jo Cox“:
1. the timing
a planned right wing murder against a „remain“ member of parliament some days ahead of the election day -and brexiteers leading the polls- is too much coincidence to be coincidental. any investigator would be alarmed on this point.
- convenience: high on side of the remain campaign, zero on the opposite
- plausibility of the official version: zero
2. the motive- who had to gain?
the „offender“ is being described as a right winger. rightwingers are pro-brexit. there is no motive to help the remainersjust when they were about too be losing their campaign. the deed accomplished exactly this. the advantge/benifit is fully on side of the remain-campaign
- convenience: high on side of the remain campaign, zero on the opposite
- plausibility of the official version: zero
3. the murder weapon
it is said, that mair had manifactured the gun on himself. why did´nt he just obtain a „good one“ trough his half-brother, who had a well established criminal vita?
- plausibility of the official version: low
- proofs/witnesses that he built his gun: none
4. the „opportunity“: place and time
library – how could the „offender“ have known that cox was there, in this remote street? how could he have known the date and the exact time?
- plausibility of the official version: low
5. the deed/execution: what really did happen?
there are witness reports, saying that- before the deadly shots – there had been a quarrel between the detained and someone else, in which cox intervened. is this true? and if yes, does´nt this „kill“ the whole „intended murder“ story?
- witness/es : existing. the witness hichem ben-bbdallah tells swedish aftonbladet-tv that the suspected killer did not act alone. he seemed to have some military training and acted professional.
6. did the detained person shout out his motive („britain first“)?
why should an offender scream his motive during the incident instead of writing a well established political claim of responsibility being sent to the media or to his „neonazi friends“ in advance? he could even have done this anonymously, without naming his victim, if fearing that the attack would fail in the end.
- plausibility: low
- convenience that there is no such letter: high on side of „others“
- benefit for the shouting: very high on the side of the remain camp, zero on part of the brexiteers
The mainstream media quoted „as proof“ a local shophkeeper „being an eye witness of the murder“. but this source had not been on the scene, when the „deed“ was happening. the „independent“ cites aamir tahir, as follows :
„the lady I work with heard two loud bangs but I wasn’t there, I was stuck in traffic at the time. i wish I was there because I would have tried to stop him. the whole street thinks it was me but it wasn’t. apparently the guy who did it shouted ‚britain first‘ and if I had been there I would have tackled him.“
So the shouting of the words “ britain first“ was nothing more than a rumor, that was spread by someone else. mr tahir, who was a first hand witness to the arrest clearly feels he has spoken to enough journalists and has placed a notice up in his drycleaners shop clarifying exactly what happened. Spotted by an LBC reporter, the message in the landerette’s window says:
“please note, i did not tackle the gunman. and no one shouted britain first at any time.”
A second witness, hichem ben abdallah, owner of the „azzurro café“, was wideley „quoted“ as well by the msm, that he had heard the war cry „britain first“ – which too is untrue.
Ben abdallah has told breitbard-media that he “did not” hear this. and made the same statement („never heard that“) in front of cameras.
The guardian cut that question and answer from their edit of this same interview.
Subsequetly member of parliament and remain campainer Maria Eagle, one of the most prominent people to make the claim that there had been shouts saying „britain first“, deleted her tweet about it.
in the meantime two witnesses had been found, who – this is new – claim by themselves, that they´ve heard the shouting of „britain first“. as bloomberg reports, clarke rothwell who runs a cafe near the murder scene said he had seen a man shoot and then stab jo cox.
“the words I heard him say was ‘britain first’ or ‘put britain first’,”
rothwell said in a BBC television interview.
“he shouted it at least twice.”
Now someone has found the following on the ´digitalspy´ forum, postet by ´cheesy_pasty´ cheesy_pasty, forum member, join date: jun 2007, location: lincolnshire, posts: 3,922 call it what you will… but mr clarke rothwell of witness fame is actually a on a list of members of the british national party as sourced from wikileaks. here is the relevant record from the wikileaks web site on ´clarke rothwell´ of birstall in west yorkshire: mr clarke rothwell, 12 western avenue, birstall, batley, west yorkshire, WF17 0PF, 01924 470982, [email protected]
Keep in mind, that bnp and britain first are fierce enemies. britain first stood candidates for the 2014 european elections in wales and scotland; it encouraged english supporters, in the absence of a britain first candidate, to instead vote for the english democrats or the UK independence party (UKIP), while warning against voting for the bnp. keep in mind, too, that the right wing extremist scene is heavily infiltratet by state intelligence.
Last and least latebloomer is said to be 38-year-old graeme howard, „who lives in nearby bond street“. the guardian cites:
“i heard the shot and i ran outside and saw some ladies from the cafe running out with towels.”
“there was loads of screaming and shouting and the police officers showed up.“
“he was shouting ‘britain first’ when he was doing it and being arrested.“
Now doesn’t the liveleak video contradict bnp-rothwells´and howards saying, that the detained person aggressively shoutet „britain first“ when he was arrested? in fact it seems that the „offender“ was very calm.
7. how can it be, that jo cox got shot in her head one or two times and even being able to move or communicate afterwards?
witness ben abdallah told the media that jo cox was sitting upright sitting at a wall after the attack, „a friend“ even said tat she was talking to her.
- plausibility : extremey low in case that she was shot in the head and stabbed afterwards
8. shots and stabbings must produce enormous amounts of blood. have there any pictures been published showing blood on the street?
in fact there are none available
- plausibility: zero
9. why did´nt the „offender“ shoot at the policemen? the liveleak-video indicates that they had been unarmed. why so? why did´nt they wait for the swat-team to arrive before the arrest?
- plausibility for access by unarmed police on a weaponized killer: zero
- proof: see liveleak-video
10. why did the detained wait until being arrested?
why did the „offener“ – if he was one – not flee the scene after his deed? he had enough time before the police arrived at the scene (15 minutes).
- plausibility: zero
- convenience (arresting the man): high on side of the remain campaign, zero on the opposite
Brexit murder: 13 dark points hint to a staged intel-event
1. the inside information
⦁ how could the „offender“ have known that cox was there, in this remote street? how could he have known the date and the exact time?
2. the staged quarrel
⦁ witness hichem ben-bbdallah tells swedish aftonbladet-tv that the suspected killer did not act alone. he seemed to have some military training and acted professional.
3. the gun, that did´nt shoot so well
- the official version is, that jo cox was shot three times, once in her head, with an antique gun. now antique guns only shoot once! when this became apparent, reports changed to a sawed-off shotgun – but even they only shoot two times. afterwards the police declined to give any further information on the arming of the „offender“.
- there even is no physical evidence by picture or film, that the „offender“ had been armed at all. there is at least one witness, who says that „noone had heard any shots“.
(3:55) in fact there is no gun visible in the liveleakvideo which features the arrest of the „offender“ and the pictures taken by the press at the „crime scene“ only show two ladies shoes.
4. the „clean“ butchery
- although it is being claimed, that jo cox had been killed so brutally that the word butchery suggests itself, the press could´nt show any puddle of blood that would allude to such an incident. you can be sure, that journalists would have filmed it, if it had been there – the media are dead keen on catchy or dramatic pictures.
- although it is being claimed, that the „offender“ had stabbed jo cox with a foot long knife the liveleak-video shows no blood on him. which is devoid of any logic.
5. the lack of „live“ pictures
- today major cities have cctv surveillance in nearly any street, being deployed by the government of by private shops. yet, there are no such film sequences available, showing the attack on jo cox.
- for handys are widespread nowadays, events – even the most insignificant ones – are being filmed by ordinary people. the killing of a person is a major event. but noone took pictures. there is only one 40second-long-film, that made it to liveleak. and even here we have to ask: why did the producer not try to catch more footage, f.ex. the arrival of the ambulance? he did not try to come nearer to the scene. why?
6. the unreliable or contradicting testimonies
- a lot of testimonies being „cited“ by the mainstream media seem unreliable, contradicting or even simly unlogical. for the latter the daily mail on june 17th named the key „witness“ clarke rothwell – a right extremist by profession -, who „said“:
„I became aware it was a gun, I turned around to look what the noise was.“
- the daily mail, again, presented a filmed interview with a „witness“, who said he had heard that the offender had cried „jesus christ is born“. not only this is an untrue statement, he too had the time and even the day wrong! „claimed witnesses“ not being shown:
- although „other witnesses“ are being cited, that people were „fleeing“ the scene, „running away“, clarke rothwell claims there were women, who were running for help „towards jo cox“, with towels in their hands. it seems, that these helpers have never been interviewed on camera.
- the mainstrem media is claiming, that the „offender“ shot into „a crowd“ of „helpful bystanders“ (from which noone was taking cam-pics). again, it seems that these „first hand witnesses“ have no real identity, fact is, that they have not been interviewed on camera by the media. „it is said“ that out of this „crowd“ one man was stabbed by the „offender“. his „identity“ may have been stolen
- there are reports, that jo cox was accompanied by a friend, when she allegedly visited the library. this friend had been cited with a catchy and very impressive storyboard but nevertheless has not been filmed live while being interviewed. here, like with some other „witnesses“, one can hardly repress the suspicion that these people only have a virtual reality, following the script that the american intel-false-flag-terror-plan „operation northwoods“ had in mind.. if the press will present those people, it is up to the alternative media to check their personal background.
7. the „invisible victim“
- pictures of victimized celebrities are high-paid by the media. anyone, who had taken such a foto would have made a furtune. so, why don´t we have just one single foto of jo cox being „shot and stabbed“?
- as said it is claimed by clare rothwell that there had been women with towels at the scene, and according to the mainstream media, there was a „crowd“ of peope, who were standing by. why did noone of them take a foto/film of the ambulance, when it must have picked up jo cox? had there been one?
- if there ever had been an ambulance picking up anybody, to which hospital had the „victims“ been brought to? who was the emergency staff, that did this? have we been given any names and are there any on-camera interviews?
- who treated jo cox in the hospital? are there on camera-interviews with the doctor and his team?
- for obvious reasons it is strictly forbidden to take fotos of patients against their will by hospital employees. nevertheless keep in mind that just one picture of jo cox would have been paid with hundred thousands of british pounds by papers like the sun. certainly enough money to get swoon over. but noone was. why?
- the keystone of a criminal case is the corpse, the body of a victim. if there is none there is no case at all. so where is the body? who ever had investigated it? is there any coroner – and what is his vita?
8. the most cooperative „offender“
- why did the „offener“ – if he had been one – not flee the scene after his deed? he had enough time before the police arrived at the scene (15 minutes). what he did instead was: he waited until being arrested. there ist zero logic behind this behavior.
- why did´nt the „offender“ shoot at the two policemen, who arrested him? the liveleak-video indicates that they had been unarmed. why so? why did´nt they wait for the swat-team to arrive? the probabilty of an access by unarmed police against a weaponized killer is null. unless they knew the man was an actor; his words, when they approached, feed this thesis: he said „it´s me“!
- the arrest pictures breaks police protocol by not having blue lights on during the arrest which was an emergency. therefor the blue lights should have been on and were not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0ivR-i1hTU. this is an indication, that it was no policemen but mi5 people who did the arrest.
- the fact, that the swat team (not less than 7 cars) arrived all in one, at the same time, underlines that we witness a staged incident.
- the behavior of the armed cops does it either. one had to assume, that this team would hurry to aid the arrest, asking for indications if there were other offenders around, safeguarding the scene. but nothing of all this happened. the swat team came in and hung around, relaxed. as if they already knew the whole plot.
9. the protection of the „offender“
- not only does „the offender“ act cooperatively – the police does the same towards the arrested: while jo cox must be dying the same minutes some feet away the first action we see by the cops is, that they bandage the head of their detainee. a medical reason for this is not visible. the patched up person is less indentifiable now. was this the aim behind the special treatment?
- it seems so, because the footage of his face, which the mainstream press published by using the liveleak-video, was blurred intentionally. victim protection is a normal procedure. so is the shielding of an officer on duty. protecting a perpetrator is extraordinary.
- the secret mongering went on, when „the offender“ was brought to court in a police-van that had darkened and curtain covered windows. this happened two days after the arrest, when all the media had been already been wallpapered with pin-sharp fotos and personal background stories of this or – making up a distinction seems essential at this point – one thomas mair, who was branded being „the offender“.
- in the court no photographing was allowed, only drawings were handed out to the journalists.
- asked by the judge about details on his person, „mairs“ – widely published – answer was „my name is death to the traitors, freedom for britain“. the „offender“ refused to reveal his real name, his adress or his birth date.
the question what all this fuss is about needs no comment. the secretiveness by the police and the detainee about his identity, which the press had already exposed in family album quality, only makes sense, when the detainee is not the same person as the „thomas mair“ one had declared open season on.
indeed the man who had been arrested and taken to the court appears to be older than the one, whose pictures had been shown in the media. the latter was 52 years of age (46 in 2010 in the picture above), reportedly. exchange on sky news: [begins at 3:24] interviewer kay burley: „i just wondered if you could maybe tell us anything more…about the person that looks to have carried out this, this attack“ eyewitness: „the person it looks like is, he’s 60 perhaps, maybe 65, 70, something like that …“ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnx-Oj3WVQ8&feature=youtu.be
to up the antes, media-darling tom mair is skinny, the arrested is stout. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0ivR-i1hTU
10. the well prepared vita
anyway it seems unlikely how quick the media came out with informations about the man we must eye being a patsy. personal photographs and a vita were available within hours, almost as if they were already on hand to be circulated, as if this „thomas mair“ had been prepared for in advance. just like lee harvey oswald being photographed with a rifle, being sent off to russia, and then cuba in the period before the assassination. this is in fact a typical patsy preparation, typical for the intel-community, when it prepares a covert operation, which is to be blamed on someone else.
within hours, to underline this, the general public was fed with pictures of the alleged „killer“, posing for a photo in an innocuous looking camouflage jacket. correspondingly it was „proven“ by two „valid sources“, that the man once had a subscription to far right groups.
both the quickness and origin of this information flow must arouse suspicion.
⦁ the independent newspaper reported that thomas mair was a subscriber to the springbok cyber newsletter – an online magazine of the springbok club which opposed the ANC in south africa. the claim rests on an entry on the springbok blog, „dated“ January 2006. the entry reads as follows: thomas mair, from batley in yorkshire, was one of the earliest subscribers and supporters of „S.A.Patriot“. recent correspondence sent to him has been returned to us, however, as he has evidently moved from his last known address in the fieldhead estate district of the town. If anyone knows of his new address then we would be very grateful to learn the details. http://springbokcybernewsletter.blogspot.de/2006_01_01_archive.html http://www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/249005-labour-mp-shot-uk-39.html objection no. 1 : why should an extremist media outlet expose the identity of its subscribers – let alone what its regular clientele thinks about this. it endangeres the base of customers. objection no.2 : „online-subscriptions“ or communications may easily be faked by third parties. online-entries can be modfied retroactively. objection no. 3 : thomas mair, the original one, or the one who had been seemingly original, was described by „neighbours“ as having a mixed-raced half brother, whom he loved. how does this add up?
⦁ equally within hours, in the US, the „anti-fascist“ southern poverty law center (SPLC) published receipts that appeared to show mair bought, among other books, a manual on how to make a homemade pistol from the us-based neonazi organization „national alliance“. the receipts (all between 1999 and 2003) show mair spent more than $620 (£436) on literature from the group, which advocates the creation of an all-white homeland. heidi beirich, the leader of the SPLC’s intelligence project, said the group had obtained transaction records from members of the national alliance. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/17/jo-cox-suspect-thomas-mair-bought-gun-manuals-from-us-neo-nazis-group-claims#img-3 now let´s catch a breath: 1. an anti-fascist organization is given the records of a fascist organization by members of this organization. 2. it is a really big company, distributing its „literature“ worldwide – so the books being ordered must go into ten thousands; besides the leaked documents are handwritten receipts, to go through them and to find „the right guy“ must cost days, to say the least. but they find it in hours. 3. although his beloved half brother had been in jail half of his life and therefor would have been the ideal supplier for a modern gun „thomas mair“ orders a book „how to build one on your own“ and 4. does not use“ his knowledge for 15 years, until 5 days before the brexit vote, voila, he has his „gun“ ready. 5. with his homemad gun – which shoot once – he fires three time. a likely story!
if mair had been „chosen“ as being a patsy it was´nt the worst choice of all: he had been mentally ill and was under medical treatment. and he was a loner, living on his own for dozens of years – so nobody really could say, what he was doing when he closed the doors behind him. all this what neighbours now say – that he was „the ideal neighbour“, that he helped others in their garden, that they thought he even „could´nt kill a fly“ – all this can easily be made forget by the mi5, just by presenting more „evidence“ regarding a „shady past“ of the loner. what they can not bring into line is the outer appearance: the differences between the shy, lean and boyish thomas mair and the stout, aggressive retiree who has been detained, are far to obvious. here we find the explanation for all the mumbo jumbo at the crime scene and around the court: the immediate taping of the agents head, the blurring of his face by the media, blocking him from cameras in the police car or in court and so on.
for this reason he actually should be taken off the game. leaving the scene to be never-seen-again along the lines of osama bin ladens last stage performance is a smart move, that will be reflected about. if the arrested is having your sympathy, then don´t worry. there could be a life after „death“ for this actor. his alter ego, the real thomas mair, was less lucky: as shown, there is evidence that his identity had been misused by the intel-community without his knowledge, which is nothing unusual (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETF0_SOXcg, 1.07.25ff). and even more coherences point to the fact, that he had not been on the scene, when jo cox disappeared in thin air. the character he had been given to was perfect to discredit brexit. and now this role has to be played until the end, as far as mairs life is concerned even beyond. denial was never part of the script. so he had to quit the boards, before the spotlight was set on him. like it was the case with other performers in intel-stagings before, baddies (9/11) and innocents (7/7) alike. the show will go on.
the following i found on the internet. enjoy
11. the public relations
This ROSS PARRY public relations company is a curious entry.
Ross Parry Agency has a different approach to public relations. We can bring your message to a wider audience without it being a moaning press release. If you’re still not convinced read the testimonial below:
Pig in Boots
Emma Cantrill from Intelligent Profile says: „We asked Ross Parry Agency to help raise the profile of Debbie and Andrew Keeble’s sausage manufacturing business and to highlight their ongoing lobbying work to pay a fairer price for British Pork. While we knew that that it would create interest within the local media, we wanted a national story to really kick the campaign off.
Citizens are often compared to swine/pigs/etc. by both Zionist types and politicos. It seems to be a kind of inside joke among would-be elites. Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, here. Pigs in boots is surely legit, and maybe they are just especially proud of that client, which is why it’s the only testimonial on the deceptively sparse site?
Why do I mention Ross Parry? Because this PR firm — yes, that essentially means propaganda partner — is credited with this crappy image of the alleged killer Tommy Mair — even conveniently wearing a white cap as mentioned in the article:
Maybe I am just not familiar with the British flavo(u)r of propaganda, but is it normal for news to need aid from PR companies? Isn’t Reuters or Associated Press everywhere enough already?
no, they are not. pr-agencies are the better choice if the time has come to sharpen images – those of victims and, even more important, through this lense, the enemy image. grief, may it be for real or staged, is the perfect door opener for solidarity. and solidarity can be channeled in any direction, even towards one, which the masses normally would oppose. the promoted incident or image is setting the agenda.
a good example for effectiveness in staged-terror-lobbying is the pr agency hill & knowlton and the so called nayirah testimony. (the following are extracts from wikipedia)
The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H.W. Bush in their agenda to declare war on Iraq.
In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah (who had claimed to be a hospital nurse, W.E.) was in fact the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by American Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Hill & Knowlton conducted a study to determine the best strategy that would influence public opinion and win support for strong action. The study found that an emphasis on atrocities, particularly the incubator story, was the most effective. It was reported that H&K „provided witnesses, wrote testimony, and coached the witnesses for effectiveness.“ (Sriramesh, Krishnamurthy, The global public relations handbook: theory, research, and practice. Taylor & Francis, January 10, 2009. p. 864)
Nayirah’s testimony was widely publicized. Hill & Knowlton, which had filmed the hearing, sent out a video news release to Medialink, a firm which served about 700 television stations in the United States. That night, portions of the testimony aired on ABC’s Nightline and NBC Nightly News reaching an estimated audience between 35 and 53 million Americans. Seven senators cited Nayirah’s testimony in their speeches backing the use of force. President George Bush repeated the story at least ten times in the following weeks. Her account of the atrocities helped to stir American opinion in favor of participation in the Gulf War.
12. the family
nayirah´s duty was to camouflage a hidden agenda by acting in a tragically „story“ – cold calculated „arguments“ were replaced with grief coming from the heart, a grief that was aimed to be (and was) shared by others, whose duty it now was to make a statement and get vocal.
when the cox family had its public appearance after the „brutal murder“, jo´s sister, reading from a script, said „the past 48 hours people have not been silent – they have been vocal and passionate and they´ve spoken from the heart with genuine emotion and no hidden agendas“. if you ask whether there is parallelism to 1990 the answer is yes.
a tragic situation, very personal, here babies, which could have been yours, there the sister or child, which could have been yours as well. both snatched from their lifes. by evildoers, who stand for more than just themselves but for an idea, let´s name it racist nationalism, here and there. the brexit aim to make britain great again equals iraqs crusade in its old territory kuwait. thomas mair is saddam. it is our duty as a civilized society to confront saddam, in us, around us. this is the message being told. it was used by the remainers and the media.
but now there is a difference in between both settings. whereas nayirahs stage presence in the iraq case was heart-capturing, in jo cox´s case things are different. there certainly was a script behind the official statement given by the family, the sister is reading from it – but if the family had been coached before to make „their tragic loss“ tangible for a whole nation, then this operation went down the drain.
watch for yourself:
imagine you had lost a daughter or sibling only 48 hours prior. would you be able to confront any public, let alone, give an un-emotional speech („i had to tidentify… joe cox, mp“) about the life of the aforementioned without shedding a single tear or breaking down in grief for a lost one? 5 minutes, not one single tear from any of them. the mother looks happy. the sister and both dark haired girls in the rear obviously seem to suppress the giggles bigtime. the one with the red blazer (described being a sister, too) is laughing lustily at the very beginning, then biting her lip to hide her smirk when she realised the camera’s were rolling?
sad people? really? no hidden agenda? no political credit regarding brexit?
well, at least there had been one good „credit“ after all: £500,000 were raised on the first day of the gofundme ´charity´ campaign hope not hate.
but, er, where was the husband on this special day, when the family joined in front of the cameras?
13. the husband
brendan cox, who is said being urged by political friends“ to stand as an MP in jo´s seat of batley stayed at home, „watching the children“, as sister kim said. interesting enough, charity and promoting grief is his job. or has been. in september 2015, brendan left charity company save the children -where he served as a chief strategist – after various women’s complaints of ‚inappropriate behaviour‘. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298572/New-charity-scandal-Save-Children-executive-quits-women-s-complaints-inappropriate-behaviour.html . not to rule out that jo´s family did´nt want him on scene for this reason.
instead he was doing public relations, too. within 2 hours of his wife’s „brutal murder“, jo’s husband was uploading pics to social media and giving interviews left right and centre. as always his words were well chosen, he was doing a good job. BBC wrote that: “mrs cox’s husband brendan said she would want people ‘to unite to fight against the hatred that killed her’.” his wife’s death marked the “beginning of a new chapter in our lives”, accordng to CNN.
is that how a normal husband behaves the day his beloved wife has died? her body was still warm and he is on social media and giving statements to the press… would´nt anyone else be in shock and disbelief, inconsolable, breaking the news to his children?
they may have divorced when he lost his job in save the childrenfollowing – his „inappropriate behaviour“ against women mostly means „sexual harassement“, hard to take for a wife. even more hard for a mother, although there are no pictures showing her with „her children“ and -after all circumstances of her disappearance, after watching the family „statement“ – one even has to doubt her vita on this point.
what remains as safe, proven fact, is that jo cox had been into high politics, as is her husband. for sure in this field both were closely interwined. brendan once worked as senior adviser to former prime minister gordon brown. while jo advised browns wife and worked on obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign before she became MP for batley and spen.“ http://news.sky.com/story/1713702/obama-makes-phone-call-to-jo-coxs-husband (it is said that the us president called brendon cox during the last days.) their agenda was coincident, even the hidden one is in one line.
save the children has been described as a mi6/cia-front organization. in early september 2012, pakistan ordered foreigners working for save the children to leave pakistan. pakistan stated that the organization was being used by western spies. a doctor accused of assisting the CIA claimed that save the children had introduced him to US intelligence officers. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/05/pakistan-voluntarysector this is the organization, which brendan worked for as chief strategist, before his scandal. another one of his positions: executive director of crisis action, an organization with self-proclaimed „purpose of preventing armed conflict around the world“. “we are a catalyst and convenor of joint action whose work behind the scenes enables coalitions to work quickly and effectively,” its website reads. https://crisisaction.org “as a coordinating body we seek no public profile or media spotlight; it is the voice of the coalition that matters.” almost the same words could be found on the website for the mi6. Praag.org claims crisis action is funded by intel-buddy george soros, whose „personal philantropy“, i.e. his funding, brendan praises in his strategy paper “campaigning for international justice” (2011) https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/Campaigning_for_International_Justice_Brendan_Cox_May_2011.pdf
today, with her body barely cold, brendan is tweeting out a go fund me link to his wife’s ‘favourite causes’ and one of those is the white helmets. the white helmets is not a charity, it is the military propaganda arm of the allies attempt at regime change by destabilising syria – and this is exactly what is causing the refugee component of europe’s migrant crisis in the first place https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVVAmJ-NVN4 white helmets is well-funded by george soros’s organisations, the UK, the US and the syrian opposition party in its work, which is mainly with the rebel group jabat al-nusra, the infamous al-qaeda affiliate. the white helmets are represented pr-wise by the new york public relations firm purpose whose co-founder jeremy heimans also helped to create avaaz. again operating from new york, again sponsored by george soros, avaaz is a global “pro-democracy” lobby group which has been accused of furthering the US/EU agenda in the middle east and elsewhere.
in 2014 purpose created a campaign to rally international support for the syrian “humanitarian intervention.” a euphemism for armed aggression by the US and NATO in places like libya, this syrian campaign in 2012 was backed by avaaz, which by purpose in turn set up communications support for the so-called syrian resistance. in 2012, avaaz was allegedly implicated in sponsoring fabricated videos of civilian massacres, to back deeper foreign intervention in syria.
it is also avaaz that it encouraging, on social media, a sort of hands-around-the-world show of sympathy for jo cox today. brendans pro soros-stance may be a clue for this. his lobbying for the white helmets is it too. and surely his wife´s commitment to topple assad. in october 2015 anyone could read in length on jo cox´s claim, that british military forces should be used to ´achieve´ an ´ethical´ solution in syria. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/british-forces-ethical-solution-syria-humanitarian-crisis aid for the weak goes hand in hand with – strength. behind the mask of „help“ we see the ugly face of british-european geopolitics. a „better world“ being part of the nwo-agenda.
jo cox studied at the london school of economics, that has been a recruiting ground for spies. she once worked for oxfam. oxfam, like several other charities, has been accused of being a front for MI6. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_south_india_groups.html it is a sphere, where operatives always have more than one passport und sometimes more than one life.
jo cox´s family were helding their strange „last farewell“ in front of a memorial, erected in rememberance of the british theologian and chemist joseph priestley. priestley combined exploration of the nature of matter with scriptural study to argue for the unity of body and spirit, insisting on the biblical basis for a belief in physical resurrection.
do you believe in resurrection? i do. at least in the case of jo cox. she will – i´m sure about this – live on.
Wolfgang Eggert studied History and Politics at universities in Berlin and Munichis. He works as a freelance journalist and is the author of nine books on themes as terrorism, state intellegence, shadow governments, deep politics, end time networks.
On „First Manhattan, then Berlin“, Emmy Prize winner Saul Landau, professor at the California State Polytechnic University writes: Anyone who wants to know how extreme fundamentalism overlaps with current US policy should read this book.
On „MH370″ US-TV-Expert and United airlines Pilot captain Russ Aimer comments.“A very interesting and plausible theory.Wolfgang Eggert flys the ill fated 777 into an intriguing dark world that exists and controlled by very ugly men. We know these ruthless creatures have done many ugly things before!“ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UrMKVPQM7E