David Shayler Former MI-5 Officer Who Exposed the Gadaffi Assassination Plot and Delayed Gadaffi's Murder

shaylerDavid Shayler

Recent Widespread Deaths of Whistleblowers and Threats by QANON 





David Shayler was back on Twitter but has gone silent again



David Shayler Banned from Twitter After Years of Trying to Silence Him 

David Shayler Told JAR2 Twitter Ban Due to His New Book: LAW 






Annie Machon Banned from UN for Questioning the 911 MOSSAD/CIA False Flag Event 


Ukraine Coup D'état by CIA Trying to Start WWIII - Part of Banned Interview

4 March, 2014 23:55  Download audio file

сирия химическое оружие противогаз

сирия Дарайя пригород Дамаск Военнослужащие сирийской армии сирия армия Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zidan holds up copies of foreign newspapers reporting the kidnapping of Abu Anas al-Libi by US special forces

Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zidan holds up copies of foreign newspapers reporting the kidnapping of Abu Anas al-Libi by US special forces. Unfortunately this last interview caused a huge uproar amongst all of the ZIonists and NWO supporters at the media outlet and they refused to do the transcription for the remaining parts. David's frank discussion of the Protocals of the Learned Elders of Zion did not go over with the Khazari mafia media controllers. If there is anyone out there who would like to do a transcript the audio is very good and deals with the Elders of Zion and the Zionist conspiracy in Ukraine.

What has occurred in Ukraine was not a popular revolution, it was a carefully orchestrated coup d’état. The "demonstrators" with the metal barricades, bullet proof vest, army helmets, weapons, shield and masks were very well organized and trained. The whole affair was orchestrated by the West in an attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO and split Russia. Mr. David Shayler a former MI5 officer spoke to the Voice of Russia on the activities of the intelligence services and on what the forces behind the scenes are doing. He says President Putin is merely protecting his country and his people and is in a strong position.

Hello this is John Robles your listening to an interview with Mr. David Shayler, he’s a former MI-5 officer, turned whistleblower and truth campaigner. This is part 1 of a longer interview.

Robles: Hello David how are you this evening?

Shayler: Hello John I am fine. Thanks for having me on the show again.

Robles: Thanks for agreeing to speak to us. It is a very difficult time for Russia, for Ukraine, very strained relations. Something is getting lost in the media coverage in the West and I’ve seen a lot of reports from the West it is completely skewed. What is being lost, I think, is the fact that 80% or more of the Ukrainian population are Russian-speaking or Russian nationals and their rights are being obliterated. Can you comment on what you know about, since you are former intelligence officer, on subversive operations by NATO and the West in Ukraine? What do you think their objective is?

Shayler: When I first saw this it was absolutely clear to me that this was not a popular revolution. Immediately you had people turning up with metal barricades, they were very organized, they were in masks and so on. Now I would say if I was pissed off with my government, now I’m going to demonstrate, where would I get a metal barricade from?

So, clearly these people are paid mercenaries and this revolution was nothing to do with the will of the people. As you say, most of the people in the Ukraine either speak Russian or have relations in Russia and so on. This was something that’s been orchestrated by the west, they’ve been trying to start the Third World War, and we saw that last year in Syria. It failed then, but they are obviously now trying to open another front to try and cause that war.

And what’s a bit curious in this country has been the propaganda for both sides, on the one hand we’ve been told on certain newspapers, this is Putin trying to build an empire, and you’ve only got to look at the maps of bases that go around Iran, US bases, to see what empire building looks like. And obviously, I don’t believe Vladimir Putin is trying to build an empire at all, I think he is trying to protect his own country.

And on the other hand, we’ve had people then trying to say that Putin is extremely, in a very weak position. No, he is not in a weak position, because he supplies gas to Europe basically. Now people are trying to say “Oh he couldn’t turn the gas off, it’s got to be a bad news for him”, but if he turned that gas off, Europe would be ruined in about 3 or 4 days.

So, Putin once again is in a very strong position, he played his hand very, very well in Syria, and won enormous admiration in the west, he has won enormous admiration in the west for setting up Russia Today, which is the fastest growing English news channel, and the one that we all log on to, we don’t trust the BBC anymore, we don’t trust our mainstream media in this country.

So, the idea that it is some kind of Russian operation to try and take over the world, it is just absolutely nonsense, it belongs to the old rhetoric of the Cold War, and as we saw then most of that stuff in that period of the Cold War, was that the American intelligence inventing things about the Soviet Union to try and get more funding, and to get more intelligence officers and so on.

And when the Soviet Union collapsed - they didn’t predict that - and it was quite obvious the Soviets weren’t trying to take over the world in the way that they suggested. So, this whole thing, from the beginning to the end, is a total nonsense of the western coverage.

It is uncritical of people like John Kerry, when he says “unacceptable for Russian troops to go into the Crimea”. I mean, we’ve got troops in Afghanistan still, we had huge invasions of Iraq, we’ve had illegal activity in Libya, in a country that is now, again, being taken over by Islamic extremists.

So, people in this country make comments, but they don’t seem to be able to see that the west is doing these things far worse than any other country. But there is a good reason why this is happening, because the economy of the west is about to collapse. There have been articles suggesting that the spring of this year will be when we start to see the collapse, somebody has even named the date of March 4th 2014, which is actually tomorrow, because they’ve got to a point now where they can’t go either way, they can’t put interest rates any lower, and they can’t print any more money without devaluing the currency.

So, they’ve got to do one or the other, and either of them are going to lead to massive chaos on the streets. People are going to start losing their homes, they are not going to be able to afford food, and that is that. So that’s why we are seeing all this propaganda in the western media. It is just that – it is propaganda. This was a textbook revolution stoked up by western intelligence services basically.

Robles: The coverage now, if you could. You are in the UK, you are bombarded with this propaganda, they are putting out, and I’ve had people say it is so egregious, it seems like pre-invasion or pre-war propaganda, I mean threats, and these are repeated. First it was Obama saying there is going to be a price to pay etc, characterizations I’ve heard of in the western media that there are these innocent little Ukrainian soldiers being surrounded by this huge Russian invasion force. Actually in Crimea all of the military, they switched sides, they declared the generals, the commanders, they all said the government in Kiev is illegitimate, they are now under the command of the Governor of Crimea.

Shayler: In the west they have reported that these Ukrainian generals who have refused to play ball, are going to be charged with treason. But doing this is not treason, as you say, this was a democratically elected government. But what we saw over the last few days, in weeks, and everything in Kiev, I say has been a violent insurrection, there have been lots and lots of people killed.

Now could you imagine if that had been the streets of London and we had been protesting, and taking police kidnap, and shooting people? The western media would not be reporting that as a popular revolution, they would be reporting that as an armed insurrection, which is what it is.

Robles: It was even worse than that David, they were actually, they were killing police officers who were unarmed. They were shooting them in the head, snipers shooting them in the head. There was like 89 police officers, with either … out of all of them were either killed or taken to hospital. They had bullet wounds to their head or the neck.

Shayler: Yes, no, this is what we are seeing; it is a bit like a few years ago with Georgia as well. The western media was full of how the Russians were invading Georgia, and then Putin sent over Gorbachev because he had got quite a profile in the west, to actually come and tell western governments that this was all a load of rubbish. If it hadn’t been for intervention of Gorbachev, whom they trusted, that could have provoked a war.

And as I say, the problem is, the people … the powers that that be are in absolutely desperate situation. They’ve been pursuing these lies, these policies that are impoverishing the British people, impoverishing the people of the west, and they thought they could get away with it by starting the Third World War in Syria, because once they’ve done that, they can bring in all sorts of repression, all sorts of austerity and no one can complain. Now it hasn’t happened, so 6 months down the line from that failure to invade Syria they are now being exposed on all fronts.

The only place where they still have any reputation, or they try and preserve any reputation is in the western mainstream media. But believe me, our alternative news people here, people who are doing their own websites, the bloggers, and all those people have seen through this stuff.

So, let’s take some solace from that, but the vast majority, well I don’t say that it’s the vast majority, but certainly not the people I know. I don’t think they are probably representative, but there are certainly a lot of people in this country who know the truth of what is going on, and this is western propaganda and the Russians are just trying to defend their own state you see. I put out a spoof article saying “breaking news, Russia sites missiles in Cuba”, kind of thing, because that is how crazy it is. If the Russians are siting missiles in Cuba, provoking revolutions in Mexico on the doorstep of America, the Americans would have something to say about that. Of course they would.

It just shows how stupid the whole thing is. And I say, I just cannot get inside the heads of western leaders; I cannot believe that in this day and age they cannot know what is going on. Obviously they try and insulate them, they lead very strange lives, American presidents are constantly watched by the secret service, even when they no longer presidents.

And that way of course, they can’t talk to anybody they shouldn’t be speaking to, because the secret service will report it back again. But even in those circumstances surely these people must have some time to get on the Internet and just check things for themselves. But they don’t. And I say, that is a frightening, frightening state of affairs. It really is.

Robles: So, do you believe that Obama is ignorant of the real situation in Ukraine?

Shayler: Well I tend to think that the reason they choose these people is because they have a level of stupidity and compliance. You see stuff on the Internet saying it is all a conspiracy, and Obama is part of it, Tony Blair was part of it, and so on. But what those people never seem to allow for is just sheer human vanity and ego, and stupidity. Even people who are academically educated, that can be extremely stupid when it comes to actually thinking for themselves. So, I generally think they keep people away from it, so they can actually, obviously go on the television and say the lies without realizing they are lies.

If they work for television they knew there were lies, they might give it away through their facial ticks and body language. That is my personal opinion; I don’t think these people are signed up to it, but I fully believe that behind that, in terms of the military, the intelligence, those organizations have been penetrated by the Zionists, and I suggest in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That agenda is set out in that document, and that document talks about creating a United States of Europe, and a State of Greater Israel from the Nile to Euphrates. Now, once you understand all of that, you begin to understand what is going on in the world at the moment.

Robles: Hey David. I’m sorry, I’m sorry. David, can you comment real quick here, you mentioned the world Zionist, and the first thing that jumped in my mind was Zbigniew Brzezinski. He has populated the entire US foreign policy establishment, the top of it, including Obama’s advisors - they are all Brzezinski acolytes. From your view, as someone who was on the inside, what can you tell us about Brzezinski?

Shayler: I only know about Brzezinski, what I’ve seen on the Internet and so on, but he doesn’t appear to be part of this New World Order, and that as I say, that is set out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The methods these Zionists will use are also set out there, and it is about control of the media through ownership, through discrediting the enemies of the media through off-the-record briefings, and in fact we’ve actually had this leaked recently, something that Edward Snowden took.

It has been written about by Glenn Greenwald, and they’ve now released the actual slides for a presentation of a secret section of GCHQ, which is like the Joint Intelligence Task something or other, and all the things I’ve been talking about, how they stop you by creating false victims on the Internet, or go on the Internet and claim that you’ve done something to them, by taking away your means of income, by trying to discredit you in all ways. This is now a matter of record.

All of the things I’ve been saying for 16 years that the intelligence services and the secret services do have now all been disclosed but that doesn’t seem to get through to parliament, it hasn’t stopped the head GCHQ from going to the parliamentary committee that is supposed to oversee the intelligence services and just still say that they are working in our interest, and they are trying to protect us. But they are clearly, clearly not. The whole invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have put the citizens of the west at far greater risk of attack.

Robles: Now how is the UK involved? Now, after 9/11, I don’t know if you are aware of General Wesley Clark. He was shocked himself that Paul Wolfowitz came to him one day, he was assistant secretary of Defense in the US, Clark was the Head of NATO, and he told him, we are now in the business of destroying countries. And they came out with this list of 7 countries that they had to destroy in 5 years. How is the UK involved in all that? Where do they play in?

Shayler: What we play is the kind of junior partner to the US, don’t we, what is supposed to be called a special relationship, and as I say, we live in this country with American airbases, we have no independent nuclear deterrent here, we can’t fire those nuclear weapons without the say so of the Americans, so we essentially were perhaps the first country to become colonized by the Americans using this new form of neo-imperialism.

It’s not an imperialism where you … well they have got some bases but you don’t need a lot of soldiers there, it is more a kind of an imperialism done through the control of the political class of the media. When you look at the power of the CIA, the CIA is a larger economy than many of the economies in Africa, it owns companies, it owns airlines, it owns publishing companies. That you realize that the CIA has got enormous tentacles and I am now inclined to believe the CIA was behind the problems we had for example during the miner’s strike in 1980s.

There was a man called Roger Windsor, who worked for the National Union of Mineworkers, who basically to try and avoid sequestrations, just sent money out of the accounts abroad, but that could obviously be easily traced. And he’d actually cut his teeth in an organization, which I can’t quite remember the name of, but was known to be a CIA-front organization. Now this man was alleged to be an MI-5 agent and he approached me after I had blown the whistle. He came to me and said “do you think I am MI-5 agent?” and I said, “no, I don’t, I think your profile was not right to be an MI-5 agent, but let me have a look at your case”.

I looked at his case and the conclusion I came to was that he was an MI-6 agent. Well the next time he phoned me up, he says “do you think I am an MI-5 agent?” – I said no, it’s no good. “But were you are an MI-6 agent”, at which point he went “bu…, bu …, but ” and put the phone down and wouldn’t receive my calls. Now MI-6 and the CIA work very, very closely.

What it does with MI-6 it’s nowhere near as well funded as the CIA, but there is no freedom of information in Britain surrounding the intelligence services. So, the things that the CIA perhaps can’t do in America, in case there’s a documentary trail to it, they get MI-6 to do, knowing that nobody in Britain is ever allowed to see what MI-6 does and therefore they are going to be clear basically.

You were listening to part 1 of an interview with Mr David Shayler, a former MI5 officer, turned whistle blower and truth campaigner. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com. Thank you very much for listening, and as always I wish you the best wherever you may be. Stay with us.


Forbidden RAW AUDIO

MI-5 Tactics from Protocols of the Elders of Zion - Part One

21 January, 2014 06:56   Download audio file

One of the purposes of the security services of any country is to stop the enemies of the state but some countries become obsessed with the task and neglect their mission to protect the country itself. One of the ways that the intelligence services deal with opponents is through the spread of disinformation and lies about those it deems to be enemies. Former MI-5 officer David Shayler, a UK whistleblower who exposed a plot by MI-6 to assassinate the late Muammar Gaddafi, spoke to the Voice of Russia’s John Robles about the ways that intelligence services demonize whistelblowers and perceived enemies as well as the current state of Freemasonry and other topical issues not usually covered by the press.

Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with Mr. David Shayler, a former MI-5 officer in the United Kingdom who's turned truth campaigner and whistleblower. This is part 1 of a longer interview which you can find the rest of on our website at the voiceofrussia.com.

Robles: Hello, David. How are you this evening?

Shayler: I'm feeling I’m good, thank you John.

Robles: It is a pleasure to be speaking with you again. Recently the US government conducted several (I don't know what you want to call them) operations against Edward Snowden. They tried to say that he was trying to get asylum in Brazil which wasn't true, that he was trying to get asylum in Germany which wasn't true. His Attorneys say it was the US government trying to ruin his relationship with Russia or bring about a situation where his asylum in Russia was cancelled or something.

Then they said he had 1.7 million documents relating to military secrets and they are trying to paint him as a traitor when he is a whistleblower. You aas victim of government persecution, can you tell us some of the subtle ways and not so subtle ways that the western governments and other governments go after people that they deem to be enemies?

Shayler: The real purpose of the intelligence services is not about protecting National Security it’s about stopping the, what they perceive to be, the enemies of the state.

MI6 has an information operation section, and we know from Freedom of Information in the US invariably there is a thing called COINTELPRO and what that is, is a way of (anyway they can) of destroying your character and your relations with other people.

And that can range for a variety of things. In my case it ranged from somebody leaking a university reference at the age of seventeen, in which I was called a rebel who liked to sail close to the wind who suffered neither fools nor their arguments gladly. Now obviously that sort of thing is true, not particularly that damaging but they want to try and create a bit of controversy around you.

If that kind of thing doesn't work they then start to make things up or make wild allegations.

You see obviously they accused me of being a traitor. Dominic Lawson, who was actually an agent of influence with MI-6 but was also editor of the Sunday Telegraph, a big newspaper in the UK, he actually compared me to George Blake who sold secrets to the KGB in the 1960s and got 42 years in prison, one for each agent who had lost his life as a result. But what they’d done obviously was made comparisons to that, but they try to equate, you know, in people's minds with the idea of treachery.

On the other hand what they did, when I was working with groups like Stop the War or left-wing activist groups, they would whisper that I was still working for MI-5, and I was obviously … you know this is all a big operation by MI-5 to infiltrate them, particularly you’re a certain anarchist and so on.

So they will use that against you as well, so you attacked from both sides. But ultimately if you carry on going, they will try and destroy your livelihood, and that was what I found, I was making a freelance living in the rough, living off journalism and so, but that ultimately got cut off.

And again, if that doesn't work, they will beat you with the stick until you are dead, and I absolutely firmly believe that there have been several attempts on my life usually involving cars and brakes, the kind of things you'd obviously expect because car accidents are a very common cause of death, so you can dismiss people who call foul play as conspiracy theorists.

Robles: I see, I see.

Shayler: Well it’s dangerous say from starting to attack your character, but it’s really a test of the person blowing the whistle and then they don’t back down. And one of things they do is that they try to bury you in this flurry of disinformation. So you just can't correct it all and that all goes into newspapers and everything else. They use, well the tactics they outline in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is the off-the-record briefing.

You know people could tell newspapers anything when they’re off the record, but newspapers publish that, and you’ve got nowhere to go with it because there is nowhere you can go to and try to talk to about it because it’s an anonymous source. And this isn’t an anonymous who needs protection, who is going to lose his job, this is an anonymous source who is obviously doing the work of the authorities, doing the work of the government.

So journalists, particularly in Britain, allow themselves to be more or less used as propaganda tools for the intelligence services. And you kind of see this again recently with the Lockerbie issue, which I looked up when I was in the Service, and I was very convinced I thought it was the Libyans. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was convicted before anything what appears to be a fair trial, so there’s no doubt about it.

The Libyans have paid compensation for this, but even recently we saw this emerging again with the rehashing of some old information, trying to implicate someone called Mohammed Abu Talb, I looked at that when I was in the Service; it was all nonsense. But it was all about trying to implicate Iran for Lockerbie again. And that’s what … that has been going on in the 1980s, they’ve been trying to entice Iran into things.

So the real purpose of the intelligence services is not to do with the true protection of democracy, or rights or national security as we’ve understand it. It’s to do with protecting the banking system, and I think I’ve said before on this program- the definition of National Security they are using in their law is precisely that – you are security for the national debt, in the same way as your house is security or collateral for a mortgage.

So anything that threatens the banking system or anything to do with our economic affairs could be called a threat to national security. That includes all activism and all forms of workers’ collectives, and everything else. So, they just essentially within their legal system criminalize dissent.

And I’ve seen this from a variety of angles, not just in my own case. I've seen … I researched the Ian Puddick case. Now Ian Puddick was a guy who ran his own little small business, a plumbing business, and never had been involved in activism or protest. His wife had an affair with a Director of a sister company of Kroll, which is the biggest private security firm in the world. When it was sold, it was sold for 1.5 billion by Jules Kroll, that was few years ago, that gives you an idea how much money is involved in all this stuff.

And to cut a long story short, as a result of him exposing some embezzlement and so on, Kroll came after him, and he had documentation about this. He had admissions as to how they had used phone calls to hassle him, how they had threatened him saying he had to learn, he had something to lose and all this kind of thing, and how they had conspired with City of London Police to do this and they had sent in the counter terrorist Police to raid him with a charge him non-violent harassment.

Robles: This was an MI-5 operation, or …?

Shayler: This was … the one against Ian Puddick was City of London Police and Kroll private security. And what I'm saying is there are links between all of these things.

In fact the last few days in Britain they’ve had a report in the Independent newspaper saying that a Police investigation into how Freemasons have penetrated all parts of British life and use this for corruption, to allow crimes to happen, to allow people to get off of charges, they were manipulating juries. But this is all being done through Freemasonry. This story has been suppressed for the last 10 years.

Robles: David, before we get into this topic, can you explain to our listeners exactly what is … what is a Freemason, what is Freemasonry, because a lot of people have different ideas of what that means?

Shayler: Yeah, there are obviously all sorts of ideas about what constitutes Freemasonry. In some way it’s a generic term used for a particular type of secret society, or as they would say a society with secrets. People will tell you that Freemasonry was set up in 1717 in Paternoster Square in the City of London, but there are documents relating to lodges long before that.

Now the knowledge that the Freemasons have has been passed on to a series of secret societies over many thousands of years. You know that’s obviously, it manifests in terms of architecture being a metaphor for creation and everything else. The problem is inevitably is when you have secretive … secrecy and coded messages and covert handshakes, that all works against democracy, and justice and rights because groups behind the scenes can essentially do as they please and manipulate.

And that’s what we've seen, I think, with all this Freemasonry, it says in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that the Zionists will penetrate Freemasonry. So I think that Freemasonry was set up with genuine ideas for good, but like everything else these corporations get taken over and then serve the dark agenda.

And we’ve seen this with other things, there’s been a group called Common Purpose that I have talked about on the program before, they’re described as, like a left-wing Freemasonry group. Their members have been implicated in things like child abuse, and they again, it is just a matter of public record how these people are taking over public life, and even David Cameron has publicly praised them, but nobody seems particularly bothered.

And of course the Freemasons will argue they’re a separate society, they are not a subject to the laws of the UK or the US because they belong to a very different society.

Robles: And what society is that then?

Shayler: Well the society of Freemasonry, essentially. They take a separate oath, don’t they? So they say they swore an oath to different societies, so none of those laws in the US or UK apply to them, so they can do as they please.

Now, of course, there’s still Common Law, you’ve still got a duty to your fellow man no matter what society you belong to. But they can try and ignore that and work for their own ends. So it appears that all the things, like the city and all this sort of thing is all very… as we say Freemasonry is based in the city of London as is the Law Society, as are all major banks and insurance companies, and it is this kind of alliance that is running the world at the moment. But we can very easily identify that as coming out of the City of London.

Robles: You mean worldwide free masonry has its headquarters, if we want to put it that way, in London?

Shayler: Well it’s certainly one of the … it’s where they set it up, the modern version of it – in Paternoster Square just by St. Paul’s Cathedral and by the Stock Exchange and that was founded in 1717.

The Grand Lodge of England is based actually in the West End, that’s the United Grand Lodge of England, which is the official body. But the problem with freemasonry, of course, is people I don't believe know, at the lower grades, how the whole thing works. You essentially go and join a lodge. So, how do you know whether that lodge is affiliated to a proper real official Freemason or is being used for other dark ends?

So I say something that did start off with being about the path to enlightenment has become very perverted, and very dark and is to me the very essence of the problems we face in society at the moment; it is the secret societies like the Freemasons working in conjunction with private security firms and very rich people. And they are by far the greatest threat on the planet at the moment to our freedom and our prosperity.

Because it’s only essentially working for the City of London which is stealing off everybody at the moment and even if it had been, it was easily economic growth it would all go straight into the hands of bankers, as I say manipulating all this stuff behind the scenes. So, the role of the intelligence services is no longer about protecting people, or protecting democracy, or protecting law or rights. It is all about protecting the banking system, based on usury and the illusion of title to land basically.

Robles: I see. Now, Freemasonry, what would you say are the main goals or their main agenda? Do they have certain points that they are currently working towards?

Shayler: The problem with Freemasonry was it was set up to say, to genuinely teach people through coded games and puzzles, the path to enlightenment. And I say it's been taken over by the Zionists and so the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, whether that book is a forgery or not, it is the agenda that is being followed at the moment.

It is set out as a part of that agenda. As I was saying earlier on about newspapers using off-the-record briefings is a good example of it. The other example of it very clearly, is the use of depressions and recessions which are manufactured to take peoples' property off them. Since we have had the Federal Reserve the value of the dollar has fallen by 97%.

These people are robbing humanity blind. And obviously people at the moment now are waking up to that. Now the normal tactic in these circumstances, and again this is where intelligence come in – is to create a war, to distract people.

According to an economic theory called the (inaudible) there should have been an economic collapse in 2004 but what they did is managedto put that at abeyanceby having essentially a war and printing more money. That ultimately led to the collapse in 2008 and they printed even more money. We are heading to that part of that cycle again where it collapses even worse thanin 2008. And again we saw in Syria with manipulated intelligence by the UK and the US services to try and start the Third World War as a distraction from that.

To me there is no level on which the intelligence services are serving anything decent at the moment. I spoke to somebody who was related to me, who used to work for GCHQ, which is the equivalent of theNational Security Agency in Britain. And the argument he used to me, he said ‘oh these people it through the secrecy that we beat the Nazis’ and he was trying to compare thesort of Bletchley Park code breakers, breaking the Nazi Enigma Machine, and all that kind of stuff, to what was going on now. And I just looked at him like he was insane.If it ever was a just war stopping Hitler and the march of Nazism was it. The people who died in that were heroes. But to compare what is going on now in support of a manufactured war and false flag terrorism. That is not heroic, that is not serving good and the common good or mankind.

And in fact the penny finally dropped with these people, that with him, that I had a justification for blowing the whistle. And he had come from quite an Establishment background; he’d obviously struggled with it until I’d explained it to him. I said, and we also the principle of the risk of MI6 funding Al Qaeda. And I said well if your kids had been killed in attack funded by Al Qaeda you would want to about it, why would you deny that to Libyan parents.

Which, the application of the love your neighbor principle. So it’s very simple how to approach the world, it worked with that principle, andpeople then might understand where you are coming from. As I say, they did a very good job on trying to essentially wreck my character, my livelihood and everything else. At one point I finished up living on a strip of land in 2012 just by the M4 Motorway in a makeshift shelter made out of card and sticks. I had nowhere else to go, they have cut off all sources of income to me; I don’t want to claim State benefits. So that is a kind of lesson of where you finish up if you stick to principle. That is changing, I say there are so many reports coming out about what is going on behind the scene, they can't keep the lid on it anymore. Young people aren't watching the network media, they are not reading the mainstream media. They are getting this stuff straight off the Internet so where they are interested, they are getting the right information.

This is John Robles. You were listening to part 1 of an interview with Mr. David Shayler, a former MI-5 officer in the UK, who's turned truth campaigner and whistleblower. Thank you very much for listening

If CIA, MI6, NSA and GCHQ disappeared we would be safer - Part Two 

31 January, 12:03   Download audio file

The US relationship with the Saudis appears to be changing and even though several decades ago Saudi agreed to sell the US oil at $10 a barrel in perpetuity, the love affair appears to be over. According to former MI5 officer and whistleblower David Shayler there may be plans to change the official story of 9/11 and the US start pointing the finger at Saudi Arabia. Mr. Shayler believes the way to stop all of the illegality being committed by agencies such as CIA, NSA, MI6 and GCHQ is to simply stop funding them. 

He says if they disappear it will make no difference because they are the ones causing most of the conflict on the planet in the first place. By their own admission CIA, MI6 et al created Al-Qaeda and all the threats we are faced with to start with so if we remove CIA etc so if we remove them from the equation we will not have all of these people trying to kill us. Coming from a former MI5 officer on the desk of a key Middle East country, these words are worth listening to. Mr. Shayler also says there is no justification for all of the government's spying, it is all about protecting themselves against the exposure of manufactured war and false flag terrorism.

Hello this is John Robles I'm speaking with Mr. David Shayler, a former MI5 officerturned whistleblower and truth campaigner. This is part two of an interview in progress. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com

Robles: Is that true in the UK, I mean, that's a trend in the UK? Because I think in the US people are still just glued into the corporate mass media.

Shayler: No it tends to be middle-aged and older people, younger people are not doing that, well a proportion of them are, but more and more are not, if you see what I mean. The whole of the political system in England is aimed at old-aged pensioners, because they are the only people who vote anymore, but you know everybody else is so disillusioned with this system. You know, they're going to have trouble getting people to turn out when there is an election in 2015, because it is really a one party state, it has a veneer of choice, but really, we are just choosing somebody who can go into government and act as a puppet for the banks.

We've seen thatin this country with the Lib Dems, and again, you're mentioning about the intelligence services and what they do. When, a few years ago, when there was a leadership contest for the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK, two of the candidates were exposed of having had gay affairs, and they had to step down as candidates.

Now, again, this comes out during a leadership election. This is stuff that's clearly been gathered by some kind of secret service, whether that is the mainstream intelligence service, like MI5 or MI6, whether that is a secret society or whether it is private security services – we can't say.

But what we do know is that private information was leaked to the media and those people's political careers were ended. And we have to presume, of course, that those people were perhaps going to stand up for the truth.

And again, Charles Kennedy was a leader of that party;he was demonized as a drinker after he'd been approached by the 9-11 Truth Movement and looked like he wanted to take the evidence for 9-11. This is in the quite early days, about 2005, but shortly after that he was subject to a tittle tattle campaign of nothing about accusing him of being drinker. But after all, you know, politicians are drinkers. But it was the only thing they could use to blacken his character and create chaos in the party and get people to turn on him.

And I had exactly the same thing in 9-11 Truth, you know, when I was starting to get success and getting into the mainstream media, certain elements within the 9-11 Truth Movement, some of whom were disruption agents influenced the people who were – shall we say – less informed and less hardy, and less wise, and that led to an implosion in the movement and me beingvirtually expelled from it.

And we saw this in - If you've ever seen a film called Steal This Movie -or there's a book called Steal This Book about Abbie Hoffman, who was one of the activists from the 1960's who was active in the anti-war demonstrations in 1968. It all came out through COINTELPRO about how the FBI had been disrupting all his meetings, and disrupting any organizations he worked with, blackening his character. I watched that and knew that was the textbook of what they do.

What astonishes me is how anybody can think anything that comes out of the mainstream media is in any way purely intended or anything else. Even if something comes out where it exposes somebody, it is not coming out because they've done evil, it is coming out because that person is becoming a problem to the powers that be and they've got to be disarmed.

Robles: I see. What more do you think, in your opinion, and I'd like to, if we could, get back to the Freemasonry and secret society topic in a minute if we could. But what other moves or fabrications, or ways do you think the US and the UK - and there were reports that MI6 actually had a plan to grab Edward Snowden. What I want to ask is: what other ways do you think they might be targeting Snowden in the future? What could people look out for, as far as Snowden?

Shayler: The problem with Snowden is his life is constantly going to be marred by the fact that anybody who approaches him he's going to have to suspect is working for the other side. And obviously, one thing they would like to do is kidnap him and get him back to the US for trial, of course they would.

So, he's going to have a certain level of security around him, there are going to be certain countries he can't fly over, certain countries he can't go to. So all of that will obviously compromise his life, and it will be a test of the man how he reacts to that, whether it makes him even stronger or not. But, you know, there is no doubt about this, they would like him ideally on trial in America, but if not possibly even dead, and dead men don't tell tales.

I imagine though in Snowden's case he's left a kind of ticking time bomb of loads of documents which will probably very quickly see the light of day if we get to a suspicious demise or any kind of demise in fact.

So, yes, but it is a constant thing, you know when I started writing Ian Puddick book I started getting problems with my communications again, my phones not working, messages not coming through. And it's a usual kind of thing, even to the extent that I was living; I say I was living on that site in 2012.

And there was one day I noticed surveillance, it seemed like a Monday afternoon, I thought 'what on earth's going on here, why are they following me around?' And it transpired that was the day they were evicting the Occupy people from outside St. Paul's in the City. So, they obviously knew I was going to go down there and create trouble or whatever and so they wanted me under surveillance and under control.

So, as I say, there is no end to this and there's somevery rich out there who can fund the very expensive business ofstate surveillance, you know private security service surveillance – all of that works against the common good.

Robles: So, you are still facing persecution yourself to this day?

Shayler: Yes, only I'm effectively blacklisted from the mainstream media. You know, I can't really make a living here. Nobody wants to publish anything I say, even though it would be enormously interesting and does serve the public good. And even going on public platforms I find very difficult. That's what they do, if you are free speaking truther, they will try and marginalize you as much as possible.

Robles: We publish what you say and I have no problem with you.

Shayler: No, well thank you very much. No it's refreshing that, as I say, these messages can in this day and age get out there. They can't suppress things and control things in the way they used to in the past.

You know, and so the world is completely changing, though we are looking at a situation in which debts of Western nations can't be paid off. So, we've got to come to the rational decision that we are not going to do that.

And what it is about is managing change to a new form of existence in which corporations work in the common good rather than in the interest of their members or shareholders, and in which we return land to people who want to work on land, we end the age of mortgages and rent - think how different life would be if you didn't have to pay a mortgage and rent? You have to start every month effectively having to flush a few hundred quid down the drain.

That would make a hell of difference to the quality of people's lives because there's one thing that actually causes health problems more than anything else, and that is working a 40-hour week, because human beings were never designed to work like that. And even though they are working a 40-hour week for 40 years, they're still retiring with nothing, they are clearly being robbed blind left right and center.

So, all this stuff is changing. We are seeing things like the American dollar no longer being the world currency, and perhaps the Chinese Renminbiis going to become the next one.

We are seeing all sorts of aspects of changing the world, and it's really whether the governments are prepared to manage that change, rather than trying to defend the current system. And obviously at the moment we still have that insanity with what they called the government backed “right to buy scheme”, in which the government is now underwriting mortgages effectively. Now I can't think of a simpler and more insane recipe for a housing crisis, which of course is happening.

Well that's not real economic growth, that's just asset inflation, which is actually stealing money from the real economy. Things like that just simply have to stop. You know, they can't carry on because we are seeing the biggest transfer of wealth ever from the poorest to the rich. And again, the intelligence services are key part of that with all their false intelligence, all their security contacts.

In fact, we know in the … certainly in the US, because these things come out, they don't tend to come out so much in Britain. But we know that these private security firms are now working hand in hand with the CIA, we are seeing the intelligence and doing joint operations with them, and stuff like that. But of course, the CIA is not ideally accountable but it is more accountable than those private firms.

Robles: David, if we could, last time we talked a lot of things have changed in the world, I think, especially with what is going on in Syria. And we talked about Libya a lot in the past. If we could change topic a little bit, I'd like to get your views on what is going on in Syria now and in the Middle East?

Shayler: We're seeing a sort of reorganization of alliances in the Middle East at the moment. And obviously, the problem is no Third World War in Syria that seemed to fragment the Syrian opposition, which has always been backed by outside forces anyway - be it Israel or the US, or the Saudis basically, or backing elements of it.

So there was no way that that was a genuine insurrection of the people who were annoyed with the Government. It was … there was no truth of that whatsoever, and as I say it was designed to try and start the Third World War because Iran had started to do what Gaddafi had done, and what Saddam before him had done – which was indicating they're going to start selling oil in a currency other than dollars.

They had to go for Iran through Syria, now that hasn't happened, so, it's led to a whole lot of re-alliances, including obviously the US going to Iran for the first time in many years and sending ambassadors out there to talk about how they can go forward. One of the other crucial things that seems to be changing is the US relationship with the Saudis.

Now somebody in Saudi Arabia is an absolute genius, because several years ago, several decades ago that person told the US they would sell them Saudi oil at $10 a barrel in perpetuity. Now, what better way to guarantee the security of your regime than to sell cheap oil in perpetuity to the US? Now this guy was a genius who came up with this idea.

However, what we are seeing now though is because of that Saudi backing of these quite nasty Al Qaeda factions and all that breaking down, we are about to see I think the, what they are going to do is change the official story of 9-11 and they'll start pointing the finger at Saudi Arabia.

We've seen a few indications of that on the Internet, there was an intelligence report shortly after the 9-11 attacks of which loads and loads of it had been blacked out, but those paragraphs are thought to implicate the Saudis basically, those people close in with the Saudi regime who finances and backing the attacks.

Now I don't think that's the case, that's another false trail, but nevertheless, the fact that that is, the official story of 9-11 maybe about to change, or the fact that they are indicating that to the Saudis perhaps to again try and get them to back down. But we are seeing a realignment of the Middle East, because things didn't go right in Syria. And because things didn't go right from their point of view in terms of starting war, we are seeing exposure of all sorts of stuff in the West. And as the result of that public confidence in media, government has never been lower.

Robles: I see, I see. Last time we talked about Saudi Prince Bandar's threats against Russia…

Shayler: That's right, he tried to get … threatening to carry out terrorist attacks in Russia…

Robles: Yes, well we just had a couple of terrorist attacks in the Caucasus. How likely do you think that Saudi Arabia is involved in that?

Shayler: In some ways I think it is more likely… again, it is the third party. People who've seen that threat being made, they then carry out the attack and they can then …Saudi Arabia's blamed in everybody's mind. It is a bit like the death of Litvinenko in the UK who was killed with Polonium 210 - a form of slow radiation poisoning. That was very similar, because that was used in the mainstream media to try and implicate the Russian intelligence services, and I don't think they had anything to do with that.

I know the Russian intelligence services have very swift and effective ways of killing people that keeps it down to minimum publicity. They don't want a guy dying on their screens for two weeks. So that makes me believe that game was through these third parties who come in and create war between two factions. You know, each faction thinks the other side is lying, and they're not. They're both telling the truth, but what they don't realize is a third party is provoking them. And as I say, that's role of the intelligence services and the secret societies, and the private security firms.

Robles: David, who do you think killed Litvinenko?

Shayler: More likely not the Russian oligarchs but what I'd call this whole new world order, basically, who didn't like the idea of somebody writing, essentially blowing the whistle on false flag terrorism, because they don't want that to come out anywhere.

I recently wrote to the Terrorism Center at St. Andrew's University where they do academic treatises on terrorismand to ask them if they had a module on false flag terrorism, and if they didn't, I'll gladly teach it. I've not heard anything back strangely enough. And that's what they do in academia, and people in academia aren't getting a balanced view of things, all of the information has been already selected for them.

Robles: If could go to the UK, I would take your lessons. I would study with you.

Shayler: No, no, things are very interesting, yeah, when you realize it's been going on all the time. And you know, virtually nothing we know in history is true. It is all false. You know, it's just how false it is, what we've been told about virtually everything.

And it just kind of in a sense proves that knowledge is not the way forward. We've never had more knowledge on the planet because of the Internet, but in some ways we've never had more confusion. And that's ultimately because you don't get there through knowledge, you get there through love basically, love and truth.

Robles: Where do you see NSA, GCHQ going with all the surveillance in the near future? Do you think they are going to back off? Do you think it is going to collapse?

Shayler: Well I think it is going to be part of a wider phasing out of what we might call big government. Government is absolutely useless at doing things. Now, it is not unique in that respect, it's the same with any big corporation, there's a kind of … if you look at research into the thing, it is not like ten people are ten times as effective as one person, because you've got organization in there it takes away effectiveness.

So there is a natural tendency of big organizations to fall apart or because they are taken over by more nimble competitors who take their markets and so on. The problem we have at the moment is big government is propping up big banks and big business with subsidies and all sorts of stuff. So, there is no working of market forces.

So, if we stop funding government, it stops funding this nonsense, it stops funding things like the NSA and MI5 and MI6. And it is not like we are going to be attacked if these organizations disappear, because as I say they are causing most of the conflict on the planet in the first place.

They tell us that the greatest threats for the last twenty years were Saddam and Al Qaeda, and yet by their own admission they created those threats in the first place, when those people were fighting what we saw as our enemies at that time - by their own admission the biggest threat for last 20 years. So, if we remove them from the equation, we don't have all these people trying to kill us.

Those naïve people out there who believe people from Al Qaeda are evil, those people in Afghanistan are evil are completely wrong. The law says exactly the opposite; those people are entitled to use force to defend themselves. The people who have gone to their countries with a mass war machine are the war criminals.

So there's no justification for all of this government's spying, it is all about protecting essentially the exposure of manufactured war and false flag terrorism.

Robles: I see.

This is John Robles, you were listening to part 2 of an interview with David Shayler, a former MI5 officer, a truth campaigner and a whistleblower. Thank you very much for listening

Truth and Mainstream Lies: a Divided Planet - Part Three

 4 February, 00:38  Download audio file

The western mass media and the security services are happy to allow left-wing parties, activists and even subversive left-wing groups to flourish, because they are in fact part of the system. The system is controlled by bankers and the what might be labeled the New World Order and when someone actually threatens their system, one largely based on usury that person needs to be quickly shut up or even assassinated. This was stated by Mr. David Shayler, a former MI5 officer, in an interview for the Voice of Russia. 

Hello this is John Robles, I'm speaking with Mr. David Shayler, a former MI5 officer turned whistleblower and truth campaigner. This is part three of an interview in progress. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com

Robles: What do you think about the FBI? They recently came out with a statement, or the Director of the FBI had said that he was … theyare afraid, and I know this is an issue in the UK as well, of British subjects or citizens going to Syria, probably mostly Muslims, to fight Bashar al-Assad and then returning home as terrorists. Is this a real threat; is this fabricated?

Shayler:It is hard to tell. But generally speaking, from my knowledge of how people work, people who go and join resistance forces are not the kind of people who carry out terrorism basically. So, if they are going to a legitimate theatre ofwar,and they are protecting people from occupying forces, and again, they are doing God’s work and the law is on their side. And those kind of people, generally, aren’t the same kind of people who would let offan indiscriminate terrorist bomb.

In fact, the only people it seems who set off indiscriminate terrorist bombs or target civilians are people who carry out false-flag operations, as we’ve seen with 9/11 and 7/7, but also with Operation Gladios, where we had a bomb going off at a railway station and civilians being gunneddown at a supermarket in Belgium.

So you see,so again, there is more sophistication in these things. We can talk about this threat from those guys, but that is all just a smoke screen, it it’s all a smoke screen to get us stopped from just looking at the fact that actually 9/11 was carried out by elements in the American Government on behalf of the New World Order, in the same way that 7/7 was orchestrated in Europe as well.

And all again, to distract from the divisions of wealth and poverty that were going on at the time. You know, while all those wars were going on we were distracted. The Blair Government in the UK trebled the wealth of billionaires. To be fair we are seeing the biggest divisions of wealth and poverty that forever and againhad existed in human history.

You've got to look at all this stuff and it is all a distraction, and all the stuff that goes on the main-stream, all these people who come on from these so-called defense experts and so on, they are just in the pay of the intelligence services, they are just out there to put out propaganda, and it is in the interests of these private security services to put these messages out there, and in principle because that is how they make their money.

It is not rocket science, so you are not going to get these objective voices coming from them, you are going to get a very slanted view.

Robles: So, you said that you see a change on the narrative of 9/11 where Saudis are going to be blamed, right?

Shayler:That is being floated on the Internet at the moment.That’s what they are doing, as you say the tactic first - they don’t splash straight away with the mainstream, they will float something around the Internet first, to see how it bites. But also, it warns those people that they could expose this in the mainstream any moment.

They used to use the same tactics with Private Eye magazine in Britain. These people using Private Eye magazine -it’s a small circulation magazine read by journalists and politicos - you'd see something in that for sometimes nearly a year, and then suddenly it’ll break into the mainstream. And you’d always wonder why it was thissmall magazine for years and then suddenly in the mainstream. And now I know, in most of those cases, that person will have not complied with them; that person would probably be their own man and as a result of that, they’ve actually exposed him; they’vedisabled him.

Robles: I see. I'm kind of concerned with that myself, because, I don't know if you've followed my work, but I've done quite a lot on 9/11 interviews and written my own articles and stuff. And this Saudi connection first became known to me, in the current light that it is known,where they are supporting Al Qaeda and there is the Israeli Mossad element and everything. This was known to me, what about a year ago I suppose, and is there any chance this is all disinformation as well?

Shayler:Well, again, I think it is, because what they did prior to 9/11 was they just fedinloads of intelligence reports indicating these attacks were going to happen, but never with any kind of specific information that would allow you to take reasonable action to stop those attacks. But what they also did was leave a paper trail, looking like the intelligence services were ineffective in stopping this, whenin fact there was never any information that the intelligence services had, and that again is, you know, if there had been real intelligence,so why weren't they able to use these agents to get more specific information?

So, as I say, they’re just going around the world, they’refeeding false intelligence into intelligence services. You know, because they work in their own little knowledge group, then faithfully report this to government, and weof course don't know what is going on behind the scenes. We see glimpses of that when we get the Iraq weapons of mass destruction dossier and all the current intelligence in that turned out to be what - a British, you have a category one targetfor all the current intelligence know about weapons of mass destruction.

We solved everything again with Syria where it emerged again, we have to … you only had because we were again about to go to war, so they released summaries of intelligence and again that all turned out to be nonsense.

I just wanted to say that these people protect you, but every time they are actually publically scrutinized they are not just slightly wrong, they are catastrophically wrong.

Robles: Yeah, but everything you are talking about there, I mean, I think things have gotten a littledifferent lately, in the half a year or so. I mean, the events you are talking about, the yellowcake and all that. That stuff was all pretty much revealed to be false pretty quickly. I’m worried that now the truth is having a harder time going out, possibly, and would you agree with that? Do you think they’ve managed to stifle the truth on the Internet at all?

Shayler:Well only in the mainstream, that’s the point, this is why we have to have leaks in our intelligence because it never gets scrutinized anywhere, don’t they? It’s like when that whole Syria thing was happening – to me I was talking to activists, people who work on UK projects - and one guy said, he said:‘no one believes the Syrian Government is behind these chemical attacks’. I said:‘no, no one we talk to around here does, but everybody in the mainstream believes it.’

It is like there is this division going on on the planet at the moment – the nonsense that goes on on the mainstream and the truth, which you can get at by using discernment on the Internet.

Now they really see again how the society can maintain, and it’s just entirely built on falsehood. And of course we know that that ties in with the law it’s built on. Legality is not reality -legality is all about the legal fiction. And that is the system of law they’re operating, so this thing is again false accounting systems, double entry bookkeeping.They are not actually … nothing is real about that system atall, it is not built on anything. It’s not built on … you know, money is not built on gold. The whole thing is just one shimmering illusion, one house of cards, about to collapse from its own internal contradictions really.

Robles: I see. So, would you say that the 9/11Saudi connection is real in the end? Regarding 9/11 again, what is your opinion about who was actually behind it? Do you think it was really the Saudi-Bush, New World Order, neoconservative people or …?

Shayler:I think that obviously again there may have been elements of the Saudi Government behindit, in the same way that obviously elements of the American Government were behind it. But those people ultimately do not … I wouldn’t think would be answerable to the regime. I mean, even if you are selling oil at 10 dollars a barrel to the US, you are not going to annoy the biggest military machine on the planet by committing mass murder in broad daylight. It just doesn’t make any sense for any of those regimes to do that.

The only people that 9/11 makes sense for is the war machine. And we know a year before 9/11 the Project for the New American Century was saying they needed their cataclysmic and catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbor and then 9/11 happens. So, I don’t genuinely believe the actual official Saudi Arabian regime was behind 9/11 in anyway.

But of course whatwe’ve got to bear in mind is the way that things are organized in terms of the intelligence services– compartmentalization and the need to know. There may be people now in the US, in the military for example, or somewhere else like research and development, that worked on things that were used in 9/11, but to this day they have no idea that they were complicit in those attacks, because the small element of work they did, they didn’t realize that was how they were going to be used necessarily.

So, yeah you see, with all this stuff you’ve got to be very careful and that is one thing people misunderstand about the nature of conspiracy. They assume that everybody in the conspiracy knew of it, but it doesn’t work like that. It works on a need to know basis and people only know their little compartmentalized bit.

Robles: I see. Do you think - now I talked to Wayne Madsen not long ago - I don’t know if you had a chance to read his interview or listen to him? And he was talking about a pilot that was writing a book, he’s written several books on 9/11. And he was going to write about this graveyard in Arizona in the United States, and, apparently they arranged his…are you familiar with that case, or …?

Shayler:And I’m not, no, no.

Robles: … with what I’m talking about. The reason I’m asking, regarding for example, 9/11… the Kennedy assassination apparently, I think the count was about over 6000 people were killed who may have seen or heard or been somewhere, known something. How long do you think they are going to keep going after people who might know something about 9/11? Is there any end to this, or …?

Shayler:Well not really, no. That’s the point is that while you’re in Rome ... while that remains secret – well 9/11 hasn’t been out to a large audience – or notinto the mainstream, they can maintain their power. But if that does start to come out, anybody who is doing that or is behind that, they are going to come down like a ton of bricks. And as I say, I saw it myself, you know you get on the wrong side of them and they will literally kill you, rather than allow you to have your say, and if it is something that genuinely will undermine their power.

They are very happy to allow mainstream politics and left-wing parties and activists, and even what would be considered, supposed to be subversive left-wing groups to essentially flourish, because they really are part of the paradigm, part of the system. When people are genuinely coming out with a message that could undermine their system, more like what I say about not paying your mortgage by using the law to say you don’t have to engage in any relationship or contract that is based on usury. That threatens their whole system, and it’s so simple and so peaceful, and so speaking a language they understand. So they are not going to let me go on BBC 1 in this country and start telling ten million viewers that, are they?

Robles: No, I’m sure they are not. Governments, secret services – they never forget this stuff, do they, in your opinion?

Shayler:No, well these people they never forget, they never forget. And as I say they will only be happy when people are either dead or they’ve given up the ghost, or given up the fight basically. That’s what they … that’s the thing they want. So, if you constantly keep protesting out in a meaningful way, in an effective way, not in just going through the motions. You know, you keep getting, getting under their skin, and that works you know.

And listen, I’ve always said that you’ve got to essentially take the attack to them. These people are not particularly clever or bright, or anything else, they’ve just got a lot of secret knowledge and influence in key places. But all that influence and knowledge is all based upon the … on one big governments and big banks, because if we start to undermine that foundation, we start to undermine the whole fabric of the surveillance state.

And that is the only way it will happen, because you can’t reason these people. Once you have security, and big security, there is always a need for more security. And if there is nota need for more security, like when defense spending went down in the late1990s– they will invent another reason for you to spend defense money. It is effectively welfare for the rich, it really is.

So, as I say, the only way to really relate to these systems is to completely change the nature of the way we are governed. No political party is going to change that. People in this country are looking at the UK Independence Party, but once they get into power, they’ll be just the same because they are essentially puppets of the bankers. They are essentially working through the official receiver or the administrator of the bankrupt entity United Kingdom Limited.

And so they have to obey what official receiver says, and therefore policies which work in the interest of banks will be funded, policies that don’t work in the interest of banks won’t. And there again, it’s not rocket science to see what is really going on, you’ve just got to do your research.

Robles: So, David, so how is your life going, I mean personally? Have they backed off on you at all, or?

Shayler:I’m still totally broke basically, as ever, and trying to make ends meet, and keep my head above water. I have been trying to get my books out there. It’s very … hopefully I’ll be getting, I’ve got some interest from an online publisher. So, Spies, Lies, and Whistleblowers will be republished online along with my research into the Law, and also some other stuff.

Robles: Can you tell us about your books? How many books have you written?

Shayler:Well, essentially it’s the … it’s Spies, Lies, and Whistleblowers, I wrote but it was published under Annie Machon’s name. It’s the three parts of The Third and Final Testament, part of which is my novel, which is a novel about a journey to a spiritual redemption.

Robles: What’s it called? Here is your chance to plug it, if you want. I’m interested.

Shayler:Well a lot of that is in … it is the third part of The Third and Final Testament, but it also called The Organization.

Robles: The Organization.

Shayler:It’s had coverage in the media before. If you put in “David Shayler The Organization” you’ll see there’s excerpts on the Guardian’s website. And there’s been coverage of it in the local media in Middleborough, and in the Observer newspaper. So, this book has been covered quite a bit, but it’s never found a publisher, and again you wonder why a novel… I mean even if it’s a load of rubbish written by an ex-intelligence officer,it would sell. It’s never been published, and again, that’s my evidence that I’m blacklisted. But as I say I’m trying to get that out through an online publisher now and make a bit of money from it, so I can make ends meet.

But, at the same time, I’ve been writing to people like the High Sheriffs in the UK. People tend to think these High Sheriffs of each county are ceremonial titles. But these people are, they have a responsibility for the enforcement of Common Law. And so, I’ve just been sending my research into the Law to them, pointing out that they delegate law enforcement to a Chief Constable of a constabulary in a county. So, the High Sheriff who is responsible for Common Law, comes above it with him going on.

So, this is opening a, hopefully, some kind of relationship in which we can point out to people who are supposed to be enforcing law, what their duties are and how they’ve got to stop the enforcement of legislation, which isitselfper se unlawful.

This is John Robles, you were listening to part 3 of an interview with David Shayler, a former MI5 officer, a truth campaigner and a whistleblower and truth campaigner. Thank you very much for listening. You can find the rest of this interview on our website in the near future at voiceofrussia.com

"Instead of spying on terrorists abroad the UK just brought them home" - Part One

Download audio file  22 October, 00:33  

Former Military Intelligence (MI5) Officer David Shayler, a whistleblower whose conscience caused him to foil a plot by MI6 to assassinate the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, spoke to the Voice of Russia regarding the recent rendition of Abu Anas al-Libi, one of the main figures in that plot, by the United States. As an English Intelligence Officer working on the Libya desk, Mr. Shayler’s insights into operations by the West in the Middle East and against “terrorists” such as al-Qaeda are revealing and help to paint a truer picture of what is currently happening there.

Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with Mr. David Shayler. He is a former MI5 officer in the UK, who is turned truth campaigner.

Robles: Hello, David. How are you this fine evening?

Shayler: I'm fine, John. Thank you.

Robles: Nice to be speaking with you. Listen, I know you were on the Libya desk, you were working for MI5: the history is you blew the whistle on an assassination plot against Muammar Gaddafi.

Shayler: Yes, essentially a member of Libyan Intelligence, Abdullah Radwan, who was what’s known as a “walk-in”, into the British Embassy in Tunis, and he went in and said: “I have a group of certain Islamic Terrorists gathered together, who were prepared to assassinate Gaddafi and take power in Libya”.

Robles: Is this Abu Anas al-Libi was he part of that group?

Shayler: He was definitely a part of that group, yes. He was involved, as far as we know, we don't know the details, but certainly he has been fingered, yeah.

Robles: Very interesting, because I've come up with some information, I was wondering if you could verify it, or give us your opinion, or say anything you might know about Mr. Abu Anas al-Libi, now as far as I understand, he lived in the UK for 9 years, and he had UK citizenship, is that correct? Can you tell us anything about that?

Shayler: Yes, that’s right. But what you've got to understand is that in the mid-1990s MI5 let, literally, tens of thousands of what we now consider to be, in a word Islamic Terrorists, people with a record of terrorism already. But at the time they were allowing safe haven for these people in the UK and the policy of the British Government was, one and the same with the British Intelligence Services, because the British Government just does what the intelligence services says, was to let lots of groups all over the world into London, as a way of marginalizing and influencing those groups and not having to have large number of stations across the world in the same way the CIA do.

MI6 mostly maintained its level for international intelligence by actually making sure the groups came to the UK and launching in that way.

Robles: Instead of sending out agents all over the world they just invited the sources to the UK, is that correct?

Shayler: Yes, it was like bringing the mountain to Mohammed in some way.

Robles: So you verify that Mr. Abu Anas al-Libi country to many western media reports: he was actually a British citizen?

Shayler: I am not entirely sure he is a citizen. I know he was in the UK for a long time, he had extended leave to remain certainly. But there was no arrest or anything like that.

Robles: So some of reports I've heard… Oh there was no arrest, in other reports I heard that he decided not to work with MI6 in this assassination attempt and then he ran away from the UK and he was hiding, although in Libya he was living a normal life, not hiding or anything, he was out in the open, can you comment on that?

Shayler: The problem with these things is, if you know too much, you are not going to live very long. That's the problem. I mean, once you start doing things with the intelligence services, you realize that you are getting involved with some utterly ruthless people. And if you don't do exactly as they say you will be disposed of, it is as simple as that.

Robles: Here is the information we have, I've managed to ascertain: he was picked up by Libyan special forces or special services and then handed over to the Americans. There was no CIA, FBI, Army Rangers or commando operation that picked him up off the street as the western media was saying.

Shayler: The issue is not clear: whether the Americans just ordered it, or they actually just went in there and did it.

Then again if local militia groups did it, we know that the Americans are backing various groups in various countries, so it would be very easy to work with those groups. Those are the issues, whether it was done on behalf of the Americans, and clearly it was.

Robles: It was said that this involved, I hate to pronounce this wrong but this “Al Qaqaa” brigade, or however you pronounce it.

Shayler: That is the trouble with these names and things they don’t really work in the modern world, the organizations that the intelligence services are up against now are not like the IRA or Abu Jabal who have an identifiable command structure and hierarchy.

You know, the whole nature of the al-Qaeda itself is really a philosophy rather than an organization, we certainly know that al-Qaeda is the name of the database of the CIA contacts in the world of Islamic Terrorism.

So it is not really a normal organization, so when they start pinning the names of these organizations, it is a bit like in Syria as well, they are trying to divide up the opposition and so on.

They are largely meaningless these things, they are not disciplined organizations, they are more like cells working to a philosophy basically.

Robles: Interesting that you should note that al-Qaeda stands for CIA Database. The reason I brought them up is that it's like trying to unravel a conspiracy on another planet almost. The Prime Minister recently, right after this apparent kidnapping of Mr. al-Libi, apparently was kidnapped himself, now there are reports that he staged that himself and that the militia group from this al-Qaqaa they were involved in the staged kidnapping of the Prime Minister and in handing over this al-Libi to the Americans possibly, and also the attack on the Russian Embassy. What's you take on that? Why would they have attacked the Russian Embassy?

Shayler: It seems curious but it might be, still again, with all these things, you know at the moment the Russians are standing against the Americans' attempt to dominate the world, and certainly to take over the Middle East. We saw that in the recent conflict in Syria. And certainly they've tried to create, between Russia and the UK, they've tried to create a new Cold War, but it hasn’t happened like that. Putin simply hasn’t gone there basically.

So again, the will use people to attack people they see as their enemy.

In terms of the Prime Minister being, essentially kidnapped, I mean I've seen different versions of this story in the media, certainly one version is that he was kidnapped and it's all true, but the other version is that this was a false flag operation basically, that he was using to somehow gain sympathy.

Like I said in the world today it's very difficult with any of this stuff, if you start look at any major event, you will find information that directly contradicts what you are being told from official channels.

So we are always living in this world, particularly in the main stream media, there is one message going on and one set of supposed facts, but everybody else who does their own research into other media finds out that actually those facts are not at all true.

This is extremely dangerous as we saw again in the case of Syria, because in the western media, the mainstream media, all you were getting reported was that the regime had used chemical weapon, whereas as the evidence was emerging from other news sources, reputable sources on the ground it was clear that the rebels had been the ones who most likely to have used the chemical weapons.

You would have to be an idiot to believe that Assad would call in the UN inspectors and set of chemical weapons that day.

Robles: Yes, of course.

Shayler: With all this stuff, with anything that happens on the world stage you have to be extremely skeptical about it at the moment, because in one sense it's all up for grabs, they wanted the Third World War in Syria, so they could black out news completely.

They could then have more austerity, more repression, but that hasn’t worked. So we are now in this sort of arean in which it has all opened up, and as we’ve seen they’ve had to have the US debt crisis in the glare of publicity, if there had been a war that would be no problem basically.

So we are seeing the situation where they’re exposed and the world is changing massively, even to the extent that the Chinese news agency was literally taunting the US this week. It was calling that the US torturers, discredited, and saying that it has come to the end of the Americanized world really, America as a dominant power.

So we are seeing a period of enormous change, and we have to be very suspicious about any information coming out, about intelligence, or terrorism or threats.

Robles: Do you know any other history of the Prime Minister Zeidan? Did you ever come across his name when you were with MI5?

Shayler: I don’t recall that. No, obviously the regime has changed now so the names I knew are all people who have been sort of indicted and so on, like Abduallah Sanussi and also Gaddafi’s sons. So I don't know much about the new regime.

What you were saying about Libya though, there is something I do know from my expertise in the services and what any Libyan analyst knows who understood the target, was that Gaddafi created a certain amount of security and stability in Libya.

He had the ability to get on with the tribes and understand those tribal loyalties. Also there were occasional rebellions in Libya but at the time in the region it was a relatively stable and prosperous place. And as we’ve seen elsewhere in the war on terror, where we've gone through the so-called “dictators”, what we have done is replaced people who had secular states which were more westernized by the standards of the region with these extreme Islamic governments.

So this whole war on terror, by their very own admission, has gone completely wrong, rather than eradicating the spread of Islamic Terrorism, it has made it more powerful, far more powerful.

And what we are seeing now obviously in Kenya recently in the shopping center there and some of the terrorist acts in places like Mali, and this has also to do with the collapse of Libya, because all the weaponry became available.

Now from my point of view their operation is going to plan, I mean these people make money out of war, they make money out of private security. So the more chaos there is on the planet, the more money and control they get out of it. But mainstream government is not supposed to see it like that, mainstream governments are supposed to see this as being a way of dealing with a particular threat.

And then again it is obvious to anybody who knew anything about terrorism, anything about the Middle East or anything about human nature, the very act of those aggressive wars and so on was only going to create more and more problems across the planet.

Robles: Yeah, exactly, very well said, thanks. Now along those lines, I think after Kosovo, Yugoslavia and then Iraq, I think it became very clear that to that 1%, or whoever, whatever you want to call them, to those elites, it's much easier just to devastate and eradicate a country and then, like in the case of Libya get the resources from the war lords who are temporary controlling that area where the resources are rather than having to deal with the government and pay taxes and go through trade agreements and everything else. Would you agree on that?

Shayler: Yes, absolutely. I mean, it’s no good for the people of those regions is it? But again we know the real reason why Gaddafi and Saddam were removed and that was to do with economic policy. in both cases they wanted to sell their oil in a currency other than dollars.

And obviously had they started selling their resources in currencies other than dollars, and the dollar had literally no value, it is not backed by anything, there would be a run on the dollar overnight and literally we would see the American economy collapsing over night.

So these actions were not predicated, anything to do with security or humanitarian grounds, they were purely economic circumstances. And again with all these things, there has never been a humanitarian intervention, that actually worked. That actually saved more lives than it actually lost.

Every time that we have had a so-called “humanitarian intervention”, all it has done is created more terrorism and more loss of life. And even now they are officially acknowledging that the least half of million people in Iraq lost their lives early as a result of either dying in the conflict with terrorist attacks, or dying of thins related to that basically.

Then you put that on top of the sanctions regime against Saddam, people believe that that killed half a million people, because the economy of Iraq failed and things didn’t get through.

So I wonder what the UK is doing from the point of view of living here. Why are we allying ourselves with America? A country that carries out war crimes virtually every day now and its random drone attacks in places like Pakistan.

Why are we allied with Israel which has the world's worst record for terrorism?

And why are we allied with America that backs that Israeli terrorism by giving them something like 3 billion aid every year to spend on the American arms industry.

We've seen these allegations made against countries like Syria, Libya and Iraq, but the evidence is there in plain sight to see that countries that are our “Allies” have done far, far worse things. And I really feel at the moment, I'm like the little boy pointing out the emperor has got no clothes, and of course someone has got to do it and I’ve got a bit of experience in intelligence to understand this stuff quite well.

I also have to say as well that's why I think Vladimir Putin is an excellent world leader, lots of people think I am going to give him a little puff because I am on the Russian radio, but I speak as I genuinely believe things, and I believe he has got an astute understanding on what's going on at the moment.

When we compare to other leaders, particularly to other leaders in the West, and again I think that comes from the fact that he worked for the KGB, he has got intelligence background, so he understands how the world works behind the scenes.

Robles: How it really works.

Shayler: Not the way it is presented in the veneer of the mainstream media.

Robles: I was just going to ask you about your impression, because the last time we talked it was right after the chemical weapons fiasco in Damascus. How do you think that turned out?

Shayler: From Putin's point of view, he played a blinder, he really did. Because the Americans at one point were dead set on that and as I said they were dead set on the Third World War basically.

And yet through efforts, and stuff coming out on Russian television, I've got to say as well, where I find much more accurately sourced information and there is a massively growing English language media now because we no longer trust the BBC basically.

You know, the BBC used to be a prestigious news service, now it's been taken over by essentially a kind of a quasi-secret society called “Common Purpose”, who use brainwashing techniques to recruit members and have people in key places, not just in the BBC but all over the British Government. But again nobody is doing anything about this.

We also have the police force in this country very heavily penetrated by the Free Masons, the report on how private security firms have been unlawfully gathering data is being kept secret, certainly that report mentions that people use their contacts through Free Masonry, to try to find out this private information which is of course very valuable.

So Britain, people say it's a free country, but not in any way at all and that is before you even get on to the things like 9-11 which is clearly an inside job but nobody in the mainstream media is saying that, in fact just recently we've had the Daily Mail, on of the most popular selling newspapers in this country, trying to pretend that building 7 was brought down by fire even when NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the US has acknowledged that fires could not have brought down that building in that way.

 So we are living in this crazy world in which the mainstream media and the mainstream politicians have one set of supposed facts that completely wrong and whole lot of the people have another set of facts that are right. And obviously only certain elements of the people have that at the moment but I think that we are reaching a point where we are going to have a critical tipping point because so many people now do know this stuff and so many people now see through everything they do.

You were listening to Part 1 of an interview with Mr. David Shayler, a former MI5 officer and a whistleblower in the UK.

"When government does not hear truth, it is a sign of conspiracy" - Part Two

Download audio file  25 October, 19:33 

The situation surrounding the recent rendition of Libyan "terrorist" Al-Libi from Libya has raised many questions worldwide and many have cited it as an example of "American Exceptionalism", which is merely an excuse to ignore international law. Actions such as these have characterized the paradigm that has existed worldwide since 9-11. The real truth is beginning to come out and can be largely credited to Hacktivists, who access information that should be known by the people in the interest of the public good. Former MI5 whistleblower David Shayler gave an interview to the Voice of Russia and stated those things and more, and gave his unique perspective on issues affecting all of us today. Mr. Shayler was marginalized by British Security for exposing illegality yet he has had the strength to continue fighting to get the truth to the people in order to attempt to "correct" the world.

Robles: Hello, this is John Robles. I’m speaking with Mr David Shayler, he’s a former MI5 officer in the UK, who’s turned truth campaigner. This interview is in progress.

This is the first I've heard of this organisation called Common Purpose , maybe it's because I'm not in the UK or something. Can you tell me a little bit more about that organisation and …? 

Shayler: Some people laughingly refer to them as a kind of left leaning sort of Freemason style group and there's been much exposure in the UK, I'm not an expert on them, but certainly they’ve come up, their members have come up in child abuse cases, and there's certainly a theory that that's part of the way they control human beings is to … you know, you inflict suffering on them, and so on, then kind of rebuild them in their image. 

Certainly I know people who've been to their recruit drives in which they spot the independent minded people very quickly and they're sort of shepherded out - and thanks very much but no thanks - but the ones who are seen to be pliable are then taken into the organisation. They have a website, but unlike other websites you can't see anything in it at all basically. 

You are not allowed to find out anything about this organisation, and yet we know that the BBC has paid them some extraordinary amount of money for what are called leadership courses, and my question always is, to common purpose, is leadership to what end? 

You know leadership itself, and I imagine they are not actually giving any great insight into leadership at all, what they are giving great insight into is the nature of power and the nature of networking to create power. But yeah, no, they’re not just involved in the BBC, we know that they're in government as well, and across the board basically. 

And the fact that you don't hear anything them again shows how powerful they, and I believe these are the people who have taken over the BBC and stopped the BBC from reporting truthfully on subjects like 9-11, and 7/7 and in fact the whole lot, Woolwich, everything. So they are the great danger basically to any kind of freedom in this country. 

Robles: I'd like to get your impression, if you could, can you give us your comment. We've gotten comments from people all over the world, experts, everybody. What is David Shayler's opinion of American Exceptionalism? 

Shayler: Well American Exceptionalism is just used as an excuse to avoid international law and international duties and obligations. The kind of belief that somehow America is so completely different from all other societies because of its wonderful constitution doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. You know, the constitution should have protected black people it didn't for that for even a 100 years, and of even more, 150 years. So this idea of American exceptionalism is entirely wrong, you know. 

There's studies that have shown that you get much the same type of people in all societies, it doesn't matter whether you are brought up under Islam, or you brought up in France, or you are brought up in the US, you know under very different political systems. 

The same types of people emerge, this is the fascinating thing, and the great problem with democracy, on which America is based, is it kind of makes this assumption that everybody is self-determining, and checks the facts and marshals different opinions before coming to their own opinion, which is clearly not the case. 

About 13% of people check things out for themselves; at the other end of the scale there's 20% of people who are completely easily led, and I say that's across society, so this idea of American exceptionalism is just an excuse for essentially barbarism and war crimes. 

You know, by their own admission, the 2 greatest threats of the last thirty years were Al Qaeda and Saddam, and by their own admission they created those threats through funding and training them. So, there's no exceptionalism about that, it's just true manipulation. 

So when people say intelligence services protect you, I say "no they don't", they actually create the manipulation, the threats that put your life at risk, and they pretend they're policing them, usually very badly because they’ve got to have terrorist attacks happening to keep the budgets up, keep the fear levels up, keep the repression up. 

So I say, that's why I feel sometimes like I'm the only one saying "the emperors got no clothes on". 

Robles: I can he's got no clothes on as well, so you're not alone. 

Shayler: Thank you, thank you. 

Robles: Listen, back to Libya if we could. Do you think it's possible now, given this, back to Abu Anas al-Libi - do you think it's possible he was extracted or something from Libya? Do you think he was still working for the CIA or MI6? What do you think's really going on there? 

Shayler: It's very hard to say with all of these things. What happens behind the scenes, it's all smoke and mirrors basically. Certainly if the Americans have gone in and got him out it would have been in breach of international law, but that hasn't bothered them in the past, they've carried out, as far as we can gather, carried out extraordinary renditioning in Europe I think. 

So … but they have no respect for international law basically. Why they want him back suddenly, obviously is the interesting question, but as I say it could be the idea they're pulling him out because he's an agent, he's a risk, and they want to keep him, or it could equally be that he knows too much, and therefore they want him out so he can’t blow the whistle on other things. 

Now I say, he's in the organisation, he's in London and they're planning this plot against Colonel Gaddafi. And now which is very embarrassing for the British Government, because when I blew the whistle on this the British Government said what I was talking about was pure fantasy, but then a document appeared on the Internet a couple of years later. 

In fact I'll be absolutely honest, I put it there, it was an MI6 document and it showed that MI6 had a plot to assassinate Gaddafi in exactly the same way as it subsequently happened, because document predated the plot, it was about the group's plans. 

So this would embarrass the British Government to be caught out lying. So again, if we project the scenario, if al-Libi knew all about, knew about the payments, he's a witness that can obviously back up what I'm saying and lead to potentially enormous embarrassment in the British Government if not criminal charges for covering it up basically. 

So, again the man who knows too much, you know, dead men don't tell tales, and we know the intelligence services are utterly ruthless, if they've got to take someone out who's posing too great a problem. I've certainly been subject to it myself. I'm only here basically by the grace of God, but they've had enough goes at me. 

Robles: Two things right there. You said you put this document on the Internet, this MI6 document, did you just say that? 

Shayler: That's right, yeah, yeah. 

Robles: OK. Can we publish that, I mean … 

Shayler: Yes, no I've got no problem with that, I did everything I could to try and bring the whole issue to the attention of the Labour Government at the time. They didn't respond to that. I did as much as I could, and I didn't have the document to give back, strange enough, it was actually given to me by somebody, would you believe, and I was therefore then able to put it on the Internet. 

So, after they'd lied and said what I was saying was pure fantasy, with no basis in fact, I was then able to point to the basis in fact. Now again, you'd think in these circumstances, in the first place you'd think a former intelligence officer as being in the right place at the right time would be able to give evidence to a Parliamentary Committee about the intelligence services funding our terrorist enemies, and when the Government lies about that and a document backs me up, and still nobody will take the evidence, you've got to understand that there is a conspiracy going on against the common good, a conspiracy against truth basically, because if you don't try and establish the truth you'll never do justice, and that's again the problem we're looking at, because they didn't do a proper inquiry into 9-11 to start with. 

We went to the wrong part of the world. So the UK and the US in invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have carried out some of the greatest injustices in human history because they go through that initial process of actually trying to check the truth of something. But I say this is all coming out as well. 

I believe there is a power in truth, and it is all slowly coming out. Their system is creaking at the seams, but unfortunately they've got a lot of money, because it's all a conspiracy involving the central banks who have hundreds of billions at their disposal. 

That said then, they had to pay a lot of money trying to control the human heart, and you know it costs … it's a big media industry, its big security industries, it's backing false flag terrorism, it's all a very expensive business. Whereas activists tend to do it for the love of it and that seems to go a lot further. 

Robles: And it's a lot cheaper. Just to make it clear. One point you said about 9-11, they went to the wrong part of the world. In your opinion what part of the world should they have gone to? Where should that investigation have taken place? 

Shayler: Well, they should have reached out to the elements of the American Government who must clearly by deduction have been involved in this attack. You know the research done by scientists now shows that, certainly nano-thermite was used to bring down the twin towers and Building 7. That's not something that Al Qaeda could produce, that's not something any terrorist organisation can produce. It's produced by the American Military. 

The same with the Anthrax scare after 9-11, it was established to be American military grade Anthrax. 

If you look at the one photograph released of the Pentagon, what's going in has a corkscrew trail coming out. That’s a missile, now Al Qaeda do not have missiles in the US, it must by deduction be fired by the American military. 

So there are all sorts of evidence implicating elements of the Government in 9-11, and yet nobody in the actual administration or in Congress wants to take possession of that information, and correctly investigate it, because they know in this day and age, with all the private security firms around, the secret societies, the intelligence services, that their careers will virtually be ended overnight. 

But that's the terrible situation we are in, and one knows, you know, in some ways the people who pose the greatest threat are the private security firms, they are not controlled in any way, they're not answerable to anybody, and they’re there essentially to break the law, even if that's just on the minimal level of accessing private information. But we know they do a lot more than that. 

I'm certainly working on a book at the moment, we'll be investigating this stuff, we've got documentation about how City of London Police and Kroll, the world's biggest private security firm conspired together to essentially stitch up an innocent man and try and deprive him of his livelihood. 

The thing about this one is we've got documentation because they had to disclose it at the guy's trial basically, so this is not conspiracy theory in any way, we have hard and fast evidence, Kroll perverting the course of justice and trying to make this guy's life hell, and the City of London Police just doing exactly what Kroll say basically. 

Robles: Can you tell us who that was, or you can't? 

Shayler: Yes, it's a man called Ian Puddick. If people put his name on the Internet they'll find his site, and his is a great story because he was just a very normal bloke running a small business, a plumbing company, replacing boilers and doing leak detection, and he got involved in this stuff because his wife had an affair with one of the directors of the sister company of Kroll.  

He tried to approach the guy, the guy wouldn't … was trying to carry on the affair and then he found out that he'd been using company expenses to essentially wine, dine and bed his wife. 

So he told the clients of this company, called Guy Carpenter Reinsurance, the biggest reinsurance company in the world, they’re the people who insure the normal insurance companies, and of course people started threatening to pull contracts. 

So Kroll basically came after him and tried to get him on a harassment charge, and there's absolutely nothing in any of these charges. They had two goes at him, and there was one time the charges were dropped. His accuser turned out to be, say an embezzler, he had they did have an investigation in the company and found that was the case, but then he, what he did was he got some websites pointing out how badly he had been treated by the Police, that they'd denied interviews had taken place, that they'd accused him of having drugs in his place, all sorts of stuff and then they prosecuted him again, but this time there was no mention of this guy in the websites at all, you know no mention of the guy in the websites at all, at any point basically, and yet they are saying they had harassed this guy in an attempt to cover up his exposure of City of London's corrupt links to Kroll. 

This is how bad it is, and we've tried, and I've gone through his case, I know the facts in this case, I looked at the documentation, and trying to get anybody to either write a story about that or correct the misinformation that was put about him in the media is virtually impossible in this country. 

And again, I've got to say to these people, like editors and so on, you know, where is your conscience? You know, what kind of kick do you get out of trying to destroy an innocent and good man's character. 

You know, even if it's just laziness, you must then understand you have a duty to the truth, you've got to check facts, and when those facts are presented to you. You've got a duty to correct what you've got wrong, but also to report that which best serves common good and exposure of private security firms and police corruption is very much a kind of trend dejour at the moment in this country. 

Since I started writing that book, lots of stuff has come out about things like the thing called called "Plebgate", where a Government Minister had to resign because Police lied saying he had called them plebs. We've had the Hillsborough disaster in which 96 people died, and then the Police falsified statements in that, and it just goes on, and on, and on. 

This country barely functions under the rule of law any more. 

Robles: David, can I ask you a couple of questions then regarding the coming up of the Fifth of November, and possible mass demonstrations by Anonymous, and Wikileaks and Occupy activists worldwide? What's your opinion of the whole Anonymous movement and the whistleblowing movement and the Hacktivism? 

Shayler: Yes, well, I certainly think the whole Hacktivism thing is an interesting new take, and it does appear to be a way of obviously accessing their information, you know, but we wouldn't know half the stuff about what went on in Iraq. If it hadn't been for people hacking into official American data bases and getting that information, and I think that's all entirely justified, I don't think that's breaking any law, any real law as such, because it's exposing evil, it's exposing these wars that are unlawful. 

You know I compare what the UK and the US does to being like the Nazis, and they wouldn't have any qualms about exposing the Nazis and what they were up to. So I think this new type of activism is partly the way forward. 

Obviously we will need to have demonstrations, but demonstrations are very resource intensive. I propose a different way forward and that's people stop paying their mortgages, I've done research into this in showing that not only do you not have to pay your mortgage; your mortgage is actually unlawful, and I've got all the documentation to show that and I've got a form of words you can use to write to your … the person who gave you the mortgage saying why you're not going pay it any more. 

I've used the same letter with things like credit card debts and parking fines, and all this kind of thing. No one as yet has actually had the courage to do it with a mortgage for me, but that's what I see as the way forward because it's the only language these bankers understand, you can't reason with these people, if that was the case I would have been heard 16 years ago; if that was the case we would know the truth about 9-11 and 7/7. 

All these people understand is essentially wealth and power. You've got in a sense to take the battle to them on their level, and no one's going to invest in a system where no money's coming in – it's going to be a Ponzi scheme, a pyramid selling scheme with no money coming in at the bottom, if people stop paying their mortgages. 

Now that's what's really going to change the world, because that takes away all the funds they've got to, say, bribe people, and do all … and fund some of the false flag operations and the private security operations. That money will start to disappear. So we would see the world very quickly correcting if people had the courage to do that, and it doesn't require a mass movement. 

People say to me often "what can I do about this terrible evil", I say "stop paying your mortgage", and you can use the same letter with your taxes as well. 

What it essentially comes down to is under their law there's something called legalese, and these are English words but they have different meanings in their law dictionary so in Black's law dictionary the word "must", when it says you "must" pay a mortgage actually means "may" is held to be synonymous with "may" and obviously that means possibility or be permitted to do, you say well, OK, it's a possibility I'm not going to do it, and then when you are required to fill in a tax return, "require" is held to be synonymous with "request", as is the word "summons", as a summons to court is a request, and you can turn down a request. 

So, we have a different way forward of adopting Common Law to bring the system down, because there’s no other way of doing it, because all the money and power is in their hands. 

"Corporate welfare will never lead to a just society" - Part Three

Download audio file 30 October, 11:49

In the United Kingdom and in the United States and in some other countries there exists what is known as "Common Law", these are laws that govern and grant the most fundamental rights of the citizens, in many cases Common Law overrides or contradicts Constitutional Law with Common Law usually taking precedence. Another problem and a way that constitutions are bypassed or law is abused in the interpretation of simple language where words like "must" may be synonymous with "may". These little known weaknesses open door for manipulation and "secret interpretations" of laws that allow for abused and illegality, which has been a feature of the US Government in particular since 9-11, with its torture programs, indefinite detention and the stripping of freedoms and civil liberties. Former MI5 officer David Shayler spoke to the Voice of Russia about those issues and his views on those who really hold the world's political and economic power.

Robles: Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with Mr. David Shayler, he's a former MI5 officer in the UK, who's turned truth campaigner. This interview is in progress.

Shayler: People say to me often "what can I do about this terrible evil", I say "stop paying your mortgage", and you can use the same letter with your taxes as well.

What it essentially comes down to is under their law there's something called legalese, and these are English words but they have different meanings in their law dictionary so in Black's law dictionary the word "must", when it says you "must" pay a mortgage actually means "may" is held to be synonymous with "may" and obviously that means possibility or be permitted to do, you say well, OK, it's a possibility I'm not going to do it, and then when you are required to fill in a tax return, "require" is held to be synonymous with "request", as is the word "summons", as a summons to court is a request, and you can turn down a request.

So, we have a different way forward of adopting Common Law to bring the system down, because there's no other way of doing it, because all the money and power is in their hands.

Robles: Are you serious, those are like … those are legal definitions of those words?

Shayler: You can check them yourself – Black's Law 9th Edition. Go to a Law Library, get it out, check it yourself. I include this stuff in my own research which can be found at www.scribd.com/david_shayler. It's all there. I've got chapter and verse on this, it shows how the Common Law is a higher law in both English Constitutional Law and US Constitutional Law.

People forget about the 9th and 10th Amendments of the American Constitution, but they very clearly state that those rights not mentioned in the Constitution remain with the people.

Common Law rights are not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore those rights remain with people and that the powers of the Federal Government are not beyond that which is defined in the Constitution, so they have no authority over people who adopt Common Law basically.

I say, I've done all research, because I've also shown how words like terms like "National Security" and "National Interest", under their system, are not about your safety. National Security is about how you act as security for the National Debt, in the sense that your house is security for a loan, and similarly the National Interest is the interest on the National Debt, so it's still talking about working in the interests of paying that off.

This is how, as you say, they use words with different meanings behind the scenes, and at the same their entire system of accounting is a false accounting system, it's not to do with proper profit and loss returns, in this country when you get what you think is a bill from a utility, it's in fact a bank giro credit, which you can take possession of, if you know how to do that.

I don't recommend people do it, I don't think it's a good idea, because you are essentially stealing off the poorest people in the world ultimately because any form of credit takes money out of the area of real value, and that's how they've transferred wealth from the poorest people in the world to the richest people in the world, and that situation is not getting better, it's getting worse, basically.

We are now paying one billion pounds a week now I think it is, interest on the National Debt – that's just interest on the National Debt, not even paying it off.

Robles: Wow. So I was going to ask you what was your secret, but I guess you just gave it

Shayler: What's that – to take away?

Robles: About the letter, about the letter, and what wording to use. So that's about it?

Shayler: Yeah, yeah, that's it, that's the way forward basically, yes.

Robles: So, that's about it? So you are really an honest man. I mean you really want to help people. I mean most people would say "Oh I got some secret and you can send £268 and I will share it with you", but you just put it right out there…

Shayler: Yeah, no absolutely, I've got no desire to make money out of this I … you know my only desire is to bring down this terrible and evil system, and you know I love my country, I was born in England, I'm an Englishman, and what I can't stand is to see my country doing terrible, terrible things abroad, and doing terrible things to its own people now in terms of taxing the very poorest.

We have a thing called the "bedroom tax" here which they're using to cut people's dole money, the basic support. So at the same time, I say, they're doing that, they are giving a billion pounds each week to the bankers.

Now that is psychopathic, it cannot sustain, it's not going to create a stable society, it's not going to create a just society. So my desire is to remove the present … not just the present incumbents of government, but to remove the system of government and try and, out of that, build something new.

Robles: Hey David, I mean, are you sure you want me to broadcast that? They can't get you?

Shayler: No, absolutely, no I'm absolutely fine. It's all the stuff about putting any document on the Internet, as well. I'm very happy with that.

Robles: In the United States they could come and get you for sedition or something, or … but you know.

Shayler: Yeah, no, well I mean I say "let them come" in a sense. I really do believe that, if that was the case, and they went to Court I would be in a very good position to argue in Court using my Common law rights, which I didn't know about when I was put on trial under the Official Secrets Act.

So, in many ways they don't want to give me any publicity whatsoever. They've realized that I'm quite a … kind of slippery fish to handle, they've tried at various points to set me up in interviews, where they've tried to ambush phone-in's and things like that, and each time I managed to respond and bring it around to … you know people around to my way of thinking.

They really don't want me out there at all. I very rarely even get on the alternative circuit these days because I talk about the real organizations I think are running the world and but I you know people know about Bilderberg but they've never heard of Le Cercle, and I say to people put that in the Internet, that's much more interesting than Bilderberg and they're never mentioned on our XJ, they're mentioned in any of the alternative circuit.

Similarly the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of St John of Jerusalem Rhodes and Malta. They're never mentioned anywhere, but they seem to have a lot of power across the world they've, that the smallest principality in the world is a courtyard in Malta basically, and as a result of that they …obviously earn a status at the UN.

Robles: The last time we talked you mentioned those…

I did mention them, yeah, yeah I was trying to say, it's good to be able to get … I mean thank you for letting me get this stuff out there.

Robles: Well thank you for … yeah …

Shayler: Because … no, it's so frustrating being able to see the truth, and being able to see the way forward, but then seeing that and stopping you in any way getting that message out there.

Robles: Yeah, yeah. This is kind of, a personally, kind of important question for me, this … it might never go on the air but can you … do you know anything about … now when you were with MI5, right, did you have any contact or any altercations or any interactions with Stella Rimington.

Shayler: Yes I did, yes, and I … just, just … it was quite funny because just as I was joining she was about to take over as the new Director General, and of course she was going to become the first woman Director General, which MI5 announced to great public fanfare, and Director Generals weren't normally announced; to try and make themselves look like this really liberal organization because there's a woman in charge, which is a completely false, you know false paradigm.

Women can be extremists as well, you know, but they did try and pretend they were somehow liberal, and I obviously knew the information before it came out in public, and so yes, I did come across her, I found her a very cold fish basically and not an easy person to talk to.

But I found that with a lot of MI5 management is that they really had no interpersonal skills, and no real analytical skills either, they kind of got there through not rocking the boat and not doing too much, and if you don't much, not much goes wrong, you know the inevitability about doing something, it's inevitable some little things will go wrong along the way.

If you don't do anything nothing goes wrong, and on that principle because there was nothing seemed to go wrong when they were doing things, so they doing nothing, they got promoted, and people may find that … you know, think I'm exaggerating, I am not, that is exactly how it was.

But the problem with that of course is when push comes to shove we finished up with someone like Stephen Lander as the Head of MI5 when the Government was trying to argue going to war, and what he should have done is stood up to the Government at that point and said "I'm not signing your dodgy dossier, your Iraq weapons of mass destruction dossier".

You know, and then he could have resigned and made a big fuss and we could have perhaps stopped the war on Iraq, but he didn't because he didn't have that kind of character, and that's the point I'm making about this kind of thing, is these people are dangerous because they will not stand up for the truth.

I mean, I really want to ask MI5 what their actual assessment is of 9-11? Where is their explanation of nano-thermite being found at the site of Building 7 and the twin towers, you know, what are they possibly say about that. What can they possibly say about there being twenty times the levels of tritium discovered in the atmosphere that day, because these are important questions, but I imagine that MI5 has no opinion on those things.

But for an organisation that's supposed be protecting us from foreign and domestic enemies it should be all, it should be doing that, it should be telling us that the US is actually our enemy at the moment, not people, you know, in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

There is no way Assad would use chemical weapons - Part One

28 August, 07:17 Download audio file

The war on whistleblowers and the illegality that they have exposed as well as the pretext to war in Syria were discussed with the Voice of Russia’s John Robles by Former MI5 officer David Shayler, the whistleblower who exposed the organization of an assassination plot on Muammar Gaddafi by MI6. Mr. Shayler discussed the situation in Syria as well and gave his opinion on the current Syrian crisis.

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with David Shayler, a former MI5 officer who’s turned truth campaigner.

Robles: Hello David! How are you this evening?

Shayler: I’m very well, thank you John. How are you?

Robles: I’m very well as well, and it’s a pleasure to be speaking with you. Can you tell our listeners a little bit briefly about your history and what happened with you in MI5? And then, I’d like to ask you about Gaddafi a little bit.

Shayler: Sixteen years ago I blew the whistle. I’d been an MI5 officer and I was workingthe Libyan desk, and MI6 had briefed me about an operation in which they had a source in Libyan military intelligence who they were funding to carry out a coup, which would involve the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi.

The People that MI6 were paying, would then seize power and they would hand over the two Lockerbie suspects. But unfortunately, this Libyan military intelligence officer was really a group of Islamic extremists, basically.

So even though this was 1996, the intelligence services had sort of highlighted Islamic terrorism as the new threat. So we were paying money, the British Government, to the enemies of the British people to bump off someone who was no longer an enemy – Colonel Gaddafi. So the whole thing didn’t make any sense, and innocent people died and that’s why I blew the whistle.

Robles: I see, and you’ve suffered quite a bit because of that, is that correct?

Shayler: That’s right, yeah! I mean, I’ve been put in prison twice. But more seriously than that, I’ve had countless attempts on my life. I’ve been in four very peculiar car accidents, any of which I could have been killed in, or maimed, and I walked out without a scratch each time.

One particular of interest was when I was heading to see Mohamed al-Fayed’s security people two months after the death of Princess Diana, and the driver, who had been sent down by Mohamed al-Fayed, fell asleep at the wheel and he hit thecentral reservation of the motorway.

Fortunately, because he hit the central reservation he woke up, and grabbed the car, and it got back under control a bit. But of course in the Diana death there was carbon monoxide, elevated levels of carbon monoxide in Henri Paul’s blood, he was driving the car that Diana died in.

So, I am inclined to think that because we were heading up to see Mohamed al-Fayed’s head of security to talk about the Diana death, that was an attempt on my life. And I’ve had many, many other situations like that. Obviously, that doesn’t stop me, but that shows the extent they’ll go to to shut up the critics who are really getting under their skin.

Robles: I see. There is so much I’d like to speak with you about. Maybe we could get your opinion, your views, on other whistleblowers. I’m sure Edward Snowden you know about, Bradley Manning. What’s your opinion, as a whistleblower yourself who’s suffered?

Shayler: It’s appalling, isn’t it? Because these people actually, essentially blow the whistle about the crimes of the states they were working for. It’s like me, you know, I wasn’t just speaking out about intelligence operations because I felt like it, I was actually describing very serious crimes in which people were murdered and in which our terrorist enemies were funded by people who are supposed to be protecting us.

Now, it’s exactly the same thing with Bradley Manning. He’s released, as far as I can gather data from the WikiLeaks stuff, is he’s released stuff of the US forces in places like Afghanistan and Iraq just gunning down civilians. That’s a war crime; this man is a witness to crimes, he shouldn’t be going to prison.

The same with Edward Snowden as well, honestly, when I first saw him giving an interview in a hotel room, obviously my mind flashed back to 16 years ago when I was doing exactly the same thing.

You know, and I hope he’s learnt, he has learnt in fact, learnt his lessons from my experience, because I didn’t take the documents. I took documents and I left them in the safe-keeping of the newspaper to hand them back to the authorities, because I actually believed the authorities would give me a fair hearing, which shows in a parallel sense how naïve and stupid I was, really. But of course, Ed Snowden hasn’t done that, he’s got his documents off to WikiLeaks or whatever, and he can use those as a bargaining chip, and we can then really see what America has really been up to, basically.

But these people are heroes. There is no way these people are criminals at all. You know, I say everybody who brands them as a criminal, you know people in the US and people in the UK. If you’d lost your children in attacks carried out by a foreign army, you’d want to know about it, you wouldn’t be saying to the guy who has just blown the whistle “he’s a criminal”, you’d be going in and saying “thank you”. And because I’ve had that in my situation, because I actually gave evidence to the “Bloody Sunday Inquiry”.

You probably don’t know, many years ago, 40 years ago, 30 unarmed Catholics were gunned down in Londonderry, in a civil rights march, and for many years they had an inquiry in which the British Government said “Oh yeah, the IRA have caused this and everything else”.

But gradually, over the years the families campaigned, and they realized that that evidence wasn’t the case, the IRA hadn’t started it, there was no evidence of that. But then what did the British authorities do? They tried to blame Martin McGuinness for firing the shot that started Bloody Sunday.

Fortunately, now I was out of the service, when I saw the agents that they were using to back this up, with the agent report, I knew the agent was what is called a bullshitter, basically. And I gave the evidence to the inquiry, and when I came out members of the families was coming up to me saying that they were just so glad that somebody with the authority had actually stood up for the truth and actually bothered to tell the truth, rather than the kind of officialdom they had come up against for years and years and years.

And let’s face it. This is a form of psychological torture, it really is, to be telling the truth,to have lost loved ones, and have a monolithic state telling you the people that you lost were “terrorists” and you should go away and shut up!

The people we are opposing are psychopaths. They are absolute psychopaths! In each case I say to them “where are the principles of things you would be done by, (unintelligible). In those circumstances you would want the truth, so why do you deny that truth to other people?”

Robles: I see. Now, you were working at the Libya desk, right?

Shayler: That’s right, yeah!

Robles: Do you know anything about what was going on in Syria? Can you comment on these chemical weapons claims? I mean, there are a lot of discrepancies in what the US is trying to push. And I know, I think and you know, they want to invade Syria. And it seems to me, they are trying to fabricate a pretext to go in there. What do you think about that?

Shayler: Yes, absolutely! This is a total pretext. When you study these world things, you realize that these people are made out to be madmen, like Gaddafi and Saddam, and Assad, and so on, are not actually madmen at all. And they often are much better in their behavior because they know the West is watching.

In the recent years, I can tell you, there are two countries went abroad andkilled two million people, from other countries, used things like phosphorus and used depleted uranium, i.e. chemical weapons which are banned, who’ve used cluster bombs – and that’s the UK and the US. They are your two terrorist organizations in the world who’ve got a record for using chemical warfare.

There is no way in a situation we have with Assad at the moment in Syria, that he’d want to use chemical weapons because he is actually beating the rebels. He knows the US and the UK are spending a fortune on backing these rebels, and they’re getting nowhere basically. So, he wouldn’t use chemical weapons now. The Russians are saying they have no evidence of chemical weapon use here.

And we know, in the past going to wars they’ve used any kind of stuff they can as propaganda. Remember in 1991, when we had this girl who came on and addressed the US Congress and said “Oh yes, Iraqi soldiers have been taking babies out of incubators and killing them”, and all this kind of thing. And it turned out that she was somebody of the opposition or something, and it all just turned out to be setup.

So, I cannot believe that we have politicians who are perceiving this seriously at the moment. People like William Hague, he should be on trial for war crimes, I mean, hanging really is too good for him.

I’m a man of compassion and everything else, but a politician who comes out there and constantly campaigns for war and loss of innocent life that will lead to, and never seems to learn from it.He is just a psychopath, you know. And we’ve got to get rid of those people’s from our government.

That was the end of part one of an interview with David Shayler.

The West Will Benefit From WWIII - Part Two

30 August, 09:25  Download audio file

The whistleblower who outed an MI6 plan to assassinate late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi spoke to the Voice of Russia about what is going on behind the scenes in Syria. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad would never use chemical weapons as he knows the whole world is watching and he is winning the war. Former MI5 officer Michael Shayler also said the British foreign intelligence service MI6, is a law to itself and does not have to be held accountable to the British people. This is part 2 of a larger interview.

This is John Robles. You are listening to an interview with David Shayler, a former MI5 officer and a whistle blower in the UK. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com

Robles: They want to invade Syria. And it seems to me, they are trying to fabricate a pretext to go in there. What do you think about that?

Shayler: Yes, absolutely! This is a total pretext. When you study these world things, you realize that these people are made out to be madmen, like Gaddafi and Saddam, and Assad, and so on, are not actually madmen at all. And they often are much better in their behaviour because they know the West is watching.

In the recent years, I can tell you, there are two countries went abroad and killed two million people, from other countries, used things like phosphorus and used depleted uranium, i.e. chemical weapons which are banned, who’ve used cluster bombs – and that’s the UK and the US. They are your two terrorist organizations in the world who’ve got a record for using chemical warfare.

There is no way in a situation we have with Assad at the moment in Syria that he’d want to use chemical weapons because he is actually beating the rebels. He knows the US and the UK are spending a fortune on backing these rebels, and they’re getting nowhere basically. So, he wouldn’t use chemical weapons now. The Russians are saying they have no evidence of chemical weapon use here.

And we know, in the past going to wars they’ve used any kind of stuff they can as propaganda. Remember in 1991, when we had this girl who came on and addressed the US Congress and said “Oh yes, Iraqi soldiers have been taking babies out of incubators and killing them”, and all this kind of thing. And it turned out that she was somebody of the opposition or something, and it all just turned out to be setup.

So, I cannot believe that we have politicians who are perceiving this seriously at the moment. People like William Hague, he should be on trial for war crimes, I mean, hanging really is too good for him.

I’m a man of compassion and everything else, but a politician who comes out there and constantly campaigns for war and loss of innocent life that will lead to, and never seems to learn from it. He is just a psychopath, you know. And we’ve got to get rid of those people’s from our government. It’s as simple as that. In fact we’ve got to get away from Government altogether, let’s adopt the common law and stop paying our taxes to these people because it’s gone on long enough, it really has.

Robles: What do you think about the ridiculous hypocrisy of Barak Obama being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize?

Shayler: Yes, I mean, you couldn’t make it up, could you? You really couldn’t make it up. It was just, it was 1984 that it’s happening in reality. I say if it wasn’t, you know if it wasn’t so serious we’d be laughing at it like a Monty Python sketch.

You go to the UN, sorry you go for the Nobel Peace Prize, and you use that opportunity to announce you’re going to send troops, more troops into Afghanistan. I mean, these people are taking the piss, they really are, and what I can’t understand is why, you know, the public out there can’t see that.

It’s like with the banking system, they’ve just printed 400 billion new currency. It took 350 years for the National Debt to get to 300 billion in the first place, and we’ve created more debt than we’ve ever created in history and people are now being asked to pay that back, even though that money didn’t go to the wider economy. How can they do that?

Robles: You mentioned 1984 and sometimes it seems to me like they’re actually channelling this, or using 1984 as a blueprint.

Shayler: Yes, I agree. In terms of the way they are changing the meanings of words, and everything else, it is almost like they’ve seen Orwell and that’s the blueprint they’re following.

If it’s not that one it’s the … you know if people talk about the Protocols being a forgery, but I don’t know if anybody can dispute that they’re following the agenda this hour and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, basically. Talking about using recessions and depressions to deprive us of our wealth, and off-the-record of briefings to blacken the names of their opponents. It’s all there in the Protocols, what they’re doing now, whether that’s a forgery or not.

Robles: Yes, do you know anything about MI6’s involvement in Syria.

Shayler: Well yeah, basically MI6 is obviously our foreign service. I’m not any more; I’m not in the services any more so I don’t know exactly what they are doing, but what I will say is because of the “Hangover of Empire” and because of our close relations with the Americans, MI6 does have a very active role overseas.

MI6 is virtually a law unto itself, it’s not like the security services of say the US, like the FBI and CIA, who are subject to Freedom of Information, MI6 is completely exempt from that. In fact, MI6 is in effect exempt from all forms of oversight, a bit like Mossad is with the Israeli State, basically.

It’s go and get on with it and do what they’ve got to do to, to what they see reflects the world. Of course, it not reflects the world, it reflects to their power that they police, but that’s more or less what we’ve got with MI6 in the Middle East. It’s got enormous amounts of influence.

But I do hope in this situation, so I would hope that there’s people in MI6 now, telling William Hague and David Cameron that they’ve lost their marbles, that to go into Syria risks the start of the Third World War.

Now, obviously sane people don’t want that; the powers that be behind the scenes do: these evil bankers, and so on, and you can see exactly how the agenda is unfolding. But people like William Hague and David Cameron are not part of that agenda - they’re not signed up to it - they’re just idiotic dupes, that’s the problem.

Robles: In your opinion how will this ignite a wider conflict?

Shayler: Well, it will be like when the First World War, do you remember the First World War began with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Serbia, by a Serbian nationalist. And because there were various alliances between countries like Russia and Serbia, and so on, that they set off a whole sort of domino effect of people that had treaties with each other, and that started the First World War.

Now, the powers that be in Europe wanted the First World War, although they didn’t declare that at the time, particularly in Britain. Nevertheless, that was the excuse that was used when, to start this, you know, mindless conflict basically, and you can feel almost exactly the same thing happening with Syria: if the Americans attack Syria, then the Russians are going to have a problem, the Iranians are going to have a problem, the Chinese are going to have a problem.

Now, I don’t think any of those countries have any appetite for the Third World War in the same way that America does, so I think that that’s what works in our favour with all these things. But, given the fact the situation is all going wrong for them at the moment - more and more of their stuff is being exposed left, right and center - America is in a desperate situation, so you cannot rule out the fact that it will carry out that attack and it could escalate.

But I’m saying to anybody who is listening to this, they should be telling their MP, their Congressmen, or anyone who represents them, that if they are involved with this in any way they’re a war criminal, and if this does turn into a Third World War with millions of deaths, hundreds of millions possibly of deaths, they will have blood on their hands basically

Robles: I see. Now what happened in Libya with Muammar Gaddafi? Would you care to comment on what actually eventually happened and how he was killed in street?

Shayler: Gaddafi had been an enemy of the West since 1976, when he nationalized the Libyan oil industry at the expense of British Petroleum, and obviously you get on the wrong side of the oil industry, that’s the problem. That’s why they went after him, nothing else, not because he’s a dictator or anything else, it’s because he’d obviously, as they saw it, caused loss to British commercial interests.

There had been several attempts on his life, one of which one of them I’d blew the whistle on. So you can kind of see who wants to get control of Libya, it’s a key strategic point in North Africa, it’s a relatively rich country by African standards. And what I did in 2011, I just watched it on the mainstream. I thought what I want to do, I won’t go on the Internet, I’ll just watch this and see what happens, as all this Libya stuff was happening.

Because there’s no coherent explanations, why somebody who for years and years was our enemy, then became our friend, suddenly was our enemy again.

Also around the things now I realized that Gaddafi was trying to sell his oil in gold-backed Libyan Dinars, and therefore the same fate awaited him as awaited Saddam, because once you start selling your oil in anything other than Dollars that would immediately provoke an almost overnight collapse of the American economy because you need Dollars to buy oil, and if you don’t need Dollars to buy oil, there is no need to have Dollars at all, so nobody would use them. And so, again, they had to take Gaddafi out, in the same way they took Saddam out, nothing to do with anything other than his threat to finance and the American economy.

Robles: I thought it was a strange coincidence that, I think it was like 18 hours before they invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had decided to change the oil trade into Euros, and in Libya the same thing happened.

Shayler: Yes, exactly, well yeah yeah, no you’ve got to realize, I mean people say this is all about oil, and it is about oil in one sense because oil is part of the control mechanism, you need fuel. It also is to do with the fact that we now live in this crazy world economy, in which nothing is really worth anything apart from the faith behind it. But once you take away that faith, the whole thing collapses, it’s not backed by gold, or silver, or anything else basically.

So we are going to see more and more wars like this if people threaten the economies of the West. I say the economies of the West are extremely weak at the moment, they really really are.

Robles: In your opinion what is the real goal in Syria, is it resources, or …?

Shayler: Well, I think it is a part of this wider agenda, in terms of creating a Third World War, and obviously there are reasons about it, it’s all part of the control mechanism, they can take control, even the way in which the society can handle it, taking even more rights away. They realize, I say, their whole system is teetering at the moment, many people have woken up, and so on.

If they can create the Third World War, then put all those people in prison camps, then they won’t be there to influence other people again, basically, and that I think is part of their agenda. It’s part of the wider, and again I am going to use the word Zionist - I’m not talking about Jews here, clearly Judaism is a religion - Zionism is a political idea, and to me it’s all what’s set out in terms of the Zionist agenda. They want to create a United States of Europe, with a Zionist king on the throne, and then as stated a Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, basically, and obviously if you look at that geography Syria is one of the countries in the way, basically.

Robles: I see, I see.

Shayler: Oh I can tell you something very interesting as well, is that, when I was in MI5 I once saw the European Intelligence Assessment Report that had been circulated. Under the bottom of it, it had writing in Hebrew on it. So I asked someone: “why has it got Hebrew on it?” And this guy told me, he said, and this was when there was only something like 15 nations in Europe, he said: “The Israelis consider themselves as part of the European Union”. They get all the directives. They’ve got no representation there, but the government gets all the European Directives, and stuff like that, so that they can implement them so they can be like Europe basically.

Robles: Wow!

Shayler: Yeah. Can you believe it? I had no inkling of that at all at the time, and I’ve not seen any more about it anywhere else since. But that was in MI5, they were one of the people copied in on European Assessments, because they considered themselves to be a kind of de facto member of the European Union basically.

Robles: I see, and a lot of people were saying Israel is behind all of the conflicts in the Middle East, and directing things behind the scenes. I mean, they’re buying Iranian oil. Is it realistic, I mean, if they cause all this instability, if they destroy all these countries basically, and send them into chaos like Libya right now, Iraq - is that in any way going to help Israel? Or do you think that’s going to put Israel as a state at further risk?

Shayler: Well, you see, it depends on your view of the world, doesn’t it? Obviously, if they weren’t running the world then they would be in genuine risk through all this stuff, of Israel coming under attack from Al-Qaeda basically, who are represented in various countries around Israel.

But the fact that that doesn’t seem to be part of their plan, that risk isn’t in there, it rather suggests to me that this is neither control or conflict, and actually the people who are back in places like Syria, and Lebanon and so on, and that they’ve got them under control, and that’s why they know there’s no at risk of those people then going into Israel, because they’ll then just take them out.

So, to me, this is all evidence to the fact that they could unroll this program without any risk to Israel because they’re backing all of the rebels that have appeared in countries like Egypt and Syria, and so on, in the last few years.

Robles: I see, so what can you tell us about Al-Qaeda’s link to the West, to the CIA, to MI6? I know they were …

Shayler: Can I tell you something about MI5, certainly is that what people don’t realize, something else I was blowing the whistle on was, in the mid-1990s they had declared Al-Qaeda to be the new flavour of the month after the collapse of Communism. But what they were doing, even though they were saying this was a new terrorist threat, they were letting lots and lots of veterans of things like Afghanistan, and so on, who were what they would think of as Islamic extremists, and actually tens of thousands into the country.

Now, these people were there to look at what was going on now basically. So it’s like they let all these people in to create the new terrorist threat to the West, basically, and allowed these people to live in Britain, and the CIA has called us Londonistan basically. But I was one of the first people to blow the whistle on that, and again people in the government didn’t take my evidence at the time, and I’m saying to them: “I was going to tell you that in terms of effectively, at the very least turning a blind eye to allowing these people in to create the new terrorist threat, basically, if not obviously actively encouraging it”.

You are listening to an interview in progress with David Shayler, a former MI5 officer and a whistle blower in the UK.

"Western security services have a vested interest in continuing terror" - Part Three

Download audio file  2 September, 08:13

For some western security services it is in their benefit to maintain a high-level of fear among the population, therefore supporting and even in the extreme, causing terrorist attacks in profitable and helps the security services maintain their power and control over the population. In an interview with the Voice of Russia ex-MI5 officer and whistleblower David Shayler spoke about this and more.

This is John Robles. You are listening to an interview with David Shayler, a former MI5 officer and a whistle blower in the UK. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com

Robles: I see, so what can you tell us about Al-Qaeda’s link to the West, to the CIA, to MI6? I know they were …

Shayler: Can I tell you something about MI5, certainly is that what people don’t realize, something else I was blowing the whistle on was, in the mid-1990s they had declared Al-Qaeda to be the new flavour of the month after the collapse of Communism. But what they were doing, even though they were saying this was a new terrorist threat, they were letting lots and lots of veterans of things like Afghanistan, and so on, who were what they would think of as Islamic extremists, and actually tens of thousands into the country.

Now, these people were there to look at what was going on now basically. So it’s like they let all these people in to create the new terrorist threat to the West, basically, and allowed these people to live in Britain, and the CIA has called us Londonistan basically. But I was one of the first people to blow the whistle on that, and again people in the government didn’t take my evidence at the time, and I’m saying to them: “I was going to tell you that in terms of effectively, at the very least turning a blind eye to allowing these people in to create the new terrorist threat, basically, if not obviously actively encouraging it”.

Robles: How is it profitable or beneficial to those in power now in the United States and in the UK to propagate terrorism and continue having this terrorist threat?

Shayler: It’s all part of the mechanism it’s what I saw in MI5 as well, and I wouldn’t say MI5 were backing false flag operations, but what they were doing was giving advice to the other side wherever they could. They would put completely incompetent officers in charge of operations; there were times when evidence wasn’t passed on quickly enough, or they had intelligence, they didn’t react, and at the time my prejudice, I just thought this was like posh people who were stupid and couldn’t do the job properly, but in time, I looked back on it, I realized that this was strategic and deliberately.

So there are a few terrorist bombs going off, that it’s all part of, one, keeping up the fear levels amongst the population, if you keep the population in a state of fear they are more likely to want to be protected. It’s a basic human psychology thing. It’s like you do with anybody. So on one level it’s fear, but also obviously, to keep up their own power, and to keep up their own budgets, if there’s no terrorist attacks going off they can’t, you know, people aren’t going to be budgeting loads of money to the intelligence services.

But I see this whole thing as part of a wider issue, I don’t know how far you go on your program, but I see this as all part of the changing world in 2012, but what we are seeing at the moment in terms of truth movements, in a much greater appreciation of love and spirituality, rather than things like religions and political parties. We have a new spiritual activism now. It’s a very much more individually determined, much quicker, much more nimble, and that’s all part of the new world basically, that we are moving to a new form of consciousness.

Obviously governments and corporate consciousness are behind the curve on that, and what we’ve got with a few people like the Zionists, is they’re trying to stop that awakening. This is why they are poisoning our air, they’re poisoning our food, they’re working us till we die, this is why they’re encroaching the Third World War, is they are trying to do anything they can to control humanity and stop that spiritual awakening.

Robles: Wonderful. Listen, one more question, one more area I’d like to get your comments on and then we’ll have to finish up. You mentioned the fear thing, that’s also right out of Oceania, this endless war and this endless threat, right - right out of 1984?

You talk about terrorism, how those in power need it to propagate fear to stay in power, to keep their budgets up, etc. My big question: what do you think about 9-11? Now the first attack on the World Trade Center, a lot of US officials they were not pleased that only a couple of hundred people died. It wasn’t enough to start a global war on terror. What’s your view on whether that was some sort of an inside job?

Shayler: Yes, well we’ve got recordings of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, of the guy who subsequently gave evidence who was a source, an agent, an asset of the FBI talking about how he gave them real bomb making equipment. Now I know, again from working in Intelligence, the convention is in those circumstances you give them a dud basically, and so he can then put the bomb down, and you’ve got all the evidence to show that they’ve put a bomb, but nothing goes off and no one gets hurt.

So again, it’s extraordinary that the FBI have allowed, or in fact appear to have supplied the explosives for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. But that as we see is now all part of a pattern, isn’t it? It was the same with the Oklahoma bombing, which was initially blamed on Islamic terrorists, it was only because McVey was caught by accident, in a routine traffic stop, that it was McVey, otherwise they’d still be blaming so-called Islamic terrorists for that attack to this day. So you kind of saw a pattern emerging in 1990s in which they were trying to get this new Islamic threat off the ground basically.

But let’s not forget with these intelligence services, they say they are out to protect us, yes? There are two people they say have been the greatest, or the two organisations or people, they said have been the greatest threats for the last 20 years, they say, are Saddam and Al-Qaeda. That’s their reckoning, not what I’m saying, that’s their reckoning. However, we know from public record that the CIA funded both the Mujahidin and Saddam Hussein. The Mujahidin of course turned into Al-Qaeda.

Robles: Right, right, right!

Shayler: What we have now is a situation, is Western Intelligence Services who are supposed to be protecting us, created what they have admitted are the 2 biggest threats to our security in the last 20 years. And you won’t hear anything about that in Parliament or Congress.

Robles: Right, and that’s why they didn’t go after Osama Bin Laden. I mean, he used to be an agent Tom Osman, I’m sure you’ve heard about that?

Shayler: Yes, I know, I’ve seen all this stuff as well. Obviously the Bin Laden family were very closely involved in things like the Carlyle Group as well, and again we live in so, the problem with the initial War on Terror is they cast it a bit like a Bond film, didn’t they: Osama Bin Laden in his lair in Tora Bora, he’s got a load of guys running around in all these jump suits. If we take him out, then we end the war.

They did take him, but that was the problem then, they couldn’t then end the war because it was all about a bigger War on Terror wasn’t it, so that’s a lie. Bin Laden wasn’t dead, you’ve then got a very dodgy videos of him for about 10 years until he is finally supposed to be killed in Pakistan. Again, none of that holds up at all if you bother to study it.

It now appears that some of the Navy Seals involved in that have met mysterious deaths, as happens in all these circumstances. If you know too much then, the man who knows too much gets killed and, as I say, I’m only here because someone up there likes me basically.

Robles: I see. Listen, now, the last thing, my view on 9-11was that it was the most precision controlled demolition in the history of mankind, the way those building were taken down. Who do you think …?

Shayler: No, I agree, I figure out. That’s because I think it was done with some kind of directed energy weapon, that’s why it was so precise. It doesn’t show the hallmarks of a normal controlled demolition: the dust is very very fine that comes off it, the way the floors come down, the way that actually bits of masonry just dissolve in the air, if you slow down the footage. So, again, much as I’d like these to be conventional controlled demolitions, the evidence doesn’t support that. They clearly used some advance technology to bring those buildings down.

Robles: Who do you think was behind it?

Shayler: It’s hard to say with all of these things, once you get behind the scenes, because it’s a funny old game, because once you start doing that obviously they will blame each other. They will read false trails of evidence to you. You might see with a very convenient trail of evidence in terms of banking, for example, and banking is germane to all of this, that leads to the Rothschilds. Now all that evidence seems to check out, it’s just very funny how it all suddenly appeared at one point on the Internet, obviously very good evidence pointing to the Rothschild family, almost like somebody had laid it there for us to follow.

Now with other organisations like, that you never get to hear on, I mean people describe Bilderberg, that just makes me laugh. I mean Bilderberg is so low down the pecking order it’s frightening, I mean I could virtually get into Bilderberg. You know what you ought to look at is Le Cercle, things like that, they’re it’s much more secretive, much more clandestine, much more dangerous sounding, let’s get some knowledge of these people on the bulletin boards.

And the other one is the Sovereign Military Order of The Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem Rhodes and Malta . People think the smallest principality in the world is The Vatican City, it’s not, it is a courtyard in Malta, owned by this ancient secret society basically, and because they own this courtyard, they have observer status at the UN basically. Now these are the people I think who are running the world in one way or another. Now I can’t pin anything on these people but all I know is that they seem to be very secretive and seem to have a lot of influence.

I think that what we are seeing on the Bulletin boards and people on forums and stuff like that is just all controlled, even the alternative stuff we all see the same names over and over again. So it’s very hard to know what’s going on but behind the scenes, certainly we know it is going on, certainly we know that people like the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers in terms of families are involved, and then we know about these other weird organisations as well. What I just don’t understand at the moment is how anybody can actually believe the official story of 9-11, and actually believe the government is trying to help them.

You are listening to an interview in progress with David Shayler, a former MI5 officer and a whistle blower in the UK

Better to fight and die than watch enslavement - Part Four

6 September, 11:56     Download audio file

Directed energy weapons, staged terrorist events, mind control, thought planting, 9-11, endless war and more, are just some of the things that MI5, MI6, the CIA and other intelligence services are involved in. According to David Shayler it is better to fight it and die than just put your head down and watch your fellow man become enslaved. In the final part of a much longer interview, former MI5 Gaddafi assassination plot whistleblower, David Shayler spoke about all of these matters and more.

Robles: Well that seems to be something that a lot of people… it’s a belief they have been brainwashed into possessing, that the government is looking out for their best interests.

Shayler:You know I think there’s something going on even more weird than that maybe. Because, I mean, given all the evidence out there you do wonder if it’s something they are putting in the water, or some kind of technological mind control, or possibly even some kind of dark energy they can control, or whatever.

We all know that there’s plenty of evidence to show that human beings can influence things through their own thoughts and so on. These people have probably harnessed the kind of powers to be able to do that from the point of view of the dark side, and therefore able to project dark energies to people that create problems. We have all sorts of problems to deal with all that stuff, I think that’s why I say people aren’t coming out and saying it more. I think there is this weird, weird mind control going on.

Robles: Well, you know they used to study … you’ve heard about MK Ultra and all these programs. You’ve heard about remote viewing and other things that the security services almost in all countries were very interested in, and for some reason now maybe that seems to have gone away, but maybe it’s just developed to the next stage and now that’s, maybe you are right?

Shayler:Well I think what happened with a lot of these things is, if they look a bit interesting, they actually take them off the CIA and people like that, and it’s then funded privately and it’s even more secretive basically, that’s the point, and I think the CIA tried to say that MK Ops didn’t work, but there is certainly plenty of evidence in those disclosed documents to show that certain aspects of it did work.

And I think that’s almost what we are seeing now with these weird events. The world gets stranger and stranger when you look at the detail of the Woolwich attacks in England, or Sandy Hook in the US. There’s either some kind of mind control going on here or something very weird basically, either way it’s not normal.

It’s almost like the other side have given up trying to hide the facts even, they just go in there, they do these things, really obviously are staged events and then we all say: “look it’s a staged event”, and everybody accuses us of being mad and that’s how it seems to go on at the moment, and it’s a kind of stalemate almost. I almost do think, I’m trying to say to people as well is, they will carry on doing this nonsense until you just say: “no more, we’re not going to put up with it any more”. At the moment there are still sizeable enough numbers of humanity in every country that still want to believe in all this nonsense.

Robles: Do you think Boston was a “staged” event?

Shayler: It’s less clear in Boston I think, but there are certainly some discrepancies. I mean, one of the blasts you see going off there was certainly no injuries from that blast near the finish line. Obviously the other one there may be. But again, obviously that’s from the point of view of the two Chechen guys, one of whom was … well seems to be seen getting into a car naked, and then later on he’s supposed to have escaped and been killed, and the other one they had a lock-down for. Now again, this strikes me as that’s evidence of a false flag operation. Again, if you know too much about these things, they can’t have you alive, they’ve got to take you down. It’s a miracle the second guy they got off the boat is even alive, but they did try to kill him didn’t they.

Robles: But they rendered him mute right away, so he couldn’t talk. I thought that was pretty weird myself.

Shayler: Well exactly. I say these people have inside knowledge of this stuff and the very last thing they want at the moment is these people talking about this stuff, because you know, on the other side they kind of know that their position is not one of power. They know more and more people are waking up to this thing every day, and it’s not like a political idea where somebody thinks: “Oh you know, one year I might be right wing, next year I might be left wing, or on this issue I might be right wing so you might be left wing”.

With this thing, you know you get to it, and no one goes back. You don’t look at 9-11 and think it’s an inside job, and then a few weeks later think: “no, I got that completely wrong”. You carry on believing that, and you realize the importance of that and in some ways how it is a gift that we have been given this gift to expose the whole thing.

That’s why there’s a counterforce of activists who say: “Oh no you can’t go near 9-11, it’s a poison chalice, it’s too complicated”. No it’s not, it’s bloody simple, it’s an inside job, and they are very weak because of that, and more and more people are seeing that.

In terms of getting from A to B, I say I’m quite disappointed with activists, I think there is a lack of imagination out there, and still too many people trying to lobby the system, and my experience shows me that the system is psychopathic, you are not going to get anywhere lobbying, you can’t appeal to its better nature. The people running it are stupid but the people behind it are psychopath, and it is there to gather as much for itself as it can. And there is no way you can lobby that and change it, you’ve got to actually bring it down.

Now, how can you bring down this world-wide system? It’s very weak you hit it like the death star near it’s weak spot; it’s weak spot is mortgages and taxes basically. You don’t have to pay a mortgage under Common Law, you don’t have to pay your taxes under Common Law. There’s more (unintelligible) to stop doing these things. So what I’m saying to everybody out there now: “Stop paying your mortgage, it’s the only language they understand”, and once all that money ceases to come in the Ponzi Scheme starts to collapse basically.

It’s that simple. If everybody on the planet tomorrow morning got up and said I’m not paying my mortgage any more, all this ends because we’ve got no money to fund it, and then we can sit down together and say let’s have decent government now, let’s get rid of all these wars, let’s put people like Hague and Cameron on trial for war crimes, and hanged thankfully. And I don’t normally believe in the death penalty, but I do think in the case of unrepentant war criminals that would be the one legitimate use of the death penalty.

Robles: That’s the only just, I think, ends for some of these people, for all of them.

Shayler: I would say, as a true believer, that everybody can repent over what they’ve done. But these people like Blair, he showed no repentance whatsoever. He’s now heavily involved in usury, which is another crime against humanity. He’s been involved in an unlawful war, I mean this man’s got form basically and yet he swans around the world like he’s a bloody king basically, and he’s that one character you almost see in him entire problems of the world, you know deeply, deeply egotistical man who was smarmy, but not charming in a way that anybody who wasn’t half there couldn’t see through basically, and yet he was allowed to get away with what he did, he’s never been prosecuted, and that to me is the proof that we are not living in a world that’s equitable and just. It’s proof that we are living in a world run by a bunch of psychopaths, who use people like Blair, and their stupidity and ego, to further their ends basically. They are doing the same thing now with Cameron and Hague basically

Robles: Well, I think it’s clear that everything that happened to you, everything that’s happened to Julian Assange and to Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, and you guys exposed horrible crimes, and who’s paying the price, is anybody?

Shayler: Exactly, and I say, this is what it has come to, is that people who are genuinely exposing very serious crimes of people being murdered and everything else are being put in prison, and the people who are carrying out that murdering are being allowed to go free and make even more obscene amounts of money. So that to me is all the evidence you need to show that your society is not functioning properly, it’s not going in the right direction either.

You can’t just keep your head down for a little while and it will go away, it’s getting worse, so I wouldn’t see anyone who is going to stand up to them basically. Better to stand up for it and die than to walk away like a coward and watch your fellow man being enslaved basically, that’s what I think. The future generations, that’s the debt we have to people, is we want to create, hand over a world to them that’s free and equitable, not a world in which they are going to have to work every hour God sends, just to be able to pay for their fuel and their rent basically, that’s not a world that never going to endure.

Robles: Yes, right, I agree with you 100%, very well said. Listen, just real last part, because I thought it was interesting because you were mentioning these mind control experiments and things like that. It was interesting for me, right when Edward Snowden’s revelations started coming out, there was a report that said that he said that the capabilities of the NSA were such at the point where they could actually in advance read people’s minds basically and know what they were going to write by … they had computers that could do this. What do you think about those claims, and have you anything about that, or do you know anything about that?

Shayler:I have seen some experiments - I’m not an expert on this thing -where they did in some very strange controlled environment manage to actually, basically get somebody to think of something, they managed to get it to record somehow. Now honestly, if they had shown us that in public, what they can do behind the scenes will be many, many years in advance of that.

So I'd have to say that, you know, it may be at a point now where we don’t even have the privacy of our thoughts are our own basically. Maybe that’s how far it’s got, although I do tend to think that with all of this stuff is it doesn’t seem to work on people who genuinely live in love. You know, people who are genuinely trying to look after their fellow man, and stand up for truth and justice. That’s what I mean by love; I don’t mean this kind of New Age bollocks.

You know, the people who are genuinely doing that seem to be kind of immune from all these kind of EMF weapons, and the mind reading, and stuff like that. Although I think they’ve got the technical capability to do this, I think that the power of the human heart is still more powerful than their technology, and you can therefore insulate yourself against it.

But I think you have to accept that this is going on, that they are using satellites and so on to try and read people’s minds. They are also using directed energy weapons to take people out as well, from satellite weapons; they can just pinpoint the co-ordinates - and bang! All those things you hear about spontaneous combustion recently - I think they are just taking them out with lasers basically.

Robles: Wow!Hey David thank you very, very much. Very interesting speaking with you, very good interview. I’d to speak with you again in the future

Shayler:Great, thank you very much. No, it’s been great fun, thank you very much, and I’d like to come on your show again and talk about more stuff, yeah. 


Last Update: 09/14/2023 22:59 +0300


Site 1JAR2 Blog Button


JAR2 Biz


 Link to JAR2 YouTube Account  Link to JAR2 Blogger Account  Link to JAR2 Live Journal Account  Link to JAR2 Word Press Account    Link to JAR2 Sonation and Support Page


  Please help keep us going and make a donation Thanks to all supporters!

PayPal, Сбербанк Sberbank Visa 4276 3800 4476 1661


Copyright JAR2 2003-2103 All Rights Reserved

Publishing Banned Truth Since June 06, 2003