Showing posts with label Ted Heath. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ted Heath. Show all posts

Monday, 24 August 2015

Ted Heath and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

from Spike1138 on Vimeo.

Q: What is 'droning an aircraft'?

Wayne Madsen : "Well, taking a commercial plane and putting drone technology on it so that you can fly it remotely... And Lufthansa, apparently, had developed that technology back with their anti-hijacking efforts, back when they had a couple of planes hijacked by Palestinians.."

"Leila Khaled freed after US pressure

Edward Heath was pushed by the US into exchanging the iconic Palestinian guerrilla fighter Leila Khaled for dozens of western hostages after the world's most spectacular multiple aircraft hijacking in September 1970."

Muammar Qaddafi: I am actually puzzled. I mean, if America were serious about eliminating terrorism, the first capital it should rock with cruise missiles is London. 

Interviewer: London!? 

Qaddafi: London. It is the center of terrorism. It gives safehousing to the terrorists. I mean, as long as America does not bomb London, I think the US is not serious, and is using a double standard. I mean, on the contrary, London is far more dangerous than Kabul. How could it rock Kabul with missiles and leave London untouched? 

October 25, 2001

" During the last thirty years of the twentieth century, protective security became a steadily more important part of the Security Service’s counterterrorist strategy. But the change occurred gradually and it began slowly. 

At Furnival Jones’s first meeting with Edward Heath in July 1970, he raised the subject of protective security exclusively in the context of counterespionage. During a wide-ranging survey of Service priorities, the DG mentioned terrorism only briefly, and solely in the context of Northern Ireland. Whitehall, for its part, was unenthusiastic about a major extension of protective security in any context. When FJ stressed its role as a ‘security weapon against espionage’, Burke Trend intervened to say that this was a ‘vexed question’ in the civil service. FJ believed, no doubt correctly, that what really concerned Whitehall was the fact that ‘the complexity and cost of protective security were both very large.’

PFLP terrorism, however, made clear the need for greatly improved aircraft security. On 6 September 1970 the PFLP hijacked four airliners bound for New York (a feat unequalled by any other terrorist organization until the Al Qaida hijacks on 11 September 2001) and took them to a remote former RAF airbase in Jordan known as Dawson’s Field. 

Wadi Haddad gave the most difficult assignment on the day of the hijacks to the world’s best-known female terrorist, Leila Khaled, still photogenic despite plastic surgery to change her appearance after her first hijack a year earlier, and the Nicaraguan-American Patrick Arguello, who together posed as a newly married couple. Their aircraft, an El Al Boeing 707 departing from Tel Aviv, was the only one of the four which carried an air marshal. Though they succeeded in smuggling aboard both handguns and grenades, the hijack failed. Arguello was shot dead by the air marshal and Khaled, who was prevented by other passengers from removing grenades hidden in her bra, was arrested when the plane made an emergency landing at Heathrow.

The hijackers aboard a TWA Boeing 707 and a Swissair DC-8, however, successfully diverted their aircraft to Dawson’s Field, which they promptly renamed ‘Revolution Airstrip’. A hijacked Pan Am Boeing 747, which was discovered to be too large to land at the Airstrip, was forced to land instead at Cairo where passengers and crew were evacuated and the aircraft blown up. 

A fifth plane, a BOAC VC-10, was hijacked three days later and flown to the Airstrip to provide the PFLP with British hostages. As the PFLP had planned, the hostages were eventually exchanged for Khaled and six Palestinian terrorists imprisoned in West Germany and Switzerland.

The aircraft were destroyed by the hijackers. 

Discussions within Whitehall about how to deal with future hijacks were confused and sometimes bizarre. The future cabinet secretary Richard Wilson, then working in the Private Office of the Minister for Civil Aviation, recalls ‘surreal discussions’ which included the use of blow-darts to overpower hijackers.

The September hijackings swiftly led to further mayhem in the Middle East. King Hussein of Jordan, infuriated by the hijacking of aircraft to a Jordanian airfield and by the emergence of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Yasir Arafat, as a virtually independent state within his kingdom, used the Jordanian army to drive it out. Thousands of Palestinians were killed during what became known as Black September. A shadowy terrorist organization of that name was set up within Arafat’s Fatah movement at the heart of the PLO when it regrouped in Lebanon. 

Following the hijacks, the JIC concluded that the danger to UK interests from Arab terrorism had ‘significantly increased’. A series of JIC and MI5 assessments over the next month envisaged the possibility of further hijackings, kidnappings, sabotage of aircraft, ships and oil terminals in the Persian Gulf, and armed attacks on tankers in the Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean. 

The Home Secretary was informed that, as ‘the responsible authority for advice on counter sabotage’, the Security Service, sometimes acting in conjunction with the MPSB, the DTI and the armed services, had provided protective-security advice at oil installations in the Gulf as well as in the United Kingdom.

For almost two years, however, aircraft and airports seemed the only British interests at serious risk from Arab terrorists. The C Branch Assistant Director responsible for counter-sabotage, Cecil Shipp (a future DDG), took the initiative in the creation of the National Aviation Security Committee, whose first meeting took place in May 1971 with representatives of the police, the British Airports Authority (BAA), the principal airlines and trade unions. 

C4 officers provided a comprehensive threat assessment and took the lead in discussions on counter-measures. Agreement was reached with BAA that security surveys should be carried out by C4, beginning at Heathrow, and that the implementation of protective security required effective supervision.

On 14 December 1971 MPSB reported information that a group of PFLP terrorists had arrived in London with plans ‘either to hijack a plane or to assassinate members of the Jordanian Royal Family’. 

The target, however, turned out to be the Jordanian ambassador. Next day, as the ambassador’s car was passing down Holland Street, Kensington, a bystander saw ‘a young man pull a Sten gun from under his coat’: ‘I couldn’t believe my eyes. He levelled it at hip level and pulled the trigger and fired about 40 rounds . . . It was like a scene out of a Chicago film.’

The ambassador, remarkably, escaped with an injury to one hand.

Like earlier PFLP attacks in London, the attempted assassination was not planned as a direct attack on British interests. Changes in the Whitehall machinery for dealing with intelligence on terrorism owed far more to the resumption during 1972 of PFLP attacks on aircraft and airports than to the attempt on the life of the ambassador. 

On 8 May four PFLP hijackers diverted a Belgian Sabena aircraft to Tel Aviv’s Lod Airport, where they demanded the release of 317 jailed Palestinians. In the first ever assault on a hijacked plane, Israeli special forces disguised as airport workers freed the passengers and killed or captured the hijackers. 

The successful counter-terrorist operation at Lod provided evidence of contingency planning in Israel of a kind which did not yet exist in Britain. Haddad, however, took a terrible revenge. 

On 31 May three members of the Japanese Red Army Faction working for the PFLP walked into the baggage-reclaim area at Lod Airport, removed two suitcases from the conveyor belt, took from them grenades and machine guns, killed twenty-six passengers, most of them Puerto Rican Catholic pilgrims, and wounded seventy-six others. 

The Lod massacre shocked the Security Service into undertaking a major reappraisal of aviation security, which had hitherto concentrated on preventing hijacks rather than protecting airports. By the end of the year C4 had completed a survey of security at thirteen British airports.

Counter-terrorism, however, was not as yet a major priority either of the Heath government or of the Security Service. As the Special Air Service (SAS) officer Peter de la Billière (later Director SAS) noted, the government was more concerned about industrial unrest than about the terrorist threat. After the Lod massacre de la Billière ordered the preparation of a paper on the use of the SAS for counter-terrorist operations. Once forwarded to the MoD, however, the paper was quietly shelved.

For a brief period in the early 1970s the Security Service feared that Britain, like some continental countries, was developing its own homegrown international terrorist group. 

On 12 January 1971 two bombs exploded at the Hertfordshire home of the Secretary of State for Employment, Robert Carr. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by a group calling itself the Angry Brigade which declared in a communiqué: ‘Robert Carr got it tonight. We’re getting closer.’ 

‘Before Carr’s house was bombed,’ wrote Britain’s best-known anarchist, Stuart Christie, ‘nobody had heard of the Angry Brigade. Now, overnight, it had become headline news and every pundit had his own explanation of its origin.’ "

Christopher Andrew 
The Defence of the Realm : 
The Authorized History of MI5

Leila Khaled freed after US pressure

Edward Heath was pushed by the US into exchanging the iconic Palestinian guerrilla fighter Leila Khaled for dozens of western hostages after the world's most spectacular multiple aircraft hijacking in September 1970.

Khaled was at the centre of a crisis sparked by the seizure of five civilian airliners by the radical Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. 

The PFLP blew up three of the aircraft for the television cameras at a disused RAF airstrip in the Jordanian desert, and 56 US and European passengers were used to bargain for the release of seven Palestinian prisoners in Britain, Germany and Switzerland. 

One was Khaled, who had been handed over to the British authorities at Heathrow after an attempt to commandeer an El Al flight was foiled and her fellow hijacker, Patrick Arguello, a Nicaraguan, was shot dead by Israeli guards. 
The decision to trade Khaled three weeks later was criticised by the Tory right and defended by Heath supporters on the grounds that prosecution might have failed because of a lack of evidence that the hijack attempt took place over British soil. 

But the state papers show that Heath told the cabinet less than three days after her capture that he had "acquiesced in a US proposal authorising the Red Cross to offer the release of Leila Khaled, together with the terrorists held by the Swiss and German authorities, in exchange for the hostages and aircraft held at Dawson's Field". 

Heath's personal file - which occupies more than 50 pages of cabinet minutes - includes a letter written by Khaled, from Ealing police station in west London, to her mother, describing her routine and promising to "return soon". 

She was treated well,"as if I were an official state guest", she wrote, adding: "I do not worry about myself... The only thing that grieves and hurts me today is that I am not now carrying arms and am not sharing with my people in the battle.

Khaled, who later became a member of the Palestinian parliament and now lives in Amman, was referring to the war then erupting in Jordan between King Hussein's army and the increasingly powerful Palestinian resistance. 

In a confidential annex, an astonished Heath told his cabinet that King Hussein had appealed through Britain's ambassador in Amman "for an air strike by Israel". In discussion with the ambassador, King Hussein described Colonel Muammar Gadafy, president of Libya, as a "nutcase" and the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as a "criminal".

Leila Khaled's false Honduras passport

Thursday, 13 August 2015


"TARA first came to notice in the late sixties when the group issued a statement in the press claiming to be 'the hard core of Protestant resistance', and it is thought that the organization was set up as a counter to the civil disturbance associated with the NICRA [Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association] marches.

The name TARA is derived from the place where the ancient high kings of Ireland were crowned and is, therefore, an unusual choice of title for a Loyalist paramilitary group.

Operating from its HQ at Clifton Street Orange Hall, Belfast, as The Orange Discussion Group, TARA was organized initially into platoons of 20 or so men and run on military lines not unlike the old Ulster Special Constabulary (B Specials). Membership is drawn almost exclusively from the Orange Order and each platoon has a Sgt/QM (Quartermaster) and IO (Intelligence Officer). 

Contributions: 50p per month - half to a central fund - half at ptn [platoon] level. Ptns are able to draw on the central fund if the opponunity to buy stores arises. Training includes radio, weapons and guerrilla tactics.

The OC is William Mc.GRATH. He is a known homosexual who has conned many people into membership by threatening them with revealing homosexual activities which he himself initiated. He is a prominent figure in Unionist Party politics and in the Orange Order.

McGRATH uses a non-existent evangelical mission as a front for his homosexual activities and also runs a home for children on the (236) Upper Newtownards Road, Belfast (Tel: Bfast 657838).

Also at *** Newtownards Road (B'fast [no. blocked out]).

The TARA 2 i/c is Roy GARLAND, he said he resigned, a close personal friend of MCGRATH and his former employer. 

McGRATHs ADC  is Clifford SMITH  who  lives  with McGRATH, and the groups Admin Officer is David BROWN from Bangor Co Down. BROWN is Deputy Editor of Rev PAISLEYs Protestant Telegraph.

Other people closely associated with MCGRATH and aware of his activities are Thomas PASSMORE, Rev PAISLEY, Rev Martin SMITH [sic], James MOLYNEAUX and Sir Knox CUNNINGHAM QC MP."

Jim Callaghan, MI5 and the Police View of History

"Oh, Harold's just a Walter Mitty..." 

- Prime Minister Jim Callaghan, 
as quoted by Tony Benn on SIS malfeasance

"It can be shown that both Wilson and Heath are under Soviet control through Dick Vagaukas(?) and Lord Rothchild... 

Callaghan could be a good choice because of his role as Police Federation representative, but he also has 'financial skeletons' relating to Welsh banking matters in his cupboard. Roy Jenkins is the unknown quantity but his 'liberal' policies at the Home Officer have not helped his cause with the establishment - he is also very close to Wilson and could therefore be discredited with him"

The 'Clockwork Orange' Documents,
British Army Intelligence & MI5,
January 1974


Gabel elaborates a lengthy definition of the political world view which is correlated with alienated and manipulated political life under the rule of schizophrenic/autistic ideologies which exhibit a low degree of fidelity to reality. Gabel called this the “police concept of history;” if he were writing today, he might well have called it the intelligence community or CIA theory of history. 

Gabel writes: “The police concept of history is the negation of the historical dialectic, in other words the negation of history. . . . History’s driving force is not the ensemble of objective forces but good or evil individual action . . . since the ‘event’ is no longer understood as the normal substratum of the course of History, but as miracle or catastrophe; it is no longer dependent on scientific explanation but on black or white magic. In the Manichean diptych of this view, the hero (leader) and the traitor represent two poles of the same principle of reificational negation of the autonomy of history. It is therefore a pseudo-history, a non-dialectical result either of success due to the genius of the leader or failure explicable through treason; an authentic ‘syndrome of external action’ permits the privileged system to evade eventual responsibility. 

The police concept of history represents the extreme form of political alienation; it is both a sociocentrism which dichotomizes the world into a privileged system [the US] and a non-privileged remainder [the Arab and Islamic world], and a phenomenon of consciousness of a Islamic world], and a phenomenon of consciousness of a schizophrenic nature. Since the privileged system is considered as perfect, extra-temporal and extra-dialectical, the event–particularly the unfavorable event–can only be explained by means of external action; it is experienced as an unexpected, ‘undeserved’ catastrophe, which is no longer integrated into the normal course of events whose succession constitutes the threat of concrete, dialectical temporality. One can compare this ensemble with the two specific elements in the clinical picture of schizophrenia, the syndrome of external action and the deranged experience of the end of the world (Weltuntergangserlebnis, abbreviated as WUE by German authors), the clinical translation of the appearance of the dialectic in a reified world which can accept the event only as a catastrophe.” (Gabel 115–116, with my interpolations) 

Wednesday, 5 August 2015

Ted Heath

Heath OUT.

Colin Wallace (second from right) in the company of PM Ted Heath 
Kincora Childrens Home, 1972

Kincora - Merlyn Rees, Mountbatten and the Cause of the Long War in the North of Ireland from Spike EP on Vimeo.
At the end of the war, in June 1945, the British King, George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth and puppet of the Queen Mother, sent the former MI5 officer, Anthony Blunt, to the Kronberg Castle of Prince Philip’s sister Sophie, and her Nazi husband Prince Christoph of Hesse, to recover correspondence between the British Royal Family and their Nazi relatives, for propaganda aimed at convincing the aristocrats of Britain they had not been in contact all along.

Blunt was the ‘surveyor of the Queens Pictures’ and a world expert in the paintings of Poussin, the initiate who painted pictures called ‘The Shepherds of Arcadia’ which related to the Rennes-le-Chateau mysteries. Blunt was named as a member of a KGB unit inside British Intelligence along with Burgess, MacLean, and Philby, the fifth man was never named, but was in fact, Lord Victor Rothschild."

"Few people in this country understand the enormous political power wielded by our security services.

Officers of MI5 and MI6 swear their absolute, personal allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, which they feel elevates them above elected government, according them the power to do whatever they like.

These men have always been hostile to Labour politicians, to the trade Union movement and to all socialists, almost as though they felt that we were all secret subversive agents of the KGB..."


He's wrong - the Privy Council is in fact 799 years old...

“Lord Louis Mountbatten had the nickname “Dickie” …and for good reason. Philip’s uncle Dickie was the last viceroy in India 
where he was a known paedophile who sexually exploited young working class Indian peasant boys”.

Mountbatten is also linked to the paedophile ring who abused boys living at the Kincora Care Home 
in Belfast Northern Ireland. An excellent website, dedicated to exposing the Royal Family, have this to say about a book written on that paedophile ring entitled ‘The Kincora Scandal’:

“The Kincora Scandal connects Lord Dickie Mountbatten to a child prostitution vice ring in Belfast, Ireland. Authorities failed to intervene at the Kincora care home for boys until 1981, despite reports over the years of child sexual abuse”.

The operators of the Kincora child prostitution ring were eventually convicted in 1981 of the RITUAL sexual abuse of defenceless young boys who were sold like prostitutes. No charges were ever brought against the VIP customers made up of Royals, Politicians, lawyers, and Judges. However, Belfast citizens finally had reason to celebrate when Prince Philip’s paedophile uncle was killed by an IRA bomb planted in his boat”.


from Spike EP on Vimeo.

"What was the state of the IRA at the beginning of 1974?"

"They were on their knees." 
- Former MI5 Officer

"Could the War have been won then?"

- Former MI5 Officer

In Britain, there has always been a fierce rivalry between MI5 and MI6 - my researches indicate that historically, MI6 have long been aligned with the interests of NATO and the European Union, whilst MI5 still owes it's allegiance solely to the British Crown.

Therefore MI6 is perfectly capable of going around, pretending to be the IRA, blowing up British cabinet ministers and members of the Royal Family in order to prevent the outcome of a united Ireland outside of NATO.

Lord Mountbatten, Airey Naeve and Enoch Powell were all Right-Wing and Anti-NATO.

Enoch Powell - Odd Man Out (1995) from Spike EP on Vimeo.

"The prospect of a Russian conquest of Western Europe is one for which history affords no material. The theory that the Russians have not advanced from the Elbe to the Atlantic because of the nuclear deterrent is not more convincing than the theory that they have not done so because they do not want to do so and have never envisaged, unless perhaps in terms of world revolution, a Russian hegemony in Western Europe... Of all the nations of Europe, Britain and Russia are the only ones, though for opposite reasons, which have this thing in common: that they can be defeated in the decisive land battle and still survive. This characteristic, which Russia owes to her immensity, Britain owes to her moat."

- Speech to The Hague (17 May 1971),
from The Common Market: Renegotiate or Come Out

"It depends on how you define the word "racialist." If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically "No." "

- Powell explicitly rejects White Supremacy when asked by David Frost if he was "a racialist", 3 January 1969

" depends indeed on whether the immigrants are different, and different in important respects from the existing population. Clearly, if they are identical, then no change for the good or bad can be brought about by the immigration. But if they are different, and to the extent that they are different, then numbers clearly are of the essence and this is not wholly – or mainly, necessarily – a matter of colour. 

For example, if the immigrants were Germans or Russians, their colour would be approximately the same as ours, but the problems which would be created and the change which could be brought about by a large introduction of a bloc of Germans or Russians into five areas in this country would be as serious – and in some respects more serious – than could follow from an introduction of a similar number of West Indians or Pakistanis."

Any Questions?, BBC Radio (29 November 1968), from Reflections of a Statesman. The Writings and Speeches of Enoch Powell (London: Bellew, 1991), p. 395.

Enoch Powell: Now, we were invaded by the Danes, they did alter the country and we fought them for two hundred years. If that's what is meant – to be allowed to happen?

Marghanita Laski: Were we wise to do so? Didn't they add to us in the end? Wasn't there much more suffering and misery because we fought them?

Enoch Powell: Only because we fought them, and eventually subjugated them and Christianised them. 


- Any Questions?, BBC Radio (29 November 1968), from Reflections of a Statesman. The Writings and Speeches of Enoch Powell (London: Bellew, 1991), p. 396.

"Once you go nuclear at all, you go nuclear for good; and you know it. Here is the parting of the ways, for from this point two opposite conclusions can be drawn. 

One is that therefore there can never again be serious war of any duration between Western nations, including Russia—in particular, that there can never again be serious war on the Continent of Europe or the waters around it, which an enemy must master in order to threaten Britain. That is the Government's position. 

The other conclusion, therefore, is that resort is most unlikely to be had to nuclear weapons at all, but that war could nevertheless develop as if they did not exist, except of course that it would be so conducted as to minimise any possibility of misapprehension that the use of nuclear weapons was imminent or had begun. The crucial question is whether there is any stage of a European war at which any nation would choose self-annihiliation in preference to prolonging the struggle. 

The Secretary of State says, "Yes, the loser or likely loser would almost instantly choose self-annihiliation.

I say, "No. The probability, though not the certainty, but surely at least the possibility, is that no such point would come, whatever the course of the conflict."

Speech in the House of Commons (1 March 1967).

"The right finds it easy to explain what is and to justify what is, but not to account for change. The left finds it easy to justify change, but not to account for what is, and what is accepted...Parties come and go, governments come and go. But if we lose the power to make and unmake governments, to make and unmake parliaments, then everything else is changed. Even if I were convinced that the result of doing what Michael Foot has described—regaining what we ought never to have given away—even if I were convinced that the result of that would be that we would have Labour administrations for the rest of my lifetime, I would say: well, so be it. But at least we have retained the power to decide under what general principles this nation is going to be governed."

- 10 June 1973

By the way, what Iain Paisley is talking about in relation to Kincora is a Children's Home/Boy Brothel operated by MI5 in Northern Ireland during the 1970s for the purposes of political blackmail against senior British Politicians of both parties.

Former British Army Information Officer Colin Wallace, responsible for concocting "Black Propaganda" in the run up to the two General Elections of 1974 against British Politicians was fired when he leaked details of the dirty tricks project (code named CLOCKWORK ORANGE) to a Times Journalist - five years later, he was framed for murder and jailed, but later had the conviction quashed on appeal.

One of those credibly rumoured to have been ensnared by the Kincora honey trap was Edward Heath (bachelor), who was at the time, the Conservative Prime Minister and had just taken Britain into the EU. Which MI5 and the Crown did not like.

Colin Wallace (second from right) in the company of PM Ted Heath at Kincora childrens home.

David Icke further developed information that Heath was not just a paedophile, but a child murderer, who liked to strangle his victims, and wrote this in The Biggest Secret in 1999, after offering Heath the right of reply, which Heath declined to challenge; Icke was never sued, by Heath or anyone else named in the book.

Such as Sir Jimmy Saville, OBE, Knight Comander of the Papal Order of St. Gregory.

Of course, no-one paid any attention, because "Icke's a nutter."

Merlyn Rees was first Minister for Northern Ireland and then Home Secretary in the 1974-1979 Labour Government.

He was also MP for Leeds South.
Denis Healy was Minister of Defence from 1964-1970, and then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1974-1979 Labour Government.
He was also (with Hugh Gaitskill) a founding member of the Bilderberg Group, and MP for Leeds East.
The Yorkshire Ripper Series of murders occurred between 1975 and 1981, almost exclusively in and around the Home Secretary's home constituency of Leeds South. Which was incredibly embarrassing.

That picture of Savile was taken in the late 1970s with members of the West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police Force in Leeds.

In Dewsbury police station, Peter Sutcliffe was waiting for an opportunity to confess. Inspector John Boyle was talking to him.

Boyle continued... I believe you put the false number plates on to conceal the identity of the vehicle in the red-light district."

Sutcliffe "That is not true. To be honest with you, I've been so depressed that I put them on because I was thinking of committing a crime with the car." Boyle " Why did you leave your car and go to the side of that house?"

Sutcliffe " To urinate."
Boyle "I think you went for another purpose. Do you understand what I am saying? I think you are in serious trouble."
Sutcliffe " I think you have been leading up to it."
Boyle " Leading up to what?"

Sutcliffe " The Yorkshire Ripper"

Boyle "What about the Yorkshire Ripper?"
Sutcliffe " Well, it's me. I'm glad its all over"

Ripperology from Spike EP on Vimeo.
"'When you tell me, then I'll start taking it in. So have you done it or what?' An' he says, 'I haven't done 'em all. I'll tell you that now. But I've done six or seven of them, aye." So I says, 'Well, that's it then," an' we sat down."

What Carl knew was mainly what his brother had told him on his first visit to see him in Armley. "He said he hadn't done them all." He said to me, "They aren't really as bad as they say." "He hadn't really ripped them to bits", he said."

Peter Sutcliffe wrote to his brother Mick. "Don't take so much notice of any ignorant talk about me as the public in general know absolutely nothing about me or the type of person I am. It is all absolute rubbish that has been printed so far."

In another letter to Carl he says. "Don't feel too bad because soon you will know the whole truth of this matter."

In every case the reaction was one of stunned disbelief. Sonia's mother, Maria Szurma, told reporters: "We just can't believe it. Peter is so loving, so generous, so thoughtful. He would do anything for anyone if he could. Nothing was too much trouble for him."

"I just can't believe Peter is the man who killed 13 women. It is not possible. I will not believe it. Even if it comes from his own mouth I will never accept that he is the Yorkshire Ripper. He was worried about the Ripper and used to drive me about when I had to go out at night so I would be safe."

Tony Benn's Diary - 30 9 1976 - Labour vs the IMF Bankers from Spike EP on Vimeo.
The IMF in the New World Order, or
Institutions never die, they simply find a new mission
Osvaldo Croci

Prepared for the Round Table The Asian Crisis and the IMF: What does it all mean? Laurentian University, Department of Economics, February 26, 1998.

In this presentation I will retrace the origins of the IMF and describe its main role until 1971. Then, I will examine the brief identity crisis faced by the IMF and its adoption of a new mission in the late 1970s. I will finish with some brief considerations on the role of international institutions in the new Global Economy.

The IMF was one of the products of the July 1944 Bretton Woods conference. At this conference the victors of World War II laid out the main features of the post-war international economy. These features were largely the result of the historical lesson provided by the Great Depression of 1929-1933, and of a compromise between the views held by the two most influential participants, namely the American Harry Dexter White and the British John Maynard Keynes. Regulation of what was still a system of international economic relations, as opposed to a global economy, was to be based on the following principles:

Promotion of an open trading environment. This objective was to be pursued primarily through the ITO. When the ratification of the relative treaty failed in the US, it was pursued through the GATT. The promotion of an open trading environment was, at the same time, to be favoured by:

The attainment of currency convertibility and the establishment of a system of fixed (but adjustable) exchange rates.

Acceptance of “the welfare state” or, if you prefer, the notion that the state had a legitimate role to play in the management of national economies and, more precisely, had a responsibility for the promotion and maintenance of a high level of employment and income. This meant that states had to be given the necessary fiscal and monetary levers to steer their economies towards these objectives. Given the fact that a choice had been made in favour of a system of fixed exchange rate, the necessity to grant states effective fiscal and, above all, monetary levers precluded the adoption of another principle that liberals at least would have very much liked to see in place, namely, free private capital mobility. This is due to what Benjamin Cohen has called the “unholy trinity” that is to say the fact that in a system of fixed exchange rates and free capital mobility any attempt to pursue autonomous monetary objectives would sooner or later provoke potentially destabilizing flows of speculative capital. Hence the fourth principle of Bretton Woods:

Acceptance of limitations on the free flow of capital.

It was within the context of the establishment of a system of fixed, albeit adjustable exchange rate that the IMF was conceived and set up. The basic structure of the IMF could be compared to that of a credit union. Its members were countries (39 at its inception, 182 today) that subscribed quotas proportional to the size of their economy and their wealth. At the same time countries could borrow from the IMF in case their national finances deteriorated, because of Balance of Payments problems or downward pressures on their currencies that made it difficult for them to maintain the rate of exchange agreed upon. Already at this time there were elements of “conditionality” especially if the credit demanded exceeded the so-called “reserve tranche” and even more if it went beyond the first “quota tranche.”

In terms of its original, stated objectives (achievement and maintenance of currency convertibility and exchange rate stability, and expansion of international trade), the performance of the IMF between 1945 and 1971 can be said to have been very positive, especially if one compares it with the situation of the international economy in the 20 years preceding the creation of the IMF. After a period of domestic economic recovery and stabilisation, all major currencies became convertible by 1958, apart from occasional readjustments, exchange rates were kept reasonably stable, and finally, international trade experienced a period of unprecedented growth.

November Surprise 1974 - Henry Kissinger, The Nugan Hand Bank and the Dismissal of the Australian Government from Spike EP on Vimeo.
"Jerry Aaron's interpretation of the Shackley Cable is shared by former CIA agent Ralph McGehee. Was Shackley in a position to be ordering ASIO about, I mean, you worked under Shackley in Vietnam. Is he a senior CIA officer?"

Ralph McGehee: Oh, yes, he was a top CIA officer. He was also one of Ed Wilson's closest friends. Ed Wilson, of course, was head of Task Force 157. Prior to that, Wilson had been in the CIA. And there are all sorts of evidence that Task Force 157 was also orchestrating the efforts to overthrow the Whitlam government.

Clyde Cameron: Well, ASIO has always been a compliant service for the American CIA. They have always done that. They have been quite sympathetic towards the CIA and let's not forget that the Australian intelligence organisations were the ones who were responsible for acting as a conduit for the CIA and Pinochet in 1973 when the CIA-backed Pinochet Junta moved in and overthrew the elected government of Chile. I know that members of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) were active in Santiago at that time and were acting in cooperation with the CIA because the CIA weren't able to function in Chile under President Allende. They had to do their dirty work through somebody else and they chose the Australian intelligence organisations.

When I became Minister for Immigration I was appalled to discover that we had an immigration officer in Santiago who was in fact an ASIO spy. He wasn't a genuine immigration officer at all but was an ASIO spy who had been put on by my immigration establishment as a bona fide immigration officer and I sought to have him removed but the Prime Minister intervened and prevented the removal from taking place.

I remember that when the Prime Minister discovered that ASIS had been active in Santiago he ordered that the ASIS operative in that area be withdrawn that they just ignored it, refused to do anything about it, and it wasn't until Whitlam took firm action and threatened to put the knife through a lot of these people who were responsible for ignoring his direction that they were withdrawn. But by that time, of course, the coup had occurred, Allende had been assassinated and Pinochet had been installed.

Ian Wood: That was former Whitlam Cabinet Minister Clyde Cameron. Before that you also heard former CIA agents Victor Marchetti and Ralph McGehee, Jerry Aaron, the co-author of Rooted in Secrecy, and Kelly Johnson of the Christopher Boyce Alliance. Next week, Watching Brief looks at the CIA interference in Australian and New Zealand trade unions.

Joe Haines from Spike EP on Vimeo.