Taking on the Zionist lobby head-on is well nigh impossible.
I have written a stunning piece on Werritty, Israel and a neo-con plot to attack Iran. It contains information not published anywhere, even here. I have circulated it to several national newspapers, for each of which I have written many times. I have never had a piece refused before.
Several national papers have checked out my story factually and nobody has found a single hole in it. But nobody will publish it. I reproduce below every email I have received from any of these papers in reply. They show what a hot potato a serious anti-Zionist is – and I strongly suspect that the repeated inability of editors to make decisions which emerges from these emails shows they need on this subject to consult their proprietors.
The emails are given with the source removed and which is from which paper disguised, because I don’t wish to attack anyone in particular for this generic fear of the Israeli lobby, and also because I hope I may one day work for them again. In fact I still have not received an actual “no” from anybody – just a repeated batting off of the hot potato. The story is so good nobody can actually think of an excuse to refuse it, but they dare not accept it.
I think some of the individuals involved are ashamed. Each of the papers have had the article between five and ten days – which when you consider how the newspaper industry works, is an astonishing period in which nobody is able to make a decision.
“Sorry. … is the editor.”
“Just back in after being out most of day. Jury (i.e. editor) is still out on this one. I’ve spoken to …, and emailed him your copy. Will report back in the morning.”
“Dear Craig, sorry to have been slow back, but I’m on holiday. I’ve looked at your earlier email and can’t find the attachment you mention (of the long piece), but think I’ve got the basic idea. I’m no longer comment editor and don’t commission pieces, but would recommend getting in touch with …(who is comment editor, currently editing …) if you’re thinking of a comment piece. If it’s more news, then … worth talking to, or maybe one of the reporters who’s worked on the Werrity case. Let me know how you get on, all best,”
“Hi Craig OK, had some feedback from the editor. We can’t do anything on this this week, for various reasons. In an ideal world, we would like to hold on to it for another week. We would then have our politics team make some inquiries and then run your piece – or a version of it – alongside a news story on this particular issue (providing of course that our team can come up with one). Obviously there are quite a few ifs and buts here – we can’t guarantee that we will run the piece – so I completely understand if you feel that this is unsatisfactory and that you want to cut your losses and take it elsewhere. In that case, we’ll simply pay you the £200 we’ve already agreed and hope you will consider us again the next time you have something.”
“OK, thanks Craig. Will give you a call or drop you a line tomorrow.”
“I’m temporarily out of action- deal w …?”
“Well, we can pay £200 to hang on to it until tomorrow and then I’ll have to talk to the editor about what he wants to pay to run it but if we ran it at the length you sent it, it would be a minimum of, say, £1,500”
“Yes, there was talk of it on the Today programme as well.”
“Yes, sorry for delay in replying. The answer is we are interested in your piece. It’s too early in the week to say that we’re definitely going to run it. Can we sit on it for the time being and talk again late tomorrow? Naturally, we’ll pay you for the piece”
“Good stuff.”
“Hi Craig. Thanks for your email. This other meeting might allow us to take the story on and reprise a lot of the material which was left out of our original story. What do you think?”
“Hello Craig Thanks for this. Let me have a read and a think about it and then I’ll get back to you. Cheers”
“Craig Having now had a look at your piece, let me have a bit more time to think about it, would you? best wishes”
“Craig I’ve been out of town and offline until this morning. But I’m no longer comment editor, so I don’t commission any articles anyhow best wishes”
“Craig. As I mentioned, I am off this week. I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you on Saturday. I have handed your piece over to …, the Foreign editor, and recommended it to him. He is extremely experienced and will have its best wishes at heart as well as the knowhow to secure its place in the paper. I do hope he and you can make it work. With good wishes”
“Craig.. Thank you. I have read it and have now shown it to the editor. He is having a think. I’ll get back to you as soon as I know anything … ”
UPDATE
The banned article can now be read here
Own goal:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149658
These buggers are out of control.
Wonder if the French media picked this up?
http://occupiedlove.blogspot.com/2011/11/french-consul-pregnant-wife-2-children.html
Craig,
In support, I have written to PressTV http://www.presstv.ir/ so far without response. I have also written to Paul Craig Roberts as attached below. PCR has a big following and – in private correspondence – has intimated that much of his writing on controversial subjects (read 9/11 and also Israel) is published in Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/) but never in CounterPunch or Anti-War.com, clearly indicating the soft gatekeeping function of these two sites. Anyway, here is my note to him and I hope that you both can get together.
Dear Paul,
I attach my cv to prove that I am not a flake (or fake). [You can check many of these citings in PubMed.] Please keep this confidential.
OK, having established my credentials, might I draw your attention to Craig Murray’s very important piece at http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/11/matthew-gould-and-the-plot-to-attack-iran/ ?
This article by Craig Murray almost proves, I think, that there is a shadow (zionist) group plotting the UK entry into the next war against Iran.
I will record in Craig Murray’s blog that I have sent this email to you (indeed, I will post this email; and I very much hope that you can get together on this).
I recognise that you are coming from different directions – you from Reagan and he from the left wing of British politics, but this revelation is bigger than petty political differences that might have existed in the past.
But, my attempt at matchmaker will fail unless you both agree to get together. You are both ex-insiders, since – as you may or not be aware – Craig is an ex British Ambassador.
Please read his important article on his web site and publicise it as far as you can – on ICH at least. Also, please email Craig Murray and get together.
From Craig:
“For the record I have just deleted a whole raft of pending holocaust denial related comments from a number of people. We do seem to have an incredibly clever automated moderation system that had put them all into pending.
It is not something I am going to allow on this site. There is no shortage of sites on the subject, and you are free to go there.”
As an investigative scientist all of my life I have never understood “denial” as a term that relates to scientific investigation. But in the 20th/21st century it is coming back into fashion – as in HIV denier and global warming denier. Very worrying, and it all stems from the religion of the Holocaust (cf Gilad Atzmon) when, for the first time since medieval times, scientists that choose to investigate the subject are incarcerated. Freedom of speech indeed.
abe rene: “eyewitnesses are pretty strong evidence in cases of murder.”
In cases of murder, “pretty strong evidence” is not good enough. And when it goes up against solid forensic evidence, such as DNA, the forensic evidence wins.
From the Innocence Project:
“Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.”
75% — That’s a lot!
more:
“While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.”
Contaminated – hmm . . .
And from Wikipedia:
Historically, eyewitness testimony has had what Brennan described as “a powerful impact on juries”,[2] who noted in his dissent that “All the evidence points rather strikingly to the conclusion that there is almost nothing more convincing [to a jury] than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says ‘That’s the one!'”.[5] Another commentator observed that the eyewitness identification of a person as a perpetrator was persuasive to jurors even when “far outweighed by evidence of innocence.”[6]
and this:
Juries put too much trust in witnesses because of some common misconceptions about how memories work. The common belief is that memories are recorded and then played back, much like a video recorder. However memories are not replayed as an accurate recording, instead they are reconstructed like pieces of a puzzle and they are also open to the power of suggestion. It is entirely possible to create false memories.
Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. –Scientific American
——————–
And that’s assuming the subjects are all honest, and don’t make a profit, or get privileged status or other benefits from their “memories.”
FedUp: Israel should be held responsible for the deisions of the democratically elected Israeli government. But that is not the same as holding every Israeli (or every German) individually responsible for the misdeeds of those in authority. It means that the authorities have a responsibility to turn away from wrong-doing and repair the past where they can.
Elisabeth Angel: we’re not dealing with one murder and one eyewitness. We’re dealing with millions. And, I suspect, you have not made a serious effort to talk to even a few – perhaps, for all we know, not even one. Hardly the attitude of a good investigator and seeker after truth.
Abe Rene, You wrote: “we’re not dealing with one murder and one eyewitness. We’re dealing with millions. And, I suspect, you have not made a serious effort to talk to even a few – perhaps, for all we know, not even one. Hardly the attitude of a good investigator and seeker after truth.”
Well, “millions” of murders should require millions of times the proof of one murder, but there was actually no “proof” of a single murder in in a homicidal “GC”(initialized to avoid the censor-bot)in this case — it was not required. In the military tribunals after the war, the the judges merely “took judicial notice” of the murders. There was no requirement that they be proven — basically because the tribunals were merely show trials used to provide a legal pretext for murdering the leaders of conquered Germany so the victors would have a free hand.
Yes, “Eyewitness” testimony can be very convincing. What did your “eyewitnesses” actually see, though?
It’s pointless for you to keep on at me about whether I’ve talked with an eyewitness when you obviously have made no effort to look at the forensic evidence. Of course I’ve seen “eyewitnesses” on TV, and I found them believable at the time. But the bottom line is that while people can say all sorts of things and be believed for all sorts of reasons, if something couldn’t happen scientifically, it didn’t.
In some of the “H” memoirs by survivors, the numbers claimed to have been executed per day would have added up to 6 mil in a month or two, never mind the fact that they would have been impossible. The whole point about “eyewitness” testimony is that it can be “persuasive to jurors even when ‘far outweighed by evidence of innocence.’”