[rerevisionist]

On this subject (partly), see Jesse on 'Occupy Wall Street' https://nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/1776-War-George-III-Bank-of-England-Rothschild-Jackson-Lincoln-overview.html

[rerevisionist]

Rather depressing experience on the 'James Randi Educational Forum' run or owned by the 'Jew' né Randall Zwinge.

There is/was a thread by 'Skeptic Ginger' (formerly skeptigirl) - registered 14th February 2005, 30,622 postings to late November 2011. (How many???)

Her thread was seeking information on sexism at 'skeptic' meetings. These it turns out are for pro-Jewish, anti-white activity, supporting Jewish frauds and attacking e.g. the Catholic church, but not of course the racist cult of Judaism, nor indeed, rather oddly, the tribal cult of Islam. I don't know if 'Skeptic Ginger' is what is known as a 'shiksa', and therefore fair game as a female goy, or one of the racist cult members, as she didn't say. At any rate, someone had complained that 'skeptic' meetings were male dominated; not only that, but females were 'hit on'.

However the point about 'Skeptic Ginger' is that I pointed out women have done little or nothing in the way of serious 'skeptical' activity or thought, partly illustrated by the book review above, and partly supplemented by a list of topics I jotted down, omitting nuclear material. These topics were crime statistics evaluation/ Shakespeare authorship/ World War 2 and 'Holocaust' work/ NASA frauds/ 9-11/ insecticides and poisoning/ investigators of mistakes in biological science/ weaponry and war crimes/ mistakes in educational practices/ population problems/ Jews and paper money/ honest criticisms of religion/ anti-war activity/ truth about Islam/ global warming-climate change/ Norway killings/ Darwin as plagiarist of Wallace. I produced evidence for the non-participation of women in every single one of these claims, but to my great disappointment, 'Skeptic Ginger' just said oh, here's a troll.

Here's a woman (presumably), on a supposedly skeptical site, supposedly devoted to critical thinking, who posts large numbers of posts, and yet can't face the simplest facts about women today. Sad.

[rerevisionist]

Just two comments on the inability of women to think about issues. One is re 'Jews', one Muslims.
[1] Chatroom:
M: Jews believe non-Jewish women are all whores. It's in their so-called holy books
W: Oh no, your anti-semetic
M: It's what they believe. I didn't ask them to
W: You're anti-semetic. You're horrible
M: The word you're after may be anti-Semitic, from Semite. They aren't 'Semites' at all
W: You must belive in mass murder like the Nazzies
M: Oh, that's wartime propaganda - why don't you check it out
W: You're a nazy. What about Auswitch
M: Jesus, you know nothing about it. Anyway, they believe Goy women are all whores
W: Your'e calling me a who re. You're disgusting
M: Well, if you support Jews, presumably you don't mind being called a whore
W: How dare you call me a whore
M: Why does it bother you? It's what Jews believe, and you support them
W: Your horrible. You keep calling me a whore
[Loop back to the start of the 'conversation' and continue, seemingly forever]


[2] (This is probably from a 2005 website; note that the author hasn't a clue about 9/11, and also doesn't mention paedophilia/ 'grooming' which the establishment media in Britain have ignored for years--)
Something rather strange happened last night. Firstly, I was in a pub, which is in itself unusual. Secondly, I found myself in conversation with some rather earnest liberal types. The conversation turned to politics, which led eventually to a rather silly looking woman...
RSLW: I hate the BNP.
PW: Really, why is that?
RSLW: Because they are horrible, fascist, skinhead brutes.
PW: I see. And what is your opinion of Muslim fundamentalists? Do you hate them also?
RSLW: No, why would I hate them?
PW: You don’t think of them as horrible, fascist, bearded brutes?
RSLW: No, certainly not. What are you trying to say? Are you a racist?
PW: How many foreign people have the BNP murdered? That you are aware of?
RSLW: Well, I’m not sure, but they must have murdered someone. That’s what they are like.
PW: I am not aware of any foreign people murdered in the name of the BNP, but I am aware of the 52 people murdered in the name of the of Islam in London in 2005, and the 2,973 murdered in the name of Islam in America on 9/11, and over 1,000,000 murdered in the name of Islam in the Sudan. Historically there have been hundreds of millions murdered in the name of Islam across the world, as every year there are hundreds of thousands murdered in the name of Islam. Are you prepared to admit therefore, that Islam is a murderous religion?
RSLW: No, Islam is a religion of peace.
PW: But the BNP is a violent sect? Filled with murderous racists? Even though you cannot name a single murder carried out in their name?
RSLW: Yes, that’s right. Even if they don’t murder people, we all know they would like to.
PW: Would you say that the BNP, whatever you may think about them, believe that their country is under threat?
RSLW: No, they are just a bunch of thugs, looking for any excuse to hate.
PW: Would you say that the fundamentalist Muslims, who murder your fellow countrymen in the name of Islam, were intent on eventually taking control of your country and running it as an Islamic state?
RSLW: What! Oh my God, you really are a racist aren’t you?
PW: But is not a fact that the BNP claim they are acting in defence of your country; and is not a fact that the fundamentalist Muslims claim they want to take over your country?
RSLW: Look, you are just trying to put words into my mouth, you are obviously a racist who.....
PW: Sorry to interrupt you, but I just want to get something straight here. On the one hand we have followers of a religion called Islam, who murder us in the name of that religion and inform us that their ultimate ambition is to conquer us, whilst on the other hand we have a group of people who have murdered no-one, and who wish to defend your country, yet you think the BNP is filled with murderous haters and that Islam is a religion of peace?
RSLW: Yes, absolutely. Only a racist would think otherwise.
PW: Have you read George Orwell’s 1984?
RSLW: Of course I have! I have a second-class degree in English Literature from the University of Leeds!
PW: How admirable. A veritable achievement indeed. One assumes therefore you are familiar with the daily Two Minute Hate, carried out by Big Brother’s state propagandists, aimed at rousing the passionate hatred of the populace against Emmanuel Goldstein?
RSLW: Yes! Absolutely! Overt propaganda utilised as a means of empowering the state at the expense of the common man in the street! Margaret Thatch…
PW: My dear, you must excuse my interrupting you again, but do you not think that you yourself might be a victim of State propagandist and brainwashing techniques?
RSLW: Me? Absolutely not! I just happen to be a senior advertising account executive; there is little I do not know about propagandist techniques.
PW: Fascinating, but is not a fact that the British State, via the media, relentlessly portrays Islam as a religion of peace and the BNP as a party of violent racists?
RSLW: Yes, but...
PW: You say you are not the victim of propaganda, yet you defend Islam as a religion of peace, even whilst you admit they commit mass murder in the name of their religion and have a stated ambition of taking over your country; yet you denounce the BNP, who you admit have murdered no-one, and act only in the defence of your country, as murderous racist thugs?
RSLW: You are deliberately confusing me, and you are deliberately putting words into my mouth again, I...
PW: My dear lady, I fear the confusion resides only within you. Whilst it has been most enlightening talking to you, I regret that I must now away. Alternative hostelries within the near vicinity beckon, with an ever-growing sense of urgency.
[PW exits stage left. The earnest liberals continue drinking half-pints of fizzy beer and small measures of Cuvee Napa Brut — all of them uniformly appalled that such an ignorant and racist individual had so recently been within their fragrant and enlightened midst.]

---

GREENHAM COMMON added September 2012

Mod: the following was proofread, had some personal details removed, and added by me here on 27 Sept 2012. It's an account of Greenham Common, where women camped and protested from (their website date) 1981 to 2000. This account was written by Ivor Catt, apparently in 1985, who was invited to the camps because of his electronics knowledge, and perhaps also his Quaker roots. 'EMC' seems to mean electromagnetic communications. His report is not very flattering to female awareness. The revisionist view of course is that Cruise Nuclear Missiles were simply a fraud, and the treaties around them also of course fraudulent:–

Ivor Catt:–
Nov98. What follows shows that dishonesty and corruption is not limited to the government side when it comes to the 'defence' industry.

I joined both Electronics for Peace, EfP (Later EcP, Electronics and Computers for Peace) and Scientists Against Nuclear Arms (SANA). Both were preoccupied with whether their telephones were being tapped, whether they should risk having a central file of members' names, and the like. They did not seem to realize how incompetent the 'defence' industry was. I made a proposal for strategy which was ignored. I will write it up on this website later.

The divide between EfP and SANA was that the former were electronic engineers in industry and the latter were academic scientists in universities. They did not seem to overlap well. Thus, the fear of pollution in the professional class war took precedence over the fear of nuclear war.

EfP had a list of members' professional skills, and I was down under electromagnetic theory. Thus, when the Greenham Common Women came to the AGM to say they were being zapped, they were put in touch with me. I kept clear of it, but they kept coming, so after nine months I spent 8 hours at Greenham Common with the freedom fighting Englishwomen, followed by a few hours in the lead GC woman's home.

I then wrote a report to for the lead GC woman and the lead EfP man. The latter sent a mealy-mouthed reply. That was the end of zapping at Greenham Common.

I.C. nov98

14 10 85 Tony Wilson [TW has published books on EMC] Electronics for Peace

Dear Tony,
    ZAPPING AT GREENHAM

After the recent EfP A.G.M. in Southampton, I went to the house of Kim Besley, who co-ordinates the information on this subject for the Greenham somen. I spent four hours there watching the Channel 4 programme on the subject on tape and reading her file on the subject.

Last Saturday I spent eight hours in Newbury and Greenham with Kim, Linette, some four other EfP members and five or more Greenham women. I was given a full 3(?) hour tour of the Greenham base outside fence.

I am strongly of the opinion that there has been no attack on the Greenham women protestors by means of electromagnetism (Zapping). Unfortunately the reasons for my conclusion are complex and lengthy. I am not letting the minutiae of my position delay the major conclusion's delivery to you …. Because my major assertion calls for quite a lot of thought by you and Tim.

If we are to conclude that there has been no zapping, then we need to extricate EfP as soon as possible from the scene, and also to help the Greenham women to minimise the extensive damage that a false assertion will do to their cause.

(The only demand I make is that if further measurements are made using expensive equipment, I be present. [I was never invited to Greenham for such an event. IC nov98])
 

---

From I Catt to Tony Wilson, EfP, 26 10 85.

    Zapping at Greenham.
I wrote to you on 14 10 85 saying briefly that I was convinced that the women at Greenham had not been attacked by means of electromagnetism (Zapping). This letter outliners the reasons for this conclusion.

Kim Besly, Sarah Leaf and one other Greenham woman have said to me that they believe they have been subjected to a cocktail of types of electromagnetic attack. First I shall classify the possible types of attack.

High frequency high power.
High frequency low power.
Low frequency low power.
Low frequency high power.

Each of these types is in turn susceptible to sub-classification.

Pulse.
The subject is obscured by the fact that misnomers abound. For instance, a 10 GHz sine wave radar signal lasting for 1 usec has always wrongly been called a pulse.

High frequency high power. 1 GHz to 100 GHz. This travels in a straight line. 100 GHz is extremely difficult to generate and attenuates rapidly with distance. One would expect to see a large piece of equipment brought as close as possible to the target, and also evidence of a large source of power. There is no evidence of any of this at Greenham. The more likely frequency used would be the commonly used 10 GHz radar frequency range, wavelength one inch. At 1 GHz one would expect to see evidence of the transmitter of the energy, again brought as near as practicable to the target (women). There is no evidence for such equipment, or of a source of power to drive it. If such radiation were in use or planned in the future, there is no possibility that the new (second from the outside) fence would have been constructed. This fence could have been designed to block radiation in this range (1 to 100 GHz), and even raises the possibility that the military are fearful of being attacked by electromagnetism! The second fence (from the outside) is metal, and is a mesh on about 2 inch square, with all corners soldered together. It closely resembles the screen used in a screened room available commercially, in its effect. The fence is just about high enough to block the possibility of straight line transmission from even the highest buildings and equipment within the fence, directly to the women outside the fence. 1 GHz is more difficult to generate and would be thoroughly blocked by the fence recently built. Paradoxically, the outside fence, although different from the second fence previously discussed, also strongly indicates that there has been no zapping. Some of this fence has been torn down by the women, and has been replaced as it was. This outside fence resembles a tennis court fence, with electrically isolated vertical wires each covered by green plastic insulation. Like the second fence, it is perhaps 12 feet high. Were there any zapping going on, it would not have been replaced the same, since it tends to screen signals with one polarisation only, and would create much too complicated a situation from the point of view of predicting the attenuation it might cause. If zapping were going on, this fence, when replaced, would have lacked electrically conducting paths within its structure. The women tend to cluster 'under' this outer fence, and are very much under its control from the point of view of how much radiation they might receive.

Low frequency high power. Frequencies like 16 Hz have been mentioned. They can bend round fence screen, but it is extremely difficult to generate and attenuates rapidly. There is no evidence whatsoever that any attempt has been made to bring up the necessary massive transmitter as close as possible to the women, and there is no evidence of a source of power of the kind needed.

High frequency low power. There is no evidence that this causes damage to humans. Further, it is bound to be there and everywhere - BBC2 for instance. Showing its presence would not indicate malign intent.

Low frequency low power. It is thought that certain frequencies (16 Hz ?) at very low power have a very powerful effect on the nervous system, resonate red blood corpuscles, etc. etc. However, this kind of attack would not be directable, and would upset U.S. and U.K. troops, who are positioned very near to the women. Further, to prove that it was present would not prove malign intent, even if the frequencies coincided with the dangerous frequencies mentioned in the literature.

Pulse. It is not clear to me what is meant by this. One possibility is that it means the creation of a large electromagnet for a short time. Sixteen times per second. That would raise the same problems as were raised over attempts to generate low frequency. We would expect to see a large piece of equipment brought up as close as possible. The attenuation with distance would be very rapid. Another possibility is that of modulating (say) 5 MHz at 16 Hz. Here we say again that the second fence would not have been built, because it would shut out the 5 MHz. Also, in all the literature I have read no mention of a rectifying capability in the body, so the 5 HMz would pass straight through it, modulated or not. The analogy is sending a 50 HHz electrical signal along in the vicinity of magnetic material which has a roll-off in its permeability at 1 usec. The magnetic material would seem not to exist. Similarly, the human would be transparent to 5 MHz, modulated or not, and therefore unaffected by it.

I went looking for high power radiation, and was nonplussed by the suggestion of subtle, low power attack. Now all the reports of low power radiation at certain frequencies having a disproportionate effect are highly controversial, and so proving its existence would not damage to the targets. My position is that EfP would be fully justified in withdrawing from the operation of proving or disproving an "attack" using a weapon whose effectiveness or ineffectiveness is highly controversial. My position is that that argument applies to all low power radiation, whatever the frequency or mode. EfP should only involve itself with high power attack, where the damage is generally accepted to be a fact

Another scenario should not be considered by EfP. That is a scenario where there are two groups inside the fence. One group are trying to zap the women, and fails to control or even influence another group, busy putting up fences which make the first group's task very much more difficult.

Another scenario should not be considered by EfP. That is where a significant percentage (say 10%) of the reporting by the women of symptoms attributable to zapping have been falsified. EfP have a very limited role in this matter, and should withdraw rather than sort out the wheat from the chaff.

There is apparently no organisation of the women, and the whole thing is rather a long running 'happening'. In these circumstances, EfP should posit the two women who visited our A.G.M. as the key women. These are Kim Besly and Sarah Leaf. Should either of their handling of the subject prove unsatisfactory, EfP should withdraw.

Sarah Leaf's testimony is unsatisfactory from a number of points of view, and her posited pivotal role therefore undermines the whole assertion of zapping having happened.

Until EfP arrived on the scene, the best technical person on the scene was Tony Webb. Of all the evidence of zapping that he has heard, he discounted one item, which was Sarah Leaf's assertion that she was burned on one side of the face and not on the other.

I spent more than an hour walking along the perimeter with Sarah. She took me to the point where she had been burned on one side of the face. By her testimony she was standing within two yards of the outer fence at one of the unpeopled U.K. troop watching posts. In my judgement there is no possibility that she received such an attack at the spot that she pointed out to me.

While we were walking along, Sarah made two further observations. One was she remarked on the very highpitched sound, which I also heard. This was obviously the noise from some piece of electrical equipment some distance away, perhaps a small petrol generator at a distance of half a mile, perhaps in the middle of the silo compound. It was totally unreasonable to associate it with electromagnetic radiation. However, the women commonly say that the radiation is picked up by the ears of some of the women. This is obviously a case of some of the women's ears cutting off at a lower frequency than others, and perfectly normal. Nothing to do with e-m. While walking along, in the presence of Kim and A. N. Other, Sarah said, "It's not good today", indicating that at that time we were being subjected to electromagnetic attack. The layout of the ground etc etc made this impossible at that time.

The fact that Sarah told me two things I found immensely significant. 1. "They want us out". She meant that the military were resorting to extreme, foolhardy (I suggested that zapping would be a foolhardy thing for them to do) measures because they were being undermined by the women. 2. "I don't think the missiles are at Greenham. They're somewhere else." Both these remarks indicate that possibly the women want out, or at least some of them. Already they have pulled out their pregnant and their children on the grounds of dangerous zapping. Until I spent time with them, I had thought of the women as being heroic and successful. However, from them I also got the idea of futility and endlessness. There is no possible scenario in the future that I can see that would enable the women to withdraw, so it would be useful to fabricate one. Zapping seems the ideal smokescreen under which to withdraw. I would see this as an evolved unconscious idea rather than a conspiracy.

Although I do not formulate this next idea logically, and believe that in any case I am discussing the illogical subconsciousness, I have the feeling that the women could not face being bested by the military, who are also human, but would more gladly accept defeat by Science. In this, EfP are in an adversary position to the women, because EfP is pro-science. It would strengthen the world-view that most of the women would like to strengthen should zapping be proven, while, because again demonstrating the malign face of science, it would damage the world view which EfP would like to strengthen. At a certain hardly formulated level, I feel that EfP are being used, being manipulated by the women. Linette's resentment when I suggested very dilute gas in many times repeated doses rather than e-m was I feel because gas is less "high-tech" than e-m. I suggested heavily diluted CS gas every fifth night or so. She greatly resented this. She had been in jail a number of times; most of them had suffered a lot.

In choosing between gas and e-m, note that I totally discount reports that you cold move in and out of the e-m beam, which was too high up to influence a woman's daughter but did catch her [the woman]. I also totally discount the measurements made on one occasion by Ian and Tessa using an instrument with broadband response. These measurements must in my view be repeated with me present before I will accept them. Kim and I were very much surprised that Ian did not bring the instrument along when he came to the [pre-arranged] meeting in early October when I was at Greenham. Also we must dismiss the argument that when we come along with equipment, the military will switch off their zapping. It is the duty of the women to get us along there at a time when they believe zapping is in progress. It they don't do that, we should conclude that there is no zapping. The women do believe that they can get the military to switch on the zapping be creating a disturbance near the fence, by the way.

Every single gate has claims of zapping [nov98. Women of different ideological orientation clustered with their own at a particular gate. I was warned to avoid one particularly iffy bunch of women at one gate.]. Some of the nine or so gates are interesting from this point because we are obviously interested in the gate where zapping would be most difficult. Consider a gate in the open with nothing anywhere near except a fence. Still, zapping is claimed. To understand this, note that one woman might reside at one particular gate for 18 months. There are three types of women, and type 'a' live at their five gates, type 'b' at their three gates, etc. etc. It would be difficult for one type of woman, who have different world view and life style from the other two types, to admit to not having been zapped at all. An all-embracing "me too" has developed, where no gate is clean. Some gates are uncertain - the gates where less women live - but no gate can unequivocally be said to be unzapped. This I consider absurd, particularly after having visited and studies all the gates.

The taking and recording of evidence of zapping by the women can only be described as slovenly. Dress, symptoms, etc. etc. are shady and muddled. I do not accept Sarah's assertion that zapping creates lethargy and makes one ill and disinclined to write down a report at the time. We must dismiss this attempt to justify carelessness. Kim Besley told me that during the second war she was in the military and repaired electronic equipment, but she said she was not strong technically. Apart from Kim there is no technical competence among the women, apparently. Kim co-ordinates the info on zapping, and has an impressive file. She believes the military might be up to anything, citing the placing of British troops in dangerous places during the nuclear tests in Australia. She is very concerned about telephone tapping, and told me that Tony Webb was too. However, Tony told me that he thought complete openness was the only safe course, and that he was happy to talk on the phone. I believe the military are malign, but after 2 years in the RAF and my father's 34 years in the RAF and army, I feel she does not distinguish properly between the inimical things the military machine might do and those it could not do. The attitude of the women to the military is too much of facing up to an eminence grise, an evil power like that in the Fellowship of the Ring, rather than my attitude, of a bumbling, money-motivated military-industrial-scientific complex.

I should have realised, but didn't before I visited it, probably because of the hype, that Greenham is a typical old RAF station, such as I served on in the RAF or lived in as a boy when my father was serving. In one corner, massive construction has taken place for the silos for the cruise missiles. This section is surrounded by five concentric fences - surely unparalleled in history. The outer two fences also surround the whole RAF station. The women camp at all 'gates' on the outer perimeter. At night they penetrate the five fences and go everywhere at will, by their own account. They use two types of cutter, one for the outer fences and another for the inner. The investment in the silo area is large - lots of money poured in per square yard. However, the spending on the perimeter of the whole station, i.e. the outer two fences, is crummy, except for this new, second from the outside fence, now being built. The whole appearance is of a crummy, somewhat derelict, old, RAF station. It would not be possible to install sophisticated equipment in this outer region and not give away by any sign at all that anything unusual was going on. The shacks which house the occasional British guard between the two outer fences are crummy. They have no electricity. There is deep hostility between the British and American troops, the latter being in the inner sanctum. In such circumstances, all sorts of problems of confidentiality arise if U.S. troops zap English women. I found at least two of the British troops near the silos very approachable and friendly. They had a sympathetic attitude to the women. How could U.S. troops roll up, outside their proper (inner) zone, and zap British women without tongues wagging? The whole idea is absurd. The women claim the British troops are being zapped too, and cite one night when the British troops were very distressed and acting strangely. I was astonished to find that when I asked about drugs among British and U.S. troops the response of the eight or so women in the room was casual. Imagine hearing some troops screaming and some troops lurching out of their billets and so on late one night, and then not making any effort to research the local drug scene, but merely to put it down to zapping! Surely that would be likely to be the first local LSD experiment, rather than zapping by other troops? I am surprised at the failure of the women to organise these things better in their minds. What do they think about, there, over the months and years? It is in this kind of way that I find is scientists out of sympathy with the framework the women are drawing us into. One of the women said they went wherever they wanted to at night in the camp, and got hold of secret documents. She said they had never, however, discovered any documentation about zapping. One of the women mentioned an MOD leak about zapping. Again, why a casual mention? Why do we not hear more? Of course, perhaps that info is too hot to give us, but again it adds to the feeling that the whole operation is slovenly.

I shall not proof-read this, because the such effort will further delay my sending this to you. I beg forgiveness in advance for spelling and factual errors. Hopefully in a few weeks I shall return to this document and correct and even better structure it. I think this letter shows how the subject escalates dangerously and tends to envelop. I do hope there is enough here to justify our pulling out, and cut our losses. He women have spent hours, days, weeks, months, years on their quest, and I hope I do not have to match their effort in what is, after all, their project, not mine.

Ivor Catt 26 10 98