Newsgroup: it.hobby.aquiloni
Titolo: M-I 5.Persecutio n . w hy th e security  servic es?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=. why the security services? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You may. ask, why do I think the "they" referred to are the security
services? Is there any evidence that there is a single source, as. opposed
to a loosely based "whispering campaign" amongst many. people? Even if there
is a. single source, is there any evidence that "they" are professional
"buggers" as. opposed to amateurs, or perhaps people working for a privately
funded. organization?
a) As to the question of a single source. versus something more fragmented;
it is quite obvious that there. is a single source from the way the campaign
has been carried out. Since. things have been repeated verbatim which were
said in my home, there. must be one group which does the watching and
listening. Since on several occasions. (mainly during travel) people have
been planted. in close proximity and rehearsed in what they were to say, it
follows that someone must have done the planning for that, and. again a
single. source is indicated.
b). So why couldn't it be amateurs? Why couldn't it be a private
organisation, for. example a private detective agency paid to manage the
campaign and. undertake the technical aspects? Some detective agencies are
unscrupulous as has been. proved on the occasions in the past when they've
been. exposed or caught; they too can have access to the bugging technology
deployed; and there are reported cases of MI5 paying private. eyes to do
their dirty work. (against peace campaigners and similar enemies of the
state) on the understanding. that if they were caught then they could deny
all knowledge. Why couldn't that be the. case?
The main factor pointing. to direct security service involvement (as opposed
to amateurs or MI5 proxies) is the. breadth of their access to the media in
particular, and the fact that the television companies are. so involved in
the. campaign. The BBC would not directly invade someone's home themselves,
since it would not be within. their remit to allocate personnel or financial
resources to do so. An organisation of their stature would. not take part in
a campaign set up by private sources. The. only people they would take
material from would. be the security services, presumably on the assumption
that if the cat ever flew. out of the bag yowling it would be MI5 who would
take. the consequences.
State sponsorship for these acts of psychological terrorism is. also
indicated by duration; support for over six. years for a team of three or
four people. would be beyond the means and will of most private sources.
The viciousness of. the slanders and personal denigration also points to
MI5; they traditionally "protect". the British state from politicians of the
wrong hue by character assassination, and. in this case are using their
tried and tested methods to murder. with words an enemy they have invented
for. themselves.
And there are precedents. Diana and Hewitt were alleged to have been. filmed
"at it" by an. Army intelligence team which had operated in Northern
Ireland, these allegations were. made by someone called Jones who had been
on the team. His statements were denied by. the defence establishment who
tried to character-assassinate by describing him as. the "Jones twins".
Funny how if you tell the truth, then you must be. ill, isn't it? Thought
only communists. behaved like that?
Hewitt later said that he'd been spoken to by someone in. the army who
revealed the existence of videotapes of him and Diana, and that the. tapes
would. be published if any attempt was made by them to resume their
association.
1648

to Him, all clear as it is that there
is a God. Without this they would have been able to disturb men.
And thus so far from these passages, Deut. 13, making against the authority
of the miracles, nothing more indicates their influence. And the same in
respect of Antichrist. "To seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."
851. The history of the man born blind.
What says Saint Paul? Does he continually speak of the evidence of the
prophecies? No, but of his own miracle. What says Jesus Christ? Does He
speak of the evidence of the prophecies? No; His death had not fulfilled
them. But he says, Si non fecissem.213 Believe the works.
Two supernatural foundations of our wholly supernatural religion; one
visible, the other invisible; miracles with grace, miracles without grace.
The synagogue, which had been treated with love as a type of the Church, and
with hatred, because it was only the type, has been restored, being on the
point of falling when it was well with God, and thus a type.
Miracles prove the power which God has over hearts, by that which He
exercises over bodies.
The Church has never approved a miracle among heretics.
Miracles a support of religion: they have been the test of Jews; they have
been the test of Christians, saints, innocents, and true believers.
A miracle among schismatics is not so much to be feared; for schism, which
is more obvious than a miracle, visibly indicates their error. But, when
there is no schism and error is in question, miracle decides.
Si non fecissem quae alius non fecit.214 The wretches who have obliged us to
speak