Hollie Greig 19 Years and still fighting for Justice

the hollie greig case

The Hollie Greig case is so complicated that I believe it is worthwhile to recap the key facts.

In 2000, Hollie, a twenty year old woman with Downs Syndrome, told her mother, Anne, that she had been abused over many years by a paedophile ring in her home town of Aberdeen.

These allegations were reported to Grampian Police but their “investigation” was extremely limited. They only interviewed 2 members of the alleged ring on one occasion each and failed to interview any of the other 6 children named by Hollie as fellow-victims. There were no searches made at any of the properties where the abuse was alleged to have taken place and no medical experts were asked to assist.

Shortly after the allegations were made, Anne was forcibly sectioned against her will in Cornhill Psychiatric Hospital in Aberdeen where she was held for 3 days. It is a matter of public record that this sectioning was initiated by Grampian Police. Anne has no history of mental illness and, within a few weeks of her release from Cornhill, she was assessed by an independent psychiatrist who pronounced her perfectly sane.

Hollie Greig: Child Abuse by the Aberdeen Establishment

In 2005, Hollie was awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, in spite of the fact that no-one had ever been charged with any offence. The CICA based it’s award on evidence from medical experts, including the eminent psychologist Dr Eva Harding who stated unequivocally that Hollie had been sexually abused.

Anne and Hollie did not regard this payout as a satisfactory conclusion and were determined to see the abusers brought to justice. However they were continually frustrated in their attempts by officialdom and felt as if they were banging their heads against a brick wall.

The Evidence, Mr. Robert Green on UK Column Nov 8 2012

In 2009, I began to assist Anne and Hollie and, after encountering the same type of problems when trying to achieve justice through the official channels, I was encouraged when I was approached by the BBC who asked if they could produce a documentary about the case. However this proved to be another disappointment as, after two months working on the programme, the BBC abruptly decided to halt production.

In October 2009, in an attempt to break the impasse, I named the members of the alleged paedophile ring at a public meeting in Edinburgh. This prompted some limited media coverage in publications including “The Firm” and “UK Column”. In December 2009, Scotland’s most senior legal official, the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, issued a warning letter to various media outlets via the Glasgow legal firm Levy & MacRae, asking them not to publicise the case. Mrs Angiolini has declined to answer a Freedom of Information request asking whether she used public funds to pay for this action.

Early in 2010, I announced my intention to stand as a General Election candidate in an Aberdeen constituency. On February 12th 2010 I visited Aberdeen with the intention of distributing leaflets to launch my campaign. Before I could do this however, I was arrested by plain clothes police officers and charged with Breach of the Peace. I was released subject to bail conditions which prohibited me from entering Aberdeenshire or using the internet and required me to report to my local police station thrice weekly. Such is the complexity of the case that I have been awarded Legal Aid to fund a high calibre legal team led by Frances McMenamin QC. My trial is scheduled to commence on November 14th 2011 and is expected to last for two weeks.

Source: Reoert Green’s Blog Summary Of The Hollie Greig Case


by Robert Green
(for henrymakow.com)

This is already a huge international story, with hundreds of pages on the web, but I will summarize this exceedingly complex story into as brief a commentary as I can.

It is important to note that whilst Hollie Greig has Down`s Syndrome, expert documentary opinion states that she is both a competent and entirely truthful and credible witness. Due to her condition, Hollie does not bring out all memories of the background at once, with the result that we are still learning about new atrocities. Much of this is not yet in the public domain, but is of a most significantly horrifying and sickening nature, going way beyond the bounds of sexual gratification. These incidents took place in the city of Aberdeen, Scotland.


Hollie has testified that she has been sexually abused by 22 named individuals, including her father, who first raped her at the age of six, then her brother, followed by her systematic and continuous ordeals at the hands of a paedophile rape gang, which included a member of the judiciary, a senior police officer, her own head teacher, her carer and other professionals. Hollie also named seven other children she had witnessed as victims of sexual abuse by the gang.

Hollie`s uncle, Roy Greig, was found dead in a stationary burnt-out car on 17th November 1997. Hollie did not tell her mother Anne of the sexual abuses until 2000, when Hollie was twenty. The following year, 2001, Hollie told her mother that her Uncle Roy had walked in one day and found her father abusing her sexually. The father threatened to have Roy killed. Shortly afterward Roy was found dead.

Eleven days after Hollie had named the gang members to the police, a raid was made on her home and without a warrant, her mother Anne was kidnapped, assaulted publicly and thrown into a mental institution, despite having no history of mental illness whatsoever. Hollie was handed back by Aberdeen`s Social Services Department, which had instigated Anne`s abduction, to her abuser father. Anne subsequently managed to get away from the institution and through her solicitor, an eminent specialist pronounced her perfectly sane.


After the sex crimes were reported, the Chief Prosecutor for Aberdeen, a friend of the abuser judge, blocked any meaningful investigation. According to the police report, no crime was committed. Nonetheless, Hollie was awarded £13,500 from public funds to compensate her for a crime that, according to the authorities, did not exist. By all accounts, this is unprecedented in British legal history.

Anne appealed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who carried out what they described as a thorough investigation. One of the leading officers who was supposed to investigate the crimes against Hollie and the other children, Detective Sergeant Innes Walker admitted that he had never even spoken to the named abusers or victims. The IPCC did not appear to find this odd in the least. It was discovered subsequently that Walker was personally associated at the time with Hollie`s female carer, one of the abusers. It was also discovered during my own investigations that four medical reports from three medical experts, all acting independently at different times and locations, provided conclusive evidence of the assaults on Hollie, supporting her allegations completely. We have those documents now. They were all deliberately withheld by the police from the official inquiry.

Also withheld was the autopsy on Roy Greig, which we only acquired a year ago. This clearly indicates that he was the victim of a vicious physical assault leading up to his death. The police indicated merely that he had died of smoke inhalation. I am aware of the identity of Roy`s likely killer and stated his name to the police when I was interviewed after being arrested on 12th February 2010. We have just received a copy of the official transcript, allegedly copied from the taped interview. This whole section is missing. Tampering with evidence is a criminal offense.

Following my introduction to the case in 2009, I challenged the Lord Advocate of Scotland, who is head of the entire legal criminal system in Scotland. Her name is Elish Angiolini. She is the same person who in her previous role in Aberdeen as Prosecutor, covered up the case in 2000.

Mrs Angiolini claimed that she knew nothing about Hollie`s case. However, we held three documents, including one from her to Hollie`s solicitor, showing that she was lying. in the summer of 2009, the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond and Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill (also controversially involved in the Lockerbie case) were informed of the Lord Advocate`s blatant dishonesty. They failed to take any action.

In December 2009, the Lord Advocate blocked the second police investigation,despite compelling and overwhelming evidence that many serious crimes had committed. I was actually present when Hollie detailed the abuses and the names of the abusers and locations in a three and a half hour interview with the police on 8th September 2009.

The mainstream media, including the BBC, were warned off any coverage of these terrible events. I later discovered that Mrs Angiolini was using a private law firm, Levy and McRae (Lockerbie again) to threaten the mainstream media over publicizing any possible linkage between her and the Hollie Greig case. It has subsequently been highlighted that she was misappropriating public money to fund a private action. Angiolini and Levy & McRae are now actively obstructing efforts to conclusively discover who paid – I think we already know.


In February I decided to stand in the British General Election, due to take place on 6th May. I traveled to Aberdeen, where I intended to stand, and was grabbed immediately by two detectives and placed in solitary confinement for four days. Whilst being held, four police officers traveled on a 700 mile round-trip to raid my home in England and remove my computer and all other confidential records belonging my clients and me. No search warrant has yet been produced, despite the police stating one was issued. I was banned from entering Aberdeen to conduct my election campaign, the only time such a thing has occurred in 300 years of British Parliamentary history.

Just before the election, on the 14th April, two officers traveled again to England to re-arrest me, in an attempt to prevent me completing documentation necessary for my election candidature. I was still standing, despite the unprecedented restrictions placed upon me. Thanks to a massive public outcry, I was released the following day.

More attempts to stop the campaign continued in England,where Hollie and Anne Greig had fled to in order to escape the rape gang, when the local council in England ludicrously decided that Hollie was a “missing person”, raiding the ladies` home on 3rd June whilst they were on holiday and seizing the computer and personal documents. Again there is no sign of a warrant.


Due to our relentless pressure, Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini was forced to announce her unexpected resignation on 1st October. The person responsible for my own arrest and persecution, Prosecutor Stephen MacGowan was removed from Aberdeen on 22nd October, after making provably false statements about both Hollie and me. One of the individuals in England who was largely responsible for the attack on Hollie and Anne`s home, Councilor Aggie Caesar -Homden resigned her local council post just prior to me confronting her on 1st November.

The campaign continues, going from strength to strength, thanks to the commitment of our many loyal supporters and the amazing courage of a few brave individuals who are mainly working in the rogue police state of Scotland.


We are making sustained attacks on a wide range of fronts, although clearly support from anyone in the mainstream media would blow the case wide open. I have absolutely no doubt that this is the biggest story in Britain today, such is the scope of it.

However, one of our positive aims at present is for a large petition demanding a full, open and independent public inquiry into the Hollie Greig case and those connected with,i.e. the murder of her uncle and the kidnapping and assault on her mother. We are in the strong position of being able to prove that there has been a massive cover-up with documentary evidence. Had the mainstream media had the guts to publish, the Scottish government would have fallen some time ago in the most dreadfully disgraced way.

I shall be in Shrewsbury, in England, on Thursday morning to challenge those from the local council who have even chosen to persecute Hollie and Anne in their place of refuge. Government support for high-level paedophile crime in the United Kingdom extends beyond the borders of Scotland.

It is understood that Hollie`s story may well have been dealt with publicly almost eighteen months ago. However, the Scottish government, fronted by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, was faced with two scandals simultaneously that would have destroyed the SNP government. The major one, in the eyes of the government, was the El-Megrahi one. Due to the massive international interests, publicity and ramifications, the government could not avoid taking a severe hit on this one, amplified now that the Libyan is still alive, nearly a year after he was expected to have died, according to MacAskill.

The Hollie Greig case, in contrast, at the time involved just two women, one of whom had Down`s Syndrome, supported by some guy in England who no-one had ever heard of. Surely the Scottish government didn`t need to worry about that.

It was a failed political gamble.

Source: Hollie Greig for Dummies

Why Does The Royal Family Hire Child Rapists

Why Does The Royal Family Hire Child Rapists

The British are hypnotized by their Royal family addiction and too cowardly to spend time with the real life reporters who can piece together why the Royal Family connection to child abuse is real.

Update: The Queen has previously been implicated by Kevin Annett over at ITCCS where indigenous native children went missing after a visit by Philip and Elizabeth but this second video (now removed) is even further testimony that the Queen is part of the Paedophile and snuff movie elite. As Bill explains. It’s not sexual.

It’s Satanic.

Robert Green Remembered

By David Scott | Friday, 12th April 2019
Robert Green, tireless campaigner against child abuse, corruption and injustice, died on 11th April 2019 after a short illness.

An inspiration to many, he suffered at the hands of the Scottish State for his defence of Hollie Grieg and her mother Ann.

One of Robert’s supporters, when told of the news, summed it up as follows:

“He was a noble man, a good man, and a fearless man”.

The following is a letter I wrote to The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on Robert’s behalf, it details why he was innocent of any crime. It was rejected by the the commissioner. Today is a good day for it to be made public.

One name, that of the Sheriff accused by Hollie Greig of being part of the paedophile and satanic rape gang, has been redacted.

27th April 2018

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

Portland House

17 Renfield Street


G2 5AH


Dear Sirs,


Application on behalf of George Robert Green esq.

Case reference SH10000189


Based on the evidence before me, which is outlined below, I believe that Mr. George Robert Green has suffered a miscarriage of justice warranting reference of his whole case to the High Court. Further, I argue in the following text; that it is strongly in the interest of justice that a reference should be made.


Mr. Green, a man of hitherto unblemished character, was arrested on 12th February 2010 in Aberdeen. At the time, Mr. Green (then aged 63) was a prospective candidate for the parliamentary general election of 2010 in the constituency of Aberdeen South. On the same day he was charged with breach of the peace. Upon summary trial at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, Mr. Green was convicted (on 24th January 2012) of breach of the peace and breach of bail conditions and sentenced (on 17th February 2012) to a total of 12 months’ imprisonment. He served three months at HMP Aberdeen (formerly known as Craiginches) followed by three months on license.

Flawed from the outset, this process commenced with the arrest of Mr. Green on entirely different grounds. When arrested, just off Union Street, by DS Drummond and DC Crowder of Grampian Police, Mr. Green was informed that he had breached an interlocutor. Being a resident of a foreign jurisdiction, that of England, Mr. Green was unfamiliar with this terminology and the officers concerned did not explain the arrest in terms Mr. Green could understand. Handcuffed, he was removed to the cells at Aberdeen police station in Queen Street, where he was held for a total of four days in solitary confinement.

When Mr. Green was questioned by the officers, he was asked when he had arrived in Aberdeen. He replied that he had arrived by train from Warrington, via Edinburgh, at 19:00 hrs. the previous evening, the 11th February. This response caused some consternation on the part of the two aforenamed police officers. Several hours later, an agent from the Crown Office arrived from Edinburgh with documentation alleging breach of the peace, an entirely different charge. It was not until Mr. Green returned home to Warrington on the 15th February to find an interlocutor document at his home that the events started to reveal themselves. This order prohibited Mr. Green from traveling to Aberdeen. It had been delivered to Mr. Green’s home at 21:00 hrs. on 11th February, two hours after he had arrived in Aberdeen. Naturally, Mr. Green was totally unaware of the existence of this document. Therefore Mr. Green’s arrest was entirely fraudulent, being for non-compliance with an interlocutor that was never properly served, and, of which he could have had no knowledge. All the following narrative flows from this false arrest and is thus fruit of this poisonous tree. Had the order been properly served, Mr. Green would have remained in Warrington and sought professional legal advice, and none of the following would have occurred.

This situation is all the more grievous given the clear understanding of the police officers concerned that the arrest was false and specious as soon as Mr. Green confirmed his recent movements. To have the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service then collude with Grampian Police to bring separate and unrelated charges is, in itself, an admission that these parties already knew that Mr. Green had been unlawfully detained but had decided to conceal this information from him.

During his arrest, questioning and charge, Mr. Green was denied access to legal representation despite asking specifically and repeatedly to see a lawyer. “This is Scotland” he was told “we decide when you see a lawyer”. This indeed was the common practice in Scotland at the time, practice subsequently found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court in the landmark Peter Cadder case. It seems probable, even certain, that competent legal advice would have seen Mr. Green released when the reason for his arrest was discovered to be without merit. Thus the original offense against Mr. Green’s human rights was compounded by the later denial of legal representation and advice.

The absence of good faith on the part of the Crown Office and Grampian Police is confirmed by the subsequent falsification of the records of the arrest which read that Mr. Green was “cautioned and detained in connection with terms of Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to a beach of the peace”. This is false.

It is worthy of note that the charge eventually brought was the oft criticised one of breach of the peace. The professional concerns which exist over the frequent abuse of this charge are examined in the Scots Criminal Law and Practice text Breach of the Peace (1990) by M. G. A. Christie, Solicitor and Lecturer in Private Law at the University of Aberdeen. He states, “But regrettably, the crime has been allowed to extend itself to eccentric and trivial behaviours (which happen to be disapproved of by some persons – very often the police) and to become an almost limitless instrument of social control. It is difficult to ascribe blame to any single source for these undesirable developments. But it is thought that these extensions will hardly be constrained without the active cooperation of the accused persons themselves and their agents. In short, too may are persuaded, or persuade themselves, that the charges against them are not worth disputing – even when those charges are of the most dubious colour.” “Charges of the most dubious colour” seems a most apt phrase in this case.


As this juncture, it is necessary to review some of the background to these particular events if a full understanding is to be achieved. Mr. Green was at the time coordinating and leading a mass public campaign on behalf of Anne and Hollie Greig. Hollie, a young woman with Down Syndrome, had been subject to sexual abuse and had been compensated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority with a cash payment of £13,500. This was made on the basis of substantial expert witness testimony, including that of Dr. Jack Boyle and Dr. Eva Harding, and of the investigatory work of Grampian Police who considered her “a reliable and credible witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”. One of the alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse named by Hollie was Aberdeen Sheriff xxxxxxxx. The aforementioned interlocutor was issued on behalf of Sheriff xxxxxxxx in order that Mr. Green’s campaign could not proceed with his election candidature.

Thus it is necessary to consider the central role of Sheriff xxxxxxxx with respect to two issues: firstly, his privileged position in the criminal justice system in Aberdeen, and secondly, his pretension of a right to interfere with the political process by which parliament is elected. Viewed in its own right, this constitutes a usurpation of the sovereign rights of the people to choose their representatives and make their laws.

To look first at the relationship between Sheriff xxxxxxxx and Grampian Police, it is germane that the agent of Sheriff xxxxxxxx was covertly filming Mr. Green in Union Street and communicating with the two arresting police officers. This raises several concerns. Firstly, to what extent may a sheriff, or similar established figure in the criminal justice system, use his privilege and connections in order to secure special treatment by police officers? What checks and balances must exist to maintain equality before the law and avoid those in high legal positions being above the law or a law unto themselves? Secondly, it seems certain, given their actions, that the police officers, at the time of Mr. Green’s arrest, believed the interlocutor to have been properly served and flagrantly breached. I can see no reasonable conclusion other than that this was how the matter had been represented to the police by Sheriff xxxxxxxx or his agents. What I do not know, and have no reasonable expectation of being able to discover, is whether Sherriff xxxxxxxx knew of the true situation or not. There seems at least a possibility that Grampian Police were willfully misled in order to induce them to make the arrest.

Next, looking at the larger question of democratic freedom, I would suggest that the situation which has here arisen, i.e. the exclusion of a parliamentary candidate, and the effective termination of his campaign, by a well-connected local law officer, has obvious and unacceptable implications for parliamentary democracy. As the people are sovereign in a common law jurisdiction such as Scotland, and thus have the right to determine their laws, and since this right is generally interpreted as a right to elect representatives to a legislating parliament, the interruption of this process by an officer of the court seems to evince such fundamental conflicts and erosion of safeguards as to be completely beyond the scope of lawful behaviour.

As much of the foregoing is based on the fact that the interlocutor was never served on Mr. Green, it is worthy of note that this fact has been accepted by The Court of Session. Mr. Green appealed against the taxation charges levied against him by Sheriff xxxxxxxx, in particular the charges for serving the interlocutor. These charges were duly removed by the Court as it was accepted that the documents concerned had never been served.

Turning now to the period between Mr. Green’s arrest and trial, several matters are worthy of note. This first is that while the case was originally a solemn procedure, it was reduced to a summary process by the Aberdeen Procurator Fiscal. This was against the wishes of Mr. Green and was also contrary to his best interests, as determined by his legal advisor, who concluded that no jury would ever convict him on the basis of the evidence presentable in this case. Mr. Green formally complained about this change, as being denied a jury would be to his serious disadvantage. It is noteworthy that, despite the decrease in maximum custodial sentence which this procedural reduction entailed (from five years to one), Mr. Green, so convinced of his innocence, sought the solemn procedure and the judgment of a jury of his peers nevertheless. Against the background of official collusion described above, the decision of the Procurator Fiscal to opt for a summary procedure in front of a single sheriff is, at the very least, concerning. As will become clear in the subsequent narrative, Mr. Green’s concerns over this unwanted change proved prescient.

A further consequence of the change from solemn to summary was the loss of legal aid support for Mr. Green. This removed Mr. Green’s legal defence team, led by Donald Findlay QC, and resulted in Mr. Green briefly having to defend himself. On 13th April 2011, Mr. Green appeared in Stonehaven Sheriff Court, facing PF Anne Currie. Ms. Currie’s response was to seek an accelerated process and an early trial date commencing on 5th June 2011. This remarkable position, on the face of it completely indefensible in terms of natural justice was defended by Ms. Currie on the basis of an assertion that fifty people had been distressed by Mr. Green’s campaign and of those, she stated, half were suffering from trauma as a result. When, subsequently, legal aid was restored, Mr. Green’s legal team challenged the PF (then Mr. McGowan) to produce medical evidence of trauma in the twenty-five people ostensibly severely affected. Mr. McGowan conceded that no such evidence existed. It therefore seems undeniable that Ms. Currie had attempted to mislead the court as to the condition of the alleged victims in order to place Mr. Green’s defence at yet further disadvantage.

In an extraordinary twist, legal aid was only restored after Mr. Green discovered that the Head of Legal Services in the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Mr. Douglas Haggarty was in fact a convicted sex offender. Mr Green, considering that this fact may occasioned the sudden denial of legal aid, protested publicly about this situation. Once public attention was drawn to this situation, Mr. Green’s legal aid was restored, as suddenly as it had been removed.


Mr. Green’s trial was originally set for November 2011 and his senior counsel was Frances McMenamin QC. During the months leading up to the trial, Ms. McMenamin worked with Mr. Green on his defence, which was predicated on a plea of “not guilty”. During this period Mr. Green’s defence took robust form, and this included the unusual step of citing Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan as a chief witness for the defence (more detail on the reasons for this follows below). Within hours of this move, Ms. McMenamin asked to meet with Mr. Green in the presence of junior counsel John McLoughlin and solicitor Gerry Sweeney.

At this meeting, she immediately told Mr. Green that she was only prepared to represent him on the basis that he change his plea to guilty. The reason for this sudden volte-face was a meeting she had had with the trial judge, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen, following the citation of PF McGowan. She stated that the Sheriff had “thrown down” all of Mr. Green’s evidence, including expert witness statements and the document which formed the basis of PF McGowan’s having been cited. “Thrown down”, she explained, was a literal description of what the Sheriff had done: he had thrown the stack of documents constituting the defence across his desk to illustrate his pertinent refusal to consider the defence documentation. As all of the documents that Ms. McMenamin (and her client Mr. Green) had relied upon for the defence were to be excluded by the Sheriff, Ms. McMenamin concluded that she could only proceed if Mr. Green were to plead guilty. Mr. Green questioned this decision and Ms. McMenamin appeared extremely uncomfortable; she could not explain this sequence of events further or give a rational explanation for the arbitrary nature of the sudden decision by the Sheriff. Mr. Green, considering himself entirely innocent, and thus refusing to plead guilty, was left with no option other than to dismiss Ms. McMenamin from his defence team. Mr. Sweeney continued to offer his support as an amicus curiae until Mr. Green could assemble a replacement legal defence team.

I have spoken to a member of the public gallery, Mr. Neil McKechnie of Dunblane, who was present at a procedural hearing (which Mr. Green was not required to attend). The Sheriff stated in this hearing that he had issued an ultimatum to Ms. McMenamin. The exact nature of this ultimatum is not known to me, but the entire sequence of events would seem to call into question the fairness of the trial and impartiality of the Sheriff.

It is of course a fact that Ms. Frances McMenamin QC is now a member of your board and, thus, measures must be in place to prevent any conflict of interest between her role as SCCRC board member and her role in this case, where she is likely to be called to give evidence of the pressures that she faced in defending Mr. Green and the decisions that she made in the immediate aftermath of citing PF McGowan.

At this juncture, it is necessary to understand Mr. Green’s reasons for citing PF McGowan as defence witness number one. The main reason was a letter dated 4th December 2009 to Anne Greig in which Mr. McGowan stated that the former Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen (and later Lord Advocate) Elish Angiolini was not involved in the case concerning Hollie Grieg, and was thus not responsible for the failure to carry out a thorough investigation into the abuse suffered by Hollie. Mr. Green was (and is) in possession of official correspondence which refutes this position and shows Ms. Angiolini to have had direct involvement with the case in 2000 and 2001. This was key to the defence because Mr. Green’s subsequent actions were prompted by the failure of the Crown Office, then under the direction of Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, to take appropriate action over the abuse of Hollie Greig. The correspondence shows that when the initial investigation failed to progress in 2000/2001, this was also under the direction of then-Fiscal Elish Angiolini.

This should have been significant in the court’s deliberations when deciding whether Mr. Green’s actions were those of a reasonable and law-abiding concerned member of the public or were in some way criminal. It was Mr. Green’s position that the failure of the authorities (under Elish Angiolini’s direction) was so egregious and left the risk posed to the public at such a severe level, that his campaign was necessary to protect vulnerable children. Furthermore he considered it his Christian duty, given the information at his disposal, to act to prevent other children being similarly abused.  All of this relevant correspondence was included in the bundle of defence evidence cast aside by Sheriff Bowen. Even in breach of the peace cases, it is necessary to demonstrate mens rea, or evil intent. Mr. Green’s actual intent does not appear to have been considered.

Since the trial, further information has come to light and Mr. Kenny MacAskill, former Justice Secretary, and the Justice Directorate have both confirmed Elish Angiolini’s key role in the 2009 decision not to proceed on the Hollie Greig case. This blatantly contradicts correspondence from the Crown Office concerning the handling of the case. These events reinforce Mr Green’s contention that he was acting correctly, dutifully and honorably in the face of official deceit, dissembling and cover-up.

Sheriff Bowen, shortly after the events leading up to Frances McMenamin being dismissed from Mr. Green’s defence team, decided to refuse the defence permission to have Mr. McGowan as a witness.

Ms. McMenanin’s replacement as senior counsel was Gary Allan QC. Mr. Green met with his legal team consisting of Mr. Allan QC, Mr. Macleod (junior counsel) and his new solicitor Frances McCartney in Glasgow in late 2011. At this meeting he insisted that Elish Angiolini should now be called as the primary witness for the defence and should be cited accordingly. Mr. Allan refused to take Mr. Green’s instructions on this matter, claiming that Ms. Angiolini would simply refuse to answer any question that might incriminate her. Mr. Green’s view – that the former Lord Advocate refusing to answer questions concerning a child rape case, on oath, in open court, on the grounds that she may incriminate herself – would be devastating for the prosecution case, was not shared by Mr. Allan. Mr. Allan further disclosed that he had known Ms. Angiolini well for thirty years. As an impasse had been reached, Mr. Green dismissed Mr. Allan immediately for failing to take his instructions.

The next replacement senior counsel was Andrew Lamb QC, who was prepared to take Mr. Green’s instructions and who agreed that the best interests of the defence would be served by citing Elish Angiolini. This was done at the next court hearing and Sheriff Bowen decided to consider the matter. At the subsequent hearing, it was announced that Elish Angiolini had refused to appear before the court. This refusal was supported by Sheriff Bowen and thus the defence was deprived of a second key witness.


The trial commenced on 16th January 2012 at Stonehaven before Sheriff Principal Edward Farquhar Bowen. The prosecution cited 36 witnesses, none of whom was refused by Sheriff Bowen. The defence cited three witnesses, two of whom were refused. The single witness allowed was a journalist who had reported on the Hollie Greig case.

Cross examination of DC Lisa Evans of Grampian Police, the investigating officer who had taken the evidence from Hollie Greig on 8th September 2009, revealed that the police had not interviewed any of the persons named by Hollie as responsible for her abuse and rape following the September interview. Moreover, nine of the persons named by Hollie as her abusers were prosecution witnesses; all were asked whether they had been questioned by the police; all confirmed that they had not been interviewed.

Two further points are worthy of note concerning the trial. Firstly, it became known sometime after the hearing that Grampian Police had in their possession an intelligence report concerning two of the persons accused by Hollie Greig of rape and molestation. This report stated that the two individuals were “believed to have a predilection for very young girls”. This document was not provided to the defence. Secondly, some documents seized by the police were never returned to Mr. Green, hampering his defence; most notable among these was the blue notebook in which he made a record of Hollie’s long interview in which she consistently and clearly named and described her abusers. This document has never been returned to Mr. Green; it has simply vanished.

On 24th January, Sheriff Bowen found Mr. Green guilty of breach of the peace and breach of bail conditions. The sentencing hearing was set for 17th February 2012.

In the interim period, between the conviction and the sentencing hearing, Mr. Green discovered that Sheriff Bowen had failed to disclose his ten-year acquaintanceship with Elish Angiolini from serving on the Northern Lighthouse Board. It transpired that they had both attended at least three meetings of the Northern Lighthouse Board during the period between Mr. Green’s arrest and their resignations from the Board which were tendered on 5th and 6th May 2011 respectively. On the day of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Green challenged Sheriff Bowen concerning his relationship with Ms. Angiolini and his concealment of this association when deciding on the defence motion citing her as a witness. Mr. Green stated that this undisclosed relationship must be reasonably considered to represent a conflict of interest. He asked the Sheriff to recuse himself. He also made it clear that, had the situation been known earlier, he would have called for a recusal at the outset of the proceedings. Sheriff Bowen proceeded with the sentencing regardless.

Mr. Green’s counsel also handed over more than two hundred letters of support from concerned members of the public, many of them professionals. After a fifteen minute recess, the Sheriff proceeded to hand down the sentence which was the maximum permitted for a summary trial – one year imprisonment.

A point to note concerning Mr. Green’s request for recusal of the Sheriffis that this was subsequently considered by the independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali, who found fifteen errors in the proceedings, all to Mr. Green’s disadvantage. Specifically concerning the undisclosed association between Sheriff Bowen and Elish Angiolini, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer stated; “I believe that the Judicial Office should have referred this aspect of your complaint to the Disciplinary Judge for consideration under rule 10.”.

In his sentencing comments, Sheriff Bowen made statements of a racially or ethnically discriminatory nature concerning Mr. Green. These were witnessed by those present in court, several of whom I have spoken to. The court transcript, however, entirely omits the critical phrases, which, if recorded would show sufficient bias for an appeal to be almost certainly successful. This situation I explored in detail in an 18th December 2014 letter to Lord President Gill, a copy of which is attached, along with the inaccurate official record of the sentencing statements. This matter was the subject of a separate complaint by Mr. Green, ordered by Lord Eassie and heard by Lady Smith. There is in existence an audio recording of the trial which would either prove the transcript to be in error or, even more worrying, would provide forensic evidence of tampering. However, the tape of trial was withheld from Mr. Green by Lady Smith and subsequent requests by Mr. Green’s former MP (and minister of the Crown) David Mowat (Conservative) and Mr. Green’s current  MP, Faisal Rashid (Labour) for a copy of the recording have likewise been rejected by Lady Smith.

In his short and intemperate sentencing statement, Sheriff Bowen had but one criticism for the Crown, ironically one shared by Mr. Green. Sheriff Bowen said, “If the Crown are to be criticised for anything in this matter it is not bringing the case on indictment where you could have been subject to further penalties.”. Had the Sheriff and Mr. Green been granted their wish for the case to be heard on indictment, before a jury, we would not, I am convinced, be where we are today.

One final comment of Sheriff Bowen’s is worthy of note. He said to Mr. Green, “By your campaign you have sought to undermine the criminal justice system and the Government of Scotland as a whole.”. As none of this was in evidence, this is, on surface of it, a strange statement. For reasons I will explain in the conclusion to this letter, the Sheriff was here addressing matters not patently evident but nevertheless underpinning this case, which is so much more than a simple, summary breach of the peace trial.

Post Trial

Immediately following the conviction, Mr. Green’s solicitor, Patrick Campbell and Co, applied for leave to appeal. This application was rejected by Lord Bonomy.

In this regard the timescale is significant because of the overlapping events and decisions arising from the Supreme Court ruling in Cadder v. HM Advocate. The Supreme Court ruled in October 2010 and the Scottish Government was forced to bring in emergency legislation to cope with the fallout. The Scotsman reported (20th June 2013) that “By February the following year, almost 900 suspected criminals, including alleged rapists, had walked free, after prosecutors were forced to drop charges against them because of the Cadder ruling. Charges of sexual assault, robbery and possession of firearms were also among 867 dropped in just three months.” . Had leave for appeal been granted, the question of Mr. Green’s detention without access to a lawyer in the hours before he was charged on solemn indictment (as it was then) would have been open to examination; for, as the Supreme Court ruled:

“convictions that have become final because they were not appealed timeously, and appeals that have been finally disposed of by the High Court of Justiciary, must be treated as incapable of being brought under review on the ground that there was a miscarriage of justice because the accused did not have access to a solicitor while he was detained prior to the police interview. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission must make up its own mind, if it is asked to do so, as to whether it would be in the public interest for those cases to be referred to the High Court. It will be for the appeal court to decide what course it ought to take if a reference were to be made to it on those grounds by the Commission.” (UK Supreme Court 2010, para 62)

It also must be noted that the two police officers who interviewed Mr. Green, and who repeatedly denied his request for legal representation on the grounds that “this is Scotland” , both gave evidence for the prosecution at Mr. Green’s trial. This evidence included statements obtained from the interview conducted in the absence of legal representation. As this interview took place in February 2010, before the Cadder ruling, it was normal practice at the time. However, by the time they gave evidence in January 2012, the Supreme Court had long since ruled this practice unlawful and a breach of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. Why the court allowed this to proceed is unknown and unexplained.

The sentencing of Mr. Green included the imposition of a non-harassment order, which later formed the basis of a further action against him. There are many aspects of the later action that are of concern, but for the moment I will leave the narrative at this point with leave to appeal denied, since, in the event that this conviction is overturned, the non-harassment order and related actions would surely fall as a consequence.


To summarise, Mr. Green was arrested on entirely spurious grounds, held for days and denied legal representation during his questioning. The sequence of events has the colour of a most odious conspiracy to silence Mr. Green and end his campaign for a proper investigation into the Hollie Greig case. He was subsequently denied legal aid at critical times in his defence and had a trial before a judge of such bias as would shame a nation with a history of jurisprudence much inferior to that of Scotland. He was then denied leave to appeal. It seems clear that Mr. Green has suffered a miscarriage of justice, that his conviction is unsafe and that his record should be expunged.

Although a summary breach of the peace trial may seem a small matter for an appeal to the High Court, the issues on display here are of the greatest importance to our nation and our justice system. To what extent are insiders, well connected to police and courts, permitted to wield that influence to protect their own private interests? What separation of powers is present to ensure that judges, and similar men and women of influence, are not above the law? Mr. Green’s case has attracted, and will continue to, attract, support both from the public and at the highest political levels (for example a UK parliamentarian nominated Mr. Green for the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize) because of the importance of the issues it raises. When institutions fail to protect the innocent, and ordinary men and women speak out against the injustice, are they themselves to be protected from the state apparatus, or are they to be victims in their turn?

In short, this case is not, as Sheriff Bowen stated, about an attempt by Mr. Green to “undermine the criminal justice system and the Government of Scotland as a whole”. Nevertheless, it does as a case raise questions about the fitness of that criminal justice system and the legitimacy of that government. For we, as a sovereign people, must be served by the institutions we create, not oppressed by them. As a Scot and resident of this land, I find this question is of the greatest import.

I therefore request that you undertake a full review and inquiry into this case and refer the matter to the High Court as outlined in clause 194(c) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

Mr. Green is fully aware of the contents of this letter and consents to my writing on his behalf. He will fully cooperate with your work, offer any assistance you require and furnish you with any evidence in his possession.

Yours faithfully


David Scott BEng, CEng, MIStructE, MICE, MIES

Cc: Secretary of State for Scotland


This appeal was to no avail. But before a higher judge, Robert Green will get justice. I read the following to him a few hours before his death:

Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.

My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.

For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation.

Isaiah 51; 4-8


Robert Green: 17th March 1946 — 11th April 2019.

Rest in peace

1840 – 1937  The Golden Age of Medical Cannabis

From Antique Cannabis Book.com

While western doctors had made use of Cannabis for a variety of minor ailments ever since the days of Galen.   It wasn’t until O’Shaughnessy (an Irish doctor, who while in India learned about Cannabis from local Mohammedan and Hindu physicians), returned from the Bengal (1839) and published his findings, that the western world begin to take notice.   At a time when western medicine had few if any reliable drugs, here was an analgesic (painkiller), a sedative and antispasmodic agent all in one.   And best of all, it had a very low toxicity rate (to this day no one has died from its use) and could be grown almost anywhere in commercial quantities.

For obvious reasons, Cannabis Indica or Medical Marihuana soon became an indispensable part of western medicine.   In fact, it spread throughout the western world like wildfire, and within a few years would be as common a medical ingredient in medicines as aspirin is today.


What Was The First (known) Antique Cannabis Medicine?
What Year Was It Made In?
What Firm Manufactured It? 

The following is a short article, taken from the June 1890 (page 104) issue of the American Druggist.

Extract of Cannabis Indica
Dr. Cripps Lawrence warns prescribers to be careful regarding the use of this extract, which is well known to be of exceedingly variable activity, owing to the crude drug being sometimes inert and sometimes active. He mentions that five years ago Messers, Squire & sons informed him that from the time Dr. O’Shaughnessy first introduced cannabis indica into England, and gave some to the late Mr. Peter Squire in order to make it into an extract, up to the present day, they have been continuously supplied by the original collectors of the plant, and each sample has proved good, yielding efficient preparations; but they have found that the active principles vary in different specimens of the plant from year to year, so that they cannot predicate the actual degree of potency to be attributed to an extract or tincture prepared under identical conditions, until the preparation has been adequately tested for any given year. In this connection we may recall the advice of Dr. George Watt contained in a communication to the Chemist and Druggist (Feb. 19th, 1887), in which he recommends “chemists desirous of making the very best extracts of Indian hemp to pay the full price for Bengal ‘Ganja,’ and to import the article from Calcutta instead of from Bombay, when there would be every chance that the defects complained of in the extract as now prepared would disappear completely.” The reason of this recommendation is that the greatest care is taken in Bengal to insure that the female plants are not fertilized by the male, so that the full narcotic power of the drug may be retained. This it loses after fertilization.

Thus it can be stated that the very first (known) Antique Cannabis Medicine was bottled in London England (1840).

NOTE: This museum only deals with Brand or Trade name products manufactured by established firms, not with generic products.   Thus in terms of Western Medicine, 1840 is our starting date.   However, it is still very much possible that some (let us say), Indian medical products could pre-date the above product, but at least for now, none that we know of.


QUESTION:   On a Brand or Trade Name Basis; How Many (legal) pre-1937 Medical Cannabis Medicines were there?

ANSWER:   World-Wide, somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 — That’s not a joke, that’s the answer.   In case this is a little hard to swallow, maybe an explanation, by way of a fictional story, is in order.

It was a public forum . . . the city council was debating whether or not to impose a ban on all medical cannabis dispensaries in the city.   Darla Dare sat patiently as one speaker after another spoke out on the ordinance.   One narcotics official stated:

    • “Medical Cannabis has

no medical uses

    ” and . . . “those who thought that way were in denial, YES there’re in denial.”
Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 
Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Darla Dare pointed to various posters showing old Cannabis Medicines. 

Another said that, “Proper medicines come in pill form and you buy them in a drug store.”   Therefore he was not in support of anyone using Medical Cannabis.

Yet another spoke about a conspiracy of the un-washed hippy.   That he deliberately got Cancer, just so he would have an excuse to use Medical Cannabis ; But that we were going to stop him. . . . . And on and on the speakers went on, until it was Darla Dare’s turn to speak.

“My name is Darla Dare, I am with a pro-Medical Cannabis museum.   Our museum has documented well over 600 pre-1937 (meaning legal) medical cannabis medicines; ALL of which incidentally were sold in drugstores on a brand or trade name bases.”

Darla Dare now pointed to various posters she had brought with her showing pictures of old Antique Cannabis Medicines and went on.   “Here are examples of some of these pre-1937 pharmaceutical medicines.”

At this point, there was now an obvious tension in the meeting room, just a few speakers earlier a narcotics police spokeswoman had stated that, Medical Marihuana had NO MEDICAL uses.   “That it never had and never would.”   Yet here was actual proof, that this just wasn’t the case.   The tension was so high that one of the city council members had to interrupt Darla Dare and ask a question.   “Young woman, you stated well over 600 such medicines?   I find that a little hard to believe.”

“Well actually our museum has probably documented over 2,000 by now, there were just so many that we stopped counting some ten years or so ago at six hundred.”   “WHAT,” said the council member, obviously taken aback, “How can there have been so many and what do you mean by document?”

Darla Dare politely looked about her, it was obvious that after so many negative speakers that some were doubting her statements.   But she politely replied, “By documentation, I mean something that will stand up in court.   As example:

  • An old medical patent application specifically mentioning the use of Medical Cannabis.
  • Corporate sales leaflets, or magazine advertisements, specifically mentioning the use of Medical Cannabis in their products.
  • A reputable Trade or Medical magazine article — specifically mentioning the medical product and the fact that Medical Cannabis in used.
  • Old Pharmaceutical Price and Product Catalogs etc.“All of which make excellent sources of documentation.   For example,” and here Darla Dare, reached into a backpack and pulled out an old ‘Eli Lilly’ Price and Product catalog from the year 1920.   “This old catalog documents that in 1920 the Eli Lilly Co., was making and selling around 20 medicines that in one form or another made use of Medical Cannabis.”

    What?   Said the city council member again, exactly how many ways of smoking this stuff did they have?

    Darla Dare replied, “Well they didn’t, in fact of all the brand or trade name medicines that we have been able to document so far, only ‘one’ is smokable.   All the rest are either external lotions or oral medications.   As you can see by the pictures, before being outlawed, Medical Cannabis came in pill form and you bought it in a drug store.   However, many of these medicines were what we now call, ‘compound medicines’ ; Meaning that there was more then one ingredient in them.   Are you able to follow?”

    Yes, I guess I can, but please go on — you were saying.

    “I was merely going to point out that this old catalog (year 1920) predates the Reefer Madness dis-information campaign by about a decade or so.   That means that there are no stories yet about scanty clad girls (jumping out of windows), no boys (under the influence of Medical Cannabis) grabbing axes and killing whole families, etc.   That at this time Medical Cannabis was just another ho-hum but legal medicine and thus no reason not to include it in one’s corporate sales catalogs.   I believe that another firm, Parke-Davies, holds the record with over 74 Cannabis medicines in just one of their catalogs.”   The audience at the city council meeting was now silent; no one had ever brought up these facts before.

    “But”, interrupted yet another council member, isn’t that figure 2,000 medicines, especially as you stated on a Brand or Trade name bases, a little on the high side?

    “Actually NO,” said Darla Dare.   “These are the ones that we have been able to fully document, we know for a fact that they existed.   But please don’t take my word for it.   Our museum has collected over a hundred of these old pharmaceutical price and product catalogs, and religiously computer scanned selected pages.   I’m not trying to hock anything here, but we do make this documentation available to the public in CD-rom format at cost.”

    But to specifically answer your question, we believe that in total there were probably between 20,000 and 30,000 of these legal pre-1937 medicines.   Again, all being sold under a specific brand or trade name.

    What, now wait a minute”, screamed one of the city council women.   Already the room was in an uproar, some saying that this had to be a lie, others that it was the drug police had been lying to them for years.   But it was obvious that some who had spoken earlier were somewhat uncomfortable with the situation.

    “Young woman, this is not very funny,” stated the councilwomen.   “I feel you should provide some level of proof to your statements or apologize to everyone in this room.”

    “Gladly” said Darla Dare.   “I stated earlier that our museum has been able to obtain over a hundred of these old pre-1937 pharmaceutical price and product catalogs.   The problem is that between 1850 and 1937 (the years most Antique Cannabis Medicines come from), there were probably over one-thousand [B] pharmaceutical manufacturers in the New York City area alone.   And I can assure you that N.Y. was not the only pharmaceutical hub that we had back then.   In effect, this means that we have only skimmed the surface of what’s out there to document.   And please understand that it’s not for lack of will but lack of finances that prevent us from obtaining yet more.“ [C]

    “But be that as it may, we must also take into account that our museum mostly deals with English language North American pharmaceutical antiques.   The devil only knows how many German, Swedish, Italian . . . etc., antique Cannabis medicines were out there.   But between twenty and thirty thousand world-wide is about right.”

    “But young woman” said the city council member.   “I’m still having a little trouble believing you.   How could Medical Cannabis have been used in so many medicines?”

    “Please forgive me,” said Darla Dare, “I’ll speak in terms that you can understand.”   “Back in 1840 a Dr. O’Shaughnessy, documented that Cannabis had three major uses, those being:

  • As a sedative
  • As a pain killer
  • As an anti-spasmodicAt a time when even aspirin had not yet been invented and western medicine had few reliable drugs ; anyone of the above uses made Medical Cannabis a wonder drug.   But soon doctors found numerous other medical uses, as well as numerous sub-uses for Cannabis.”

    “Uses, Sub-uses, what’s the difference?,” asked a councilwomen.

    “Oh, I guess that could be confusing,” said Darla Dare.   “Let me give you a couple of examples.   When used as a sedative, Medical Cannabis is great, but if a doctor recommends a stronger dosage, it than acts as a safe sleeping agent.   That’s an example of a sub-use.   On the other hand, a good example of a major medical use occured some forty years after O’Shaughnessy. That was when drug manufacturers discovered that Cannabis could also be used in cough syrups, etc.   Our website has a good list of it uses – [www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com].”

    Your words certainly contradict what our narcotics police are saying”
    “Yes they certainly do” said Darla Dare.   “But then the axis of Evil, always seems to have an axe to grind.”   To which a bit of laughter broke out in the room.

    “I protest,” said one of the narcotics officials who had spoken earlier claiming no medical uses.   Many of these drugs she was speaking about are repeats, the same drug simply made by two different manufacturers.

    “That is true” said Darla Dare, “Back in the 19th Century, most manufacturers produced what were essentially the same drugs, with extremely small modifications between them.   No one is denying that, in fact our museum website even has a whole sub-section dealing with this factor.”

    “What section is this?”, asked the narc.   “The section on Chlorodyne” answered Darla Dare.

    “Now wait a minute”, broke in one of the City Council members.   “Isn’t that a bit like cheating?   I mean some of these medicines are being counted twice, aren’t they?”

    “More than twice, I would think,” said Darla Dare, “At this point, I believe we’ve found about 20 manufacturers that made Chlorodyne alone.   Would you like me to expand on the subject?”
    “Please do”, said the narc, as did the City Council member.

    “Well as I’ve already said, many of the drugs sold before 1937 were generic in nature, meaning that more than one pharmaceutical company was manufacturing it.   However, as they were sold under different brand or trade names (as a museum, we do count them multiple times.   And additionally, if I may add, it is also possible for one manufacturer to package (essentially the same drug) in pill as well as tablet form, and our museum would also count this twice.

    “But” Darla Dare went on, “Allow me to ask all of you a trick question: How many legal makers of pre-1937 Cannabis medicines were there in this country? “

    After waiting for a few seconds, she went on, “The answer is probably somewhere between two hundred and three hundred thousand.”   At this point there was almost dead silence in the meeting room.   “How could this be?” everyone was thinking.

    “Maybe an explanation is in order. To most people the very concept behind home-brew medicines, (the art of making batches of one’s own medicines at home), must seem a little bit odd at best.   And not without good reason, as the practice must have been a haphazard one at best.   Yet at one time, home brewed medicines were very common.   In fact, from an ideological viewpoint, they were part of the Jeffersonian ideals.   Perhaps the following quote best describes this viewpoint:

    ‘It bestowed upon everyone the alleged ability to heal themselves apart from the pretensions of the allopathic physician.   Such a therapeutic system resonated with a Jacksonian democracy attempting to divest itself of what it viewed as elitist European notions that skill and knowledge are reserved only for those of rank and privilege. —‘John Uri Lloyd’ by Michael Flannery – pp30

    “For good or for bad, Jeffersonian ideals lead at least in part to the creation of the public school systems and with the ability to read and write, lots and lots of ‘How To Do It’ books.   One didn’t have to go far during this era to locate a book of recipes on medicines for various ailments.   I guess one could say, everyone was encouraged to be his or her own doctor.

    However, I think you can all see how this situation could led to a little over counting.”   Some laughter broke out among the audience. . . “Which is why we only count them if they were sold under a specific Brand or Trade name; Essentially to eliminate this problem.   We also have adopted a couple of other restrictions:

    • Manufacturing had to have taken place in an area specifically set up for pharmaceutical manufacturing — not in someone’s back yard.
    • The manufacturing firm in question had to have had the proper business licensing for the given era.

    We’ve found that these restrictions pretty much prevent grannies hooch as well as the fly-by-nights, but we do devote a whole subsection on our website to Quack medicines, — of which there weren’t very many.”   At this time, it was becoming obvious that public opinion was now shifting away from the narc’s and their anti-Cannabis dispensatory ordinance.

    “But Ms. (ah) Dare”, said one of the anti-Medical Cannabis City Council Members.   “We still have the fact that many of these thousands of pre-1937 (ah) Antique Cannabis Medicines are duplicate counts.   Isn’t that cheating?”

    Darla Dare replied, “I guess so, if you wish to view it as such — after all this was an era of generic drugs.   However, IF WE WANTED TO CHEAT as you say, we would simply start counting the 500 tablet bottle, as opposed to the 50 or 100 tablet bottles, multiple times.   That would make for a really big count real fast.”

    Laughter once more broke out among the audience, with even some of the City council members joining in.

    “Please forgive me” said Darla Dare.   “I was only trying to show that, before the passage of the anti-Medical Marihuana laws and contrary to what some of the previous speakers would have you think, Cannabis was in widespread medical use.   And as you see by the fact that so many Medical Cannabis dispensaries exist (where legal), it still is to this very day.”

    “I think you made your point,” said another member of the city council.   It was now obvious, even to the narc’s that their anti-medical Cannabis dispensary law wasn’t going to pass.   The public had lost all support for it, . . .

    Darla Dare herself is a fictional character modeled after Earle Rowell’s (author of Marihuana the weed of madness 1939) own fictional character David Dare. However all incidents actually have happened in real life.
    [B]- This figure comes to us via (what we would now term) old phone books, city directories, trade magazines etc.
    [C]- If anyone out there has an extra $1,000, this museum curator knows where to go and document yet another 500 more Medical Cannabis Antiques. It’s not the lack of will but the lack of $$$ that is holding things back. 


List Of The Traitors To Britain – The Greatest Crime In A Thousand Years

The abolition of Britain is illegal under the British Constitution, and the criminal acts of the Queen and her Ministers have included the worst acts of treason in history. They secretly repealed the treason laws in 1998 (hidden in s36.3 of the Crime and Disorder Act) to save their own necks. The criminality of our ministers and parliament won’t save us – the EU’s Constitution will automatically abolish the British one, and they will have got away with the greatest crime in a thousand years.

List of Traitors to Scotland the United Kingdom
Since 1972 five European Union treaties have been signed abolishing our nation. As this is illegal under the British Constitution, our nation needed to be undermined with the methods listed below. The EU is succeeding exclusively through subversion by British traitors from inside the UK.

The EU has the laws of a police state, and a constitution that hands absolute power to unelected dictators; it specifically hands all military power (and that includes the nuclear weapons of Britain and France,) to these dictators. It is the Soviet system, and creates a sham EU parliament with no power; it will abolish the nations of Great Britain and England.

The list of traitors according to the severity of their crime:
Traitor number 1. HM the Queen. Has committed five acts of treason signing EU treaties that abolish our nation. She is the only monarch to have broken her Coronation oath. Failed as the ultimate check and balance, failed to insist on a national ballot for the abolition of our nation.

Traitor number 2. Edward Heath. Committed an act of treason by passing the 1972 EU Communities Act, which is the enabling act to abolish our nation. He then lied in his White Paper and in his speeches this Act would not abolish our sovereignty. He started the entire illegal EU process. The fact he was a lifelong member of the Deutsche VersicherungsDienst intelligence department was not discovered until his death.

Its very important to understand the legal basis for treason. Firstly it has always been the most serious crime on the statute book, worse than murder. Treason has long been the only crime punished by “hanging by the neck until dead.” Murderers only get life. The definition of treason is “a crime that undermines one’s government” or “the offence of acting to overthrow one’s government.” Philby, Maclean, Blunt,
Burgess committed treason, by selling secrets to the Russians, and would have got perhaps 15 years if they had returned. What Heath did was the ultimate act oftreason, not just undermining our nation, but abolishing it. If a court case had been brought, he would have got the ultimate penalty.

3. Tony Blair Committed three acts of treason, with three EU treaties. He is also an enthusiastic implementer of EU laws disguised as British laws, the latest being ID cards; he’s an enforcer of crippling EU regulations. Blair is the chief manufacturer of the EU police state in Britain (Scottish rite 33rd degree mason of Studholme lodge 1591 ).

4. John Major committed Treason with the Maastricht treaty; he also sold our main military and nuclear port, Devonport Dockyard, to Dick Cheney’s Haliburton Corporation for peanuts, his bribe was to be European MD of the Bush family’s Carlyle Weapons group, and $1 million pa for life, so he is definitely on the other side.

5. Margaret Thatcher committed Treason with the Single European Act. She is the only Prime minister who now regrets signing it. She’s still guilty – a murderer who apologises only has a mitigating circumstance. She’ll remain a traitor until her death. Like many top people on our side, she’s developed heart problems and is too ill to help.

The above four people have all committed treason, and prosecutions were pending. Tony Blair’s risk was the full force of the law for signing the Amsterdam Treaty amongst others. But in a stunning abuse of power, Tony Blair secretly repealed the treason laws, hidden in the Crime and Disorder Act, and the Queen signed it in 1998, saving both their necks. There can be no worse criminal abuse of the law than this. …….To get off your own execution as a Prime Minister by repealing the law you are charged under. The media missed it entirely.

6. John Prescott, John Reid, Peter Mandleson, Alan Johnson, about a dozen, now cabinet ministers. Communists who’s allegiance in the 1960’s was to the Soviet Union, switched their loyalty to the European Union in the 1970’s; they’ve implemented the EU’s Frankfurt school subversion, and the 111,000 EU regulations that are criminalising us all. Took control of the Labour party away from patriotic traditionalists.

7. Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, Michael Hesletine, Geoffrey Howe, Chris Patten, Francis Maude, David Cameron etc. Pro-Europeans who have seized control of the Conservative leadership, imposing their own agenda, ignoring the wishes of Conservative voters; they sabotaged representative democracy. A vote for the Conservatives has been a vote for the EUdictatorship for 34 years, these are the traitors responsible.
The leaders of our three political parties get their orders from the European Union, not the British electorate, whom they neither serve nor care for. They’ve created a one party state: the three parties have almost identical policies, and all agree on the abolition of Britain by the EU.

8. Julia Middleton, Managing Director of the Common Purpose government agency. Trained 19,500 local government, quango and NHS “leaders” for what they chillingly call the “Post democratic era.” Close to destroying the NHS, and local democracy, by
transferring power from councillors to the council executives, in preparation for the abolition of councillors with the EU regionalisation plan.
Common Purpose is the number one subversive body outside Parliament. Its graduates include Janet Paraskeva, head of the law society and Cressida Dick, the senior police officer who, with the backing of EU corpus juris, single handedly threw away our right to life and common law with her shoot to kill policy, which is still in force today. She was responsible for the killing of Jean de Menezes in Stockwell tube amongst others, and, although she’s a nobody and might be considered a murderer outside the police force, is getting breathtaking promotion, presumably to be appointed Chief of Police in this EU police state.

9. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). In charge of the handover of power to the EU, controls Common Purpose. Has put a “Monitoring Officer” into every council in the land; they suspend councillors who speak out for the truth.

10. The Law Society, which I would prefer to call the Fraudulent Lawyers Protection Society on a local level, and the Constitutional Law Breaking Society on the national level. Top lawyers have refused to uphold the British Constitution or enforce our laws where the EU is concerned; the Law Society is a home for traitors. The very fact they had Janet Paraskewa, a Common Purpose leader at their head, shows how rotten they are.

11. Baroness Warnock, and a couple of hundred other dedicated senior subversives. Ruthless implementors of the German Frankfurt School’s subversion on behalf of
the EU. Over the last 40 years our churches and families have been undermined, with single parent and same sex parents encouraged, teachers have had their authority removed, sex and homosexual education is forced on many under 13s, and decades of political correctness have dumbed down our ability to speak out. The results fill our newspapers every day.

12. Our slovenly press and media. It is stunning that the press has missed all this, the biggest story in a thousand years. Truly the quality of our journalists is abysmal. No wonder the art of investigative journalism is dead. In the BBC’s case it’s simple
sabotage, with hundreds of Common Purpose people in positions of power.

Only 25,000 traitors versus 60 million. In total there are about 25,000 dedicated subversives at all levels of society in Britain, helped by 100,000 useful idiots. To oppose them are 60 million British people. So why are they winning?
Because the subversion these traitors have so carefully implemented over the last 50 years has worked: The young have no interest in politics; churches are empty; people have stopped speaking out; the public now just accepts every control, regulation, indignity, injustice and rule without complaint.

To defeat the EU you must expose these traitors in their constituencies, at their places of work, in the press, and tell as many people as you can what is happening. Refuse to comply at every opportunity.

Source https://www.tpuc.org.uk/list-of-the-traitors-to-britain-the-greatest-crime-in-a-thousand-years/

Cannabis in Ancient Greece

Excerpted from the book Cannabis and the Soma Solution republished under permission from the author. (c) by Chris Bennett.

CANNABIS CULTURE – The myths and philosophy of ancient Greece have influenced Western Society and Sciences in many profound ways. Considering the metropolitan nature of Greece, it would is hard to believe that they too, would not have come under the spell of a magical plant that was so clearly popular in the ancient world and surrounding cultures.

Especially considering that Egyptian, Persian, and Scythian influences on Greek culture are well documented. Medical references in Greek literature are definite and clear, magical references however, require pulling back the veil to reveal the ancient secrets of the Greek inner sanctum…..

Clearly Greek knowledge of the plant went far beyond its use as a fibre. As Michael Lahanas records in his well researched essay «Examples of Ancient Greek Medical Knowledge», «The ancient Greeks used cannabis as a remedy to treat inflammation, earache, and edema (swelling of a body part due to collection of fluids)» (Lahanas, 2006).

Other medical uses of cannabis are attested though: its root is believed to treat inflammations and melt corns (Diosc. 3, 149; cf. Eup. 1, Luigi Arata 4554), and it is one of the ingredients of a medicine used against tumors of various types (Aet. 15, 7; Orib. Syn. 3, 29). In veterinary medicine, it seems to have been used in cataplasms against inflammations (Hippiatr. Berol. 10, 11, Hippiatr. Paris. 154, 219) or as a cathartic of wounds (Hippiatr. Paris. 216), especially of the rachis (Geop. 16, 15; Hippiatr. Cantabrig. 17, 3) or even against taenias (Hippiatr. Cantabrig. 70; it is interesting to observe that a portion of cannabis is said to be useful against taenias in human beings by Archigenes fr. 17) or for injuries (Hippiatr. Paris. 270). (Arata, 2004)

Clearly cannabis had a place in the Greek Pharmacopeia, thus it would be curious that a plant with combined medical and psychoactive applications would escape the more magically minded members of the society. As Christian Ratsch has noted: «It is… possible that hemp as “Scythian fire”…, was used as an incense in the cult of Asclepius, the god of healing» (Ratsch, 2005). As Professor of Classical Mythology Carl Ruck and co-authors have so eloquently noted:

It is generally assumed that the Greeks of the Classical Age were unaware of Cannabis until Herodotus, and then were not particularly interested in it. It is, however, hard to imagine how a plant that was so widely employed among their trading partners and the neighboring peoples for its valuable fibers as well for its medical applications and intoxicating fumes could have remained outside their own cultural traditions. The Scythians, in fact, were employed as mercenaries to supply the police force of Athens in the Classical Age, and hence they lived as alien residents within the city… It is impossible to assume that these foreigners did not bring their native customs and deities with them. (Ruck, et al., 2007)

Scythian map - Cannabis in Ancient Greece - thedelphiguide.com

In relation, Luigi Arata of the University of Genoa, in his essay Nepenthes and Cannabis in Ancient Greecenotes; «Given the connection made in medical tradition between the effects of cannabis and wine and taking into consideration that cannabis was used as a stupefacient by Scythians, as we have seen in Herodotus, we must suspect that ancient Greeks knew that cannabis could have neurological effects because they observed it. In fact, cannabis was firstly burnt or toasted and then reduced to powder in almost all medical receipts» (Arata, 2004).

Among the confounding factors in the search for Greek cannabis references, as we shall show, is that there are a plethora of names that may have been used to identify the plant. The first Greek botanist Theophrastus (4th century BCE) likely knew the plant as dendromalache or «tree-mallow» and he gave an accurate account of its effect, but a Greek version of the name «cannabis» was also used and a variety of other names have been suggested. There was also a desire for secrecy amongst the cults that would have used it for ritual purposes, as magic revealed is magic lost.

Theophrastus - Statue in the Palermo Botanical Garden - Cannabis in Ancient Greece - thedelphiguide.com

Theophrastus – Statue in the Palermo Botanical Garden.

The view that «there is no evidence that cannabis was used by ancient Greeks for commercial, ritual, or euphoric purposes,» has clearly been the prevailing one amongst Greek scholars. The reasoning being «Since mention of its psychotropic properties is so sparse, either the Greeks must not have valued it or used it very little for that purpose» (Touw, 1981). Alternatively, in his The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization, D.C.A. Hillman suggests that cannabis and other psychoactives played an important role in ancient Greece, and explains another possible reason why there is so little written on the subject:

Recreational drugs had a significant impact on ancient society, but they are still—and probably always will be — the ugly duckling of Classical studies. Drugs are an academic hot potato. Few Classicists ever choose to study this scandalous topic, and far fewer will ever choose to admit the prevalence of drugs in ancient society. (Hillman 2008)

As Hillman has also noted, the main obscuring factor in regard to the role of entheogens in the Classic world has been the intervening 1,700 years of institutionalized Christianity, where from the suppression of pagan and Gnostic sects that used such psychoactive sacraments up until the dawn of the Dark Ages, was followed through with a global suppression of Shamanism and shamanic plants globally, most notably, much later, in the «New world». These originally religious prejudices, with the passage of time, became cultural prejudices and then later academic prejudices. Fortunately a new, more «enlightened» age of Greek studies is upon us, and as Hillman, Prof. Ruck, and other scholars are starting to demonstrate that there are clear indications the Greeks were fascinated by the magical properties of their botanicals, and there is evidence that cannabis and other substances played a prominent role in such applications. «The Classical world was thoroughly convinced that mind-altering drugs were an avenue to spiritual realms that were typically inaccessible to mortals, and that people who were completely intoxicated were closer to the gods that the rest of us; their madness was a sign of their proximity to the divine» (Hillman, 2008).

Thracians map - thedelphiguide.com

Shamanistic ecstasy is described as «one in which the spirit leaves the physical body’ and cannabis was utilized to induce this state on the Thracian plains almost 3,000 years ago. Although closely related to Scythian tribes, the Thracians are included in this Chapter, as the Thracians deeply influenced Greek culture in a number of ways. A fact demonstrated by the Thracian origin of two figures prominent in Greek mythology; the god of intoxication, Dionysus and the shaman-prophet, Orpheus, the founder of Mysteries. A red haired, fair skinned people, the Thracians were a well-organized group of horseman and hunters who held «a belief in the soul and a hereafter comparable to the Christian heaven… Their shamans, known as Kapnobatai, used hemp smoke to induce visions and oracular trances» (Emboden 1972). Such a technique of ecstasy amongst a group that held so much of an influence over the Greek Magical Philosophies could hardly have gone unnoticed.

There is a classic Greek term, cannabeizein, which means to smoke cannabis. Cannabeizein frequently took the form of inhaling vapors from an incense burner in which these resins were mixed with other resins, such as myrrh, balsam, frankincense, and perfumes. (Emboden, 1972)

As Ratsch notes: «Another word from the period is methyskesthai, “to become inebriated through drug use”; Herodotus used this word to describe the inebriation that the inhabitants of an island in Araxes… produced by smoke» (Ratsch, 2005). The Araxes River travels through areas frequented by the Scythians, Thracians and other related tribes.

Andrei Oisteanu, a researcher at the Romanian Academy of at the Institute for History of Religions, also wrote about hallucinogenic, psychotropic plants amongst the Thracians and other groups, noting the ritual fumigations with cannabis, which he viewed as the magic cure from the Thracian High-God Zalmoxis, a cure able to heal the soul, and used in the quest for immortality (Oisteanu 1997).

The Kapnobatai, or Smoke-walkers, burned cannabis believing that the living entity within the plant reassembled itself inside their bodies to give divine revelations. The 1925 book, Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality Among the Greeks, Erwin Rohde states that «The Thracians knew hemp. It was thus with a sort of hashish that they intoxicated themselves… The Thracians… may very well have used intoxication through hashish-fumes as a means of exciting themselves to their ecstatic religious dances.—The Ancients were quite familiar with the practice of inhaling aromatic smoke to produce religious hallucinations» (Rohde, 1925). Sophocles (496-406), used «the word Cannabis, apparently to add ethnic detail for his Thamyras tragedy, which tells the tale of the Thracian shaman-singer who contested the Muses …» (Ruck, et al. 2007).

According to a Greek dictionary in Roman times, the Antiatticista, which recorded words acceptable to use by those who wanted to write correct Greek, Sophocles mentioned the word kannabis in his tragedy Thamyras… This drama about the defeat of the Thracian singer Thamyras in a singing match against the Muses contains references to ecstatic dancing… but unfortunately we can hardly be certain about a single scene, except that apparently Thamyras broke his lyre after his defeat… As… the dictionary explicitly mentions that the word kannabis occurred in Herodotus and Sophocles, the latter’s debt to Herodotean ethnography is considerable and the Antiatticista would hardly select kannabis as a routine reference for clothing, the conclusion seems reasonable that Sophocles somehow connected the Thracian Thamyras with an ecstatic use of cannabis. It fits in with this conclusion that Posidonius mentions Thracian «smoke-walkers» (kapnobatai) and that Pomponius Mela reports the use of certain seeds by the Thracians which results in a similis ebriatati hilarities… (Bremmer, 2002)

Likewise, noted theologian Mircea Eliade also commented on elements of shamanism in the Thracian cult of Dionysus, and referred to their use of cannabis:

Prophecy in Thrace was connected with the cult of «Dionysus», a certain tribe, that of the Bessi, managed the oracle of «Dionysus», the temple was on a high mountain, and the prophetess predicted the future in «ecstasy», like the Pythia at Delphi».

Ecstatic experiences strengthened the conviction that the soul is not only autonomous but that it is capable of unio mystica with the divinity. The separation of soul from body, determined by ecstasy, revealed…the fundamental duality of man…[and]the possibility of a purely, spiritual post-experience…Ecstasy could…be brought on by certain dried herbs… (Eliade,1982)

In a foot note to dried herbs, Eliade referred to the use of hemp among the Thracians, stating that the Kapnobatai were «dancers and «shamans» who used the smoke of hemp to bring ecstatic trances» (Eliade, 1982).

Orpheus surrounded by animals. Ancient Roman floor  mosaic from Palermo now in the Museo archeologico regionale di Palermo - Cannabis in Ancient Greece - thedelphiguide.com

Orpheus surrounded by animals. Ancient Roman floor mosaic from Palermo now in the Museo archeologico regionale di Palermo.

The musician prophet Orpheus was considered to be the hero-incarnation of Dionysus. Also «Significantly, Orpheus was supposedly a Thracian priest of Apollo…» (Ruck, et al., 2007). Grecian relics show Orpheus surrounded by Thracian followers. The «Dionysiac religion, like Orphism, was of northern Thracian provenance, and was fraught with orgiastic-mystic elements, on which Orphism fastened, adopting its emotionalism, its doctrine of Enthousiamos, and of possession by the deity, rejecting its wild frenzy, and transforming its savage ritual into a sacramental religion» (Angus,1975).

The Lyre playing poet-hero, Orpheus, was said to have descended to the underworld, in search of his wife, Eurydice, who ended up there after being bitten by the proverbial «snake in the grass». Although he failed to save his beloved, Orpheus returned from his sojourn in Hades with the secrets on which he based his system of initiation.

From the 6th century BC onward, Orpheus, was known as the «founder of initiation» and credited with instituting the famous Eleussian mysteries. «Orphism was steeped in sacramentalism, which flooded the later Mysteries and flowed into Christianity. Salvation was by sacrament, by initiatory rites, and by an esoteric doctrine….Orphism was the most potent solvent ever introduced into Greek religious life» (Angus,1975). Unlike the placebo-sacraments of later Christianity, the Orphic references to the ecstatic state of Enthusiamos (from where we get the word enthusiasm), was obviously produced by a powerful entheogen. Such ecstatic rites leave little wonder why Orphism competed with Christianity for popularity with the masses through the first few centuries AD.

Orphics believed in reincarnation, teaching release from «the sorrowful wheel» of life through ascetic contemplation and astral-projection type journeys, i.e.-shamanistic ecstasy. Ward Rutheford commented, «[H]istory provides several examples of…ritualized shamanistic initiation. Typical is the case of Orphism…derived from the…musician-prophet Orpheus. He was almost certainly a Kapnobatai…who induced trance by smoking possibly hemp» (Rutherford 1993).

«Smoke» was apparently an element in the Mystery initiation of the Orphics. Most explicitly in Euripides’ Hippolytus tragedy, Theseus in accusing his son of perfidy, saying, «You who have Orpheus for your lord: go on, get ecstatic, owing your allegiance to the smokes in their many scriptures». There were indeed numerous holy scriptures amongst the Orphics, but «smoke» in the context of ecstasy certainly does not mean that they were unsubstantial or worthless… (Ruck, et al., 2007)

Referring to Orphic worship, researcher Frederick Dannaway suggests that pagan elements of Greco-Roman worship were considerably «infused with psychoactive smoke rituals… due to the heavily «shamanic’ component… [of]much of their mystery traditions… The Orphic hymns contain a highly systematic array of fumigations containing some highly pungent, psychoactive substances that would synergize to be more potent in combination…» (Dannaway, 2009). We can be sure through the Thracian origins of Orpheus, that his cult would have included cannabis in such preparations.

As noted, Orpheus arose under the joint signs of Dionysus and Apollo, whose cult has also been connected with the use of psychoactive substances, including cannabis. «Tacitus, for example, visited the oracle of Apollo at Claros about AD 100 and described how the entranced priest listened to his decision-seeking petitioners; he then «…swallows a draught of water from a mysterious spring – though ignorant generally of writing and of meters – delivers his response in set verse» (Jaynes, 1976). Apollo’s priestess at Delphi, was reported to inhale certain inspiring fumes, rather than drink a magical potion:

Dr. Charles Winick, director of the Narcotics program for the American Health Association, suggests… Apollo may have been the first celebrity to use cannabis… as witness the exhilaration of his priestess at Delphi. (Oursler 1968)

In The Greek Myths, scholar and poet Robert Graves wrote that in Delphi through to Classical times «the Pythoness had an attendant priest who induced her trance by burning barley grains, hemp, and laurel over an oil lamp in an enclosed space, and then interpreted what she said… but it is likely that the hemp, laurel and barley were once laid on the hot ashes of the charcoal mound, which is a simpler and more effective way of producing narcotic fumes» (Graves 1955).

The visionary priestess of Greece’s oldest oracle, Delphi, was known as the Pythia, in reference to the serpent power believed to speak through her. She was chosen from amongst peasant women to prophesize at the Temple of Apollo and was consulted on all matters of national importance until its closure in the fourth century a.d. by the prohibitions of the Christian Emperor Theodosius (who left the sacred site to be later destroyed by rampaging Christian monks).

Figured monuments show the Pythia in a calm, serene, concentrated state, sitting at a stool, breathing in fumes that rose from an open fissure in the floor that were believed to produce a «pneuma enthusiastikon» or an «ecstatic exhalation». As Mircea Eliade commented «By what means she attained this second state remains a mystery. The laurel leaves that she chewed, fumigations with laurel, the water from the spring Cassotis that she drank, have no intoxicating properties and do not explain the trance. According to tradition, her oracular tripod was placed over a cleft (chasma) in the ground from which vapors with supernatural virtues arose. Excavations, however, have brought to light neither a fissure in the ground nor the cavern into which the Pythia descended… the fact is we know nothing about it». (Eliade 1978)

With the disassociated trance-like state produced from the vapors and Thracian influence on the Delphic Oracle, it can be conjectured that the Pythia likely put forth her revelations from behind a veil of cannabis smoke, that arose from brazier beneath the floor, and this idea has been suggested by a variety of different sources (Oursler, 1968, Littleton, 1986). «Delphi is heavily linked with psychoactive substances… and Cannabis/Scythian and Indo-European Soma associations…» (Dannaway, 2009). Professor C. Scott Littleton explored this possibility in a 1986 essay «The Pneuma Enthusiastikon: On the Possibility of Hallucinogenic Vapors at Delphi and Dodona».

To be sure, Cannabis was neither a generally recognized component of the ancient Greek pharmacopoeia nor widely noted in classical antiquity for its hallucinogenic effects … However, the plant has been cultivated in Greece for millennia… and would have been readily available. Moreover, its hallucinogenic potential was almost certainly appreciated in at least a few esoteric circles… and, as Delphi was perhaps the most important single religious establishment in Greece, it is highly probable that some members of its priesthood were privy to the knowledge that Cannabis sativa can alter one’s state of consciousness – especially in light of the inherently shamanic character of what went on there…. I suggest that the practice of inhaling hemp smoke managed to diffuse from the steppe cultures to Greece – or at least to the Delphic Hosioi and their counterparts at Dodona and perhaps elsewhere – at some point well before the middle of the first millennium B.C.. (Littleton, 1986)

Littleton noted that «It should be emphasized that the foregoing is still highly conjectural, and will remain so until the residue in the omphalosst one is chemically analyzed. Several chemist colleagues (via personal communications) have indicated that such an analysis might be possible if a sample of that residue were subjected to state-of-the-art spectrometry, even after 23 centuries…» (Littleton, 1986). Unfortunately, as Littleton later lamented «the Greek authorities wouldn’t let me take a scraping» (Littleton, 2008).

The mystery in regards to the Pythia’s vapors, however, may have been brought to light by recent archaeological and geological research, and the possibility of cannabis, at least partially, put to rest. More current geological research by De Boer, et al. (2001), strongly suggests that a «fragrant» natural hallucinogenic gas, ethylene, did issue from some newly discovered fissures beneath the Temple of Apollo (not available at the time Eliade wrote his comments above) and has led Littleton to question the hypothesis he put forth in 1986, when the consensus among geologists was that there were no naturally occurring fumes at Delphi. However, Littleton still regards the «possibility that cannabis fumes may have been mixed with the naturally occurring ethylene so as to augment the hallucinogenic impact on the Pythia. This is reinforced by the fact that cannabis was well-known in ancient times, from Western Siberia (e.g., Pazyryk) to Western Europe; indeed, its use as a psychotropic drug may well date from Proto-Indo-European times, ca. 3500-4000 B.C.E.» (Littleton, 2008).

Although this new evidence regarding ethylene is interesting and may denote the use of subterranean emissions as an entheogen, as Dr. Littleton noted, it does not necessarily preclude a role for the shamanic use of cannabis in ancient Greece, even amongst the Pythia. Indeed, substantiating evidence showing the use of cannabis in Grecian Oracles can be found in the fascinating book The Mystery of the Oracles, by Phillip Vandenberg, who in discussing the archaeologist Sotirios Dakaris finds in the excavation of the 4th-3rd-century Nekyomanteion (a place for consulting the dead) on the River Acheron(one of the most famous entrances to the netherworld) notes: «The black lumps of hashish that Dakaris discovered by the sackful leave no doubt that clients of the oracle were drugged into an incubatio, a kind of temple sleep, so they could experience the dreams and revelations that they should while close to the dead and the divine forces. Temple sleep was customary among the Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks…» (Vandenberg, 1982). As the 19th century author John Porter Brown noted of such rites: «The peculiar pleasures affecting especially the nerves, and produced by narcotics… belong apparently to modern times — that is to say, that it is only in modern times that we find them in general use. Amongst the ancients there is very little doubt of their existence, but they were the secrets of the priests, or of the initiated. We read, for instance, of certain temples in Cyprus or in Syria, to which the votaries thronged from all parts of the world, in expectation of having their wishes gratified. Those wishes generally were in such cases interviews with some beloved object, or visions of future happiness. The votary was bathed, dressed in splendid robes, given some peculiar food, after which he inhaled a delicious odour, and was then laid on a couch strewn with flowers. Upon this he probably went to sleep; but in all events such an intoxication of the mind was produced that the next morning he rose satisfied that in the night all his desires had been realised». (Brown, 1868)

Unfortunately, little can be found on Vandenberg’s alleged find of Greek Hashish. James Wiseman in his review of Dakaris’ work omits any reference to hashish; likewise for the on-line web-site of the HellenicMinistry of Culture’s page for this archaeological site, which makes no reference to these sacks of hashish. Such censoring leaves one to believe that here again we may find academic prejudice acting as superstitious flaming cherubim, blocking the way to historical fact. If reports of this find are indeed correct, then here in a Grecian temple we have our oldest examples of hashish. As noted entheobotanist Christian Ratsch has noted of Dakaris’ alleged find: «It is entirely possible that the temple sleepers at Acheron were administered a hemp preparation so that their dreams would be especially vivid» (Ratsch, 2005). Vandenberg still referred to Dakaris’ find of ancient Greek hashish in the 2007 edition of Mysteries of the Oracles, so one might conclude that this claim holds, and has simply been ignored (Vandenberg, 2007).

The riddle like oracles given by at Delphi were deciphered by a priesthood that, in times of corruption, interpreted them to suit their own agendas. Pythagoras (d. c. 497 B.C.), the Greek philosopher and mathematician, reformed this priesthood through purifying rituals, and despite angry protests from the male priests, he went against tradition and initiated the female Pythia, Theocla. Interestingly, The Book of Lists, has Pythagoras first on a list of marijuana users, and Iamblichus referred to «libations and sacrifices with fumigations, and incense, being performed by his initiates» (Guthrie 1987).

As Dannaway has noted, «psychoactive», i.e., magical, Thymiamata (that which is burnt as incense) of exotic ingredients are used by Pythagoras («who could prophesize with frankincense)» (Dannaway, 2009). Commenting on the word frankincense, which means pure-incense aromatherapy expert Susanne Fischer-Rizzi noted that: «We once called all herbs burnt as incense «frankincense» (Fischer-Rizzi 1990). That ancient incense blends sold at considerable cost as «frankincense» could have contained the highly aromatic and «magically» effective cannabis seems likely. Today the word frankincense has come to specify the gum resin from the North African tree Boswellia and Fischer-Rizzi points out that this modern source also contains psychoactive properties, comparable in some ways to those of cannabis, and that its use in modern churches helps to instil a chemically induced feeling of religious awe.

The suggestion that Pythagoras received inspiration from cannabis was first put forth by the 19th century author and hashish experimenter, Fitz Hugh Ludlow, who suggested elements like Pythagoras hearing his name called out in the gurgling of a stream along with taking on the identity of deities and other events, indicate, as in Ludlow’s own experience with the drug, intoxication with hemp : «It would be no hard task to prove… that the initiation to the Pythagorean mysteries, and the progressive instructions which preceded it… consisted in the employment… of hasheesh» (Ludlow, 1856). Pythagoras based his system around the hemp using Thracian Orphic teachings, and he himself can clearly be described as a shaman–as Pythagoras had the ability to leave his body while in trance.

Pythagoras traveled throughout the ancient world and studied under the Babylonian Magi, a group renowned for their plant-magic. «Pythagoras and Democritus journey to Egypt, Ethiopia, Arabia, and Persia, visiting sects of drug-using wise men, known as Magi; the very same religious group that visited Jesus according to the Gospels; and wrote extensively about the potent psychotropic substances with which they experimented» (Hillman, 2008). Porphyry recorded that the Greek philosopher personally met the Persian shaman «Zaratus [Zoroaster] by whom he was purified from the pollutions of his past life» (Guthrie 1987). (Scholars have long noted Zoroaster’s use of cannabis to achieve ecstasy, and the mythology around the Persian Psychopomp shows that he initiated others into its use).

Also of interest is that Pythagoras considered Abaris, a Scythian shaman who came to learn from him, so experienced that he didn’t compel him to wade through the complicated introductory period involved with his teachings but contrarily considered him fit to be an immediate listener to his doctrines, and instructed him in the shortest possible way. As discussed in Chapter 7, the Scythians were renowned for using cannabis for ritual purposes. Pythagoras’s teachings were surrounded in secrecy and his quick acceptance of the Scythian shaman Abaris may indicate that the mutual use of cannabis constituted a meeting point of some kind.

The glory of ancient Greece, was one of the heights of the ancient world; its ideals have influenced the political development of our Western culture at least as much as Christianity has religion, if not more. Clearly, despite the lack of recognition of past scholars, cannabis was a part of the Greek social fabric, both as a medicine and as a magical plant that operated as a gateway between worlds.

The unstigmatized use of drugs was just one aspect of the ideal society the Athenians strove to achieve. For these Greeks, a free state allowed its citizens to make their own decisions, especially when it came to what they chose to do with their own bodies. Democracy and individual liberty went hand in hand, the freedom to consume alcohol or drugs was no less or more important to Athens than the right to speak one’s mind or to vote in the assembly… [F]reedom-loving Athenians,… unlike their Spartan counterparts, considered their individual liberties the foundation of a good society. (Hillman, 2008)

Arata , Luigi , Nepenthes and Cannabis in Ancient Greece, Janus Head, (Summer 2004)
Bremmer, Jan N., The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife: The 1995 Read-Tuckwell Lectures at the University of Bristol, (Routledge, 2002)
Brown, John Porter, The Dervishes: Or Oriental Spiritualism‎, (1868)
Dannaway, Frederick R., Strange Fire, Deleware Tea Society, (2009)
Eliade, Mircea; A History of Religious Ideas, Vol.2; (University of Chicago Press 1982)
Emboden, William A. Jr., Ritual Use of Cannabis Sativa L.: A Historic-Ethnographic Survey, in Flesh of the Gods, P.T.Furst, Ed. (Praeger, New York, 1972)
Guthrie, Kenneth, compiler and translator, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library, (Phanes Press, 1987).
Hillman, D. C. A., The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization, (New York: St. Martin’s Press. Thomas Dunne Books 2008)
Lahanas, Michael, Examples of Ancient Greek Medical Knowledge, (2006)
Littleton, Scott, The Pneuma Enthusiastikon: On the Possibility of Hallucinogenic «Vapors» at Delphi and Dodona, ETHOS, (1986)
Littleton, Scott, Personal Correspondence, (2008)
Ludlow, Fitz, Hugh, The Hasheesh Eater, (1856)
Oisteanu, Andrei, MYTHOS AND LOGOS. Studies and Essays of Cultural Anthropology, (Nemira» Publishing House, Bucuresti, Romania, 1997)
Oursler, Will, Marijuana, the facts, the Truth, (Paul S.Erikson, Inc. ,1968)
Ratsch, Christian, Marijuana Medicine, (Inner Traditions, 1998, 2001)
Ratsch, Christian, Plants of Love: Aphrodisiacs in Myth, History, and the Present, (Ten Speed Press, 1997)
Rohde, Erwin, Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality Among the Greeks, (1925 by Routledge and Kegan Paul)
Ruck, et. al., Conniving Wolves: chapter V, pages 87-124, in Carl A.P. Ruck, Blaise Daniel Staples, José Alfredo González Celdrán, and Mark Alwin Hoffman, The Hidden World: Survival of Pagan Shamanic Themes in European Fairytales (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2007)
Rutheford, Ward, Celtic Lore, (Thorsons\Aquarian 1993)
Touw, Mia, The Religious and Medicinal Uses of Cannabis in China, India and Tibet, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Vol. 13(1) (Jan-Mar, 1981)
Vandenberg , Phillip The Mystery of the Oracles , (New York: Macmillan, 1979)

Source: https://thedelphiguide.com/cannabis-in-ancient-greece/

Swiss Lady explains why she hates Greeks

In one of his books, K. Diakogiannis refers to the published words by a Swiss lady.   She provides her own answer as to why all behave with a “shabby” way towards the Greek people!  She explains why she and other Europeans hate the Greeks.
However, among other things, she confides that although there is a feeling of hatred from her side, at the same time she admires and respects the Greek spirit and the ancient Greeks.

“Animals do not ever forgive humans for improving their behavior, because they feel that this improvement removes them from nature. And whenever the opportunity arises their hatred explodes”{…}
{…} “This is exactly what is happening with us Europeans and Greeks!  If there is a race in the world that I unbearably hate, this breed is the Greeks!”  And she substantiates her view by saying that in her high school years she felt “mentally depressed” because “our learned teachers did not teach us anything that had not already been discovered, explained, documented, or been perfected by the Ancient Greeks!”  And even when her teachers were mentioning any other person devoted to Knowledge and Wisdom, who was not Greek, in the end it became evident that his wisdom was based upon the Wisdom of some Greek philosopher!  “I have gradually become aware that my knowledge, my thoughts, my feelings, my personality, my world, my existence down to the ultimate of my cells were all affected, were devoted into what we now call “the Philosophy of the Ancients Greeks” {…}
{…} “A fiery hatred for all that is Greek!”
“Later in the university, the situation became dramatic. Asclepius from the one side, Hippocrates on the other!  Galen one day, Oribasius the next! Aetius in a morning, Alexander Trallians in the afternoon! Paul of Aegina from here, Stephen the Athenian from there.  I could not open a book without finding in front of me the Greek presence. I was unable to open a dictionary to find a difficult, a rare, a useful, a smart, a beautiful, mellow word. They were all Greek!  And other countless ones as the sand of the seas and rivers, all were Greek in origin!  It is a unique phenomenon!  So we feel pretty much all of us against the Greeks. We hate them like animals hate their tamer. And once we get the opportunity we jump, we bite and devour them.  Because deep inside we know that once we were animals with the full sense of the word and it is they, the Greeks, the Greeks again, always the Greeks, who evicted us from our animalistic state and who have elevated us to their same human grade!
“We do not love something we admire. Take a look at history and you will see that all Europeans, led the Latins and the Vatican, we furiously tried to wipe out the Greeks from the face of the earth! You will not find and will not imagine a combination of crimes, toils and traps not imagined and done to realize their demise. The story of hatred against the Greeks has not unraveled yet. The modern civilized man is the same and worse. The Vatican will never allow the Greeks to survive at the gates of Europe, at the side of Asia and the doorsteps of Africa because they consider it as diminishing the respect and prestige they enjoy!
For, despite the fact that I hate them, as I do not come from their race, I can not help but admire them and respect them and will continue to study Plato, Socrates and Pericles as long as I live, teaching my children the power of their wisdom and its influence in our lives and our happiness! “

The saddest of news. Nobel prize nominee and hero Robert Green passed away last night.

Robert Green Guitar 2015

I am very very sorry to say that Mr. Robert Green died at about midnight, 10th April 2019.

Rest in peace, George Robert Green, a Great Man.

The world is a lot poorer today and it’s up to us to make it better.

via The saddest of news Nobel prize nominee and hero Robert Green dies last night




First and most importantly, there are some fools in the YouTube community who think Hampstead is a hoax. Because they keep reporting it as such, they are allowing the raping and Satanic Ritual Abuse to take place because they have helped the police and those in the UK cover all this up. Way to go Jungle Surfer!

Leaked Medical Reports End All Doubt About Sexual Abuse Claims.

The medical reports end any debate regarding the fact that children A and G were the victims of child sexual abuse in Hampstead and underline the criminal nature of the police interviews of September 17th, 2014. The question now is who is being protected? Who has the influence and power to cause the British police such an obvious and inexplicable mid investigation rethink? Clearly there is much more than a Z grade actor and the reputation of a school at stake here. Neither would logically merit the police choice to destroy this investigation and cover up these heinous crimes.

Background Chronology
September 5th 2014.
“A referral was made to the Barnet CAIF by (mother’s partner’s) brother in law who is a special constable. Following a disclosure by A and G that they had been sexually abused by their father and “teachers” and were part of a cult. This disclosure had been made when they were in Morocco over the summer. And the parents stated they were unsure who to inform as many people seemed to be involved, (including allegedly police and social workers.)

Initial police interviews conducted.
8/9/14. Initial strategy meeting held.
10/9/14. Visit to family home ahead of ABE interview.
11/9/14. Emergency Police Protection Order issued after the ABE yesterday evening during which witness A, witness G and witness E (mother) were interviewed separately.
Allegations of physical abuse from the mother’s partner towards both children and sexual abuse against both children by their father and “teachers”. They are now in Emergency Foster Placement.”17/9/14.

Police conduct the retraction interviews in transparent attempt to bury the truth and vandalise justice.
Interviewing officers clearly bully false retractions from the children for unknown reasons that can only be sinister.
22/9/14. Police inform the mother E that they have found that the crimes against the children cannot be confirmed. The investigation is over.
22/9/14. Dr. Hodes writes the second medical report affirming the veracity of the sexual abuse allegations despite the retractions. Dr. Hodes cites a specific research finding that found that 16% of victims will retract the allegations and affirming therefore that the physical evidence of abuse should outweigh the retractions.

Lindsay C Malloy, MA Thomas D Lyon JD, and Joia A Quas
Fillal Dependency and recantation of Child Sex Abuse Allegations.
J.Am Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 46:2, 2007.
These statements were made without reference to the disgraceful performance of the interviewing officer in the retraction interviews, which only strengthen Dr. Hodes’ assertions.
The Medical Reports. Who wrote them and are they authentic?

There are two Medical Reports, one dated September 15th, 2014, the other September 22nd. Written on the stationary of the University College of London in a way that leaves no doubt as to their authenticity. Background checks on the names of the people who signed the documents end any doubt . To illustrate this I will cite the best known of the Doctors who have signed these reports Dr. Deborah Hodes (FRCPCH) Consultant Community Paediatrician. A cursory internet search indicates that Dr. Hodes is employed in that role at the University College London and is an expert in the field of child abuse having more than twenty years experience.

Dr Deborah Hodes
Dr Deborah Hodes Consultant Paediatrician an expert with decades of experience and she is unequivocal. Abuse occurred.

The first report dated September 15th appears to have been written by Dr Harriett Gunn (SHO Senior House Officer)* but is also signed by Dr. Hodes, The second Report of September 22nd appears to have been written entirely by Dr. Hodes, as she is the sole signatory. The Medical Examiners are highly experienced and well qualified.

This does not mean that they are infallible, of course, but these medical reports have been signed by medical practitioners considered to be authorities in the field with decades of experience.
Dr, Deborah Hodes, part of the examination and assessment team that physically examined the children on several occasions is absolutely unequivocal, even after the retraction interviews that the children have physical injuries, that substantiate their claims of physical abuse at the hands of the mother’s partner and more importantly the sexual abuse at the hands of the father and cohorts.
A Brief Overview of the Facts that Emerge from the Medical Reports.

The counter narrative states that the children’s stories were coached and fed to them by their mother’s partner who was himself guilty of minor physical abuse of the children.
The police retraction interviews tried to construct a narrative that the children had been denying the actions of the mother’s partner whilst making the claims against the father and school, yet the Medical Reports show that the children made the claims concurrently and were concurrently examined for both the injuries related to the minor physical abuse at the hands of the mother’s partner and the extremely serious sexual abuse at the hands of the father and staff at the school.

The male has one scar on his anus consistent with blunt force trauma, the female has several and has actually been physically damaged by the abuse in ways that really do not bear mentioning suffice to say that she has multiple injuries “consistent with the application of a blunt instrument.”

They could not be clearer. Someone has been doing deeply unpleasant things to these children, the more lurid claims relating to this case may be exaggerated, but there is a very simple and unmistakeable truth expressed in those medical reports.

After they were taken into Foster care, the children were heard to discuss the use of Vaseline as a lubricant their abusers used on them. They are no longer in the presence of the mother’s partner, there is no need for any story to be told, yet they were speaking about it in a matter of fact way.

The children independently told their story on multiple occasions to numerous Doctors and other disinterested parties and were consistent in their claims against both parties. There was medical evidence to support the claims that were made against both parties. Both children were observed to be suffering the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Both children complained at their treatment at the hands of the mothers partner, yet it was absolutely clear to the examiners that it was the father they feared. Each child independently expressed the fear that their father would kill them, one had nightmares about it. Expressions of fear do not get more profound than that. The details outlined in these reports are deeply unpleasant. Unfortunately it is necessary to do this and I will ensure that only the completely necessary information is included. There is a duty to attempt to spread the truth in a matter of gross injustice such as this case represents and I have sought not to identify anyone by name other than the Doctors whose role appears to have been an honourable one.

Key Excerpts from the Two Medical Reports.
September 15th, 2014.
“Witness G “does not report any history of constipation or diarrhoea . However he does report that it does often hurt and he has often bled when opening his bowels although this had decreased significantly in the past two months which his sister says is because it is two months since they have seen their father. (the children were also removed from the school). He opens his bowels everyday and reports that his stool is soft. “( a detail that is unfortunately necessary due to later events)

Physical Abuse.
“Both G and A report that they have been hit multiple times with a metal spoon by mother’s partner over the head and the legs. They also report they have been pushed into walls. They also allege that mother’s partner holds his hand over their mouth till they “can’t breathe.” On a recent visit to Morocco over the summer witness G explains that he was hit on the ear by the mother’s partner in the left ear which caused his ear to bleed and his left eye to be swollen and bruised. G and A said that G was then not allowed to leave the holiday home until the bruises had disappeared.”
(Note: the details contained here completely destroy the notion that these allegations were made as the result of coaching. Did the mother’s partner also coach the children to make all these detailed and specific allegations against him? Of course he didn’t. The fact that these allegations against the mother’s partner were made at the same time as the allegations of sexual abuse is clearly overwhelming evidence that these children spoke the truth to the best of their ability about both issues and were not under external control of either party to a custody dispute as they made the allegations.)

Sexual abuse allegations.
“A has explained that at school a teacher named Mr. H calls children over and makes them take off their underwear. A explained that she and other children including G are made to bend over and a “plastic willy” is inserted into the anus. Whilst Mr. H holds onto their hips. A also stated that Mr.H “makes noises” while this is done.
Of note, she says that he gives them a refresher bar to eat as a reward and to chew on while this is happening so they “can’t scream or make a noise” and they are asked to face forwards and not look backwards. G has said that the same thing has happened to him. G says that after this has happened he has bleeding from the anus and subsequently. it is very painful when he opens his bowels.”

Victim G Physical injuries described.
His (G) anus was examined in the left lateral position using gentle buttock separation for 30 seconds. He had one anal fissure scar at 9 o’clock on examination of the anus. There was no reflex anal dilation.”

“In both the general physical examination and the genital examination of G today. There are physical signs consistent with the allegations given by G and A. The scar in the anus is from a healed fissure, secondary to the application of a blunt penetrating force that he (G) has alleged. In summary, G has physical signs consistent with his allegations of both physical abuse and sexual abuse. “

Dr. Harriett Gunn (SHO) to
Dr. Deborah Hodes.
Medical Report Dated September the 22nd 2014.

The report begins with Dr, Hodes outlining her extensive experience in the field. Twenty four years worth.
Dr.Hodes states that she was present at two strategy meetings and two physical examinations relating to this case. In addition Dr. Hodes has spoken to Camden area social workers and also reviewed the photographic evidence pertaining to the children’s injuries. Victim and WItness A on September 17th 2014. Victim and Witness A during a Police interview.

Summary of Relevant Evidence Victim A..
“She alleged that lubrication was used prior to the insertion of the penis or plastic penis and identified and discussed this with her foster carer.. She also told me about having had an injection. She alleged that bleeding occurred after the event and then had pain on opening her bowels.” “She told me that she has difficulty getting to sleep and she has bad dreams including dreaming of her father killing her ”

Physical Findings.
“Below is a list of injuries found in a physical examination of A shown in body maps and the police photographs.”
1.“3 x 4mm abrasion to the pinna of her left ear and 3mm laceration posterior to her left ear overlying the mastoid, A alleged she was pinched and picked up by her ear on Morocco.”
2. “7mm longtitudinal abrasion (excoriated) on the right lateral aspect of her right ankle. A alleged she had been pushed against an outside wall and “had picked it” when she was in Morocco.”
3. “2.0cm x 0.5cm healing abrasion on the left side of the chin. A alleged that she was hit across the face with a metal spoon while in Morocco.“

Below is a list of injuries found on ano-genital examination of A recorded in the DVDs. (Warning Note: This is deeply unpleasant and awful and a quick summary is that there are multiple and in my opinion horrific injuries to A’s nether regions)
“1. In the left lateral position with gentle buttock separation there was anal laxity and a brief view of the rectum. In the knee chest position with gentle buttock separation, there was reflex anal dilation (RAD) after 5-10 seconds. The reflex anal dilation continued and there was a view into the rectal ampulla and there was no stool present.
2. There was a healed scar in the ruggae at the 10 -11 o’clock position extending from the anal orifice to the anal verge. It was seen in both the left lateral position and the knee to chest position. The abnormalities in the ruggae at the 4 0′ c;ock and 5 o’clock positions may represent healed scar tissue or variation in the ruggae.configuration.” There are between two and four injuries, with two undoubted and two speculative.

Conclusions regarding the allegations.
“The physical injuries found on her skin are consistent with the physical abuse she described. In the absence of a history of constipation, medical illness or accidental trauma according to the GP’s notes, the anogenital findings of the scar and the RAD are consistent with her allegations of the application of a blunt penetrating force to her anus (2); sexual abuse.” She has described symptoms of post traumatic stress.”

Summary of A and G by Dr. Hodes.
“In my opinion A and G are suffering significant harm as evidenced by the following:-
1.Both children have physical signs of physical abuse that support their allegations.
2.Both children have physical signs of sexual abuse that support their allegations.
3.They have symptoms of post traumatic stress.
4. It is now understood from a 2007 substantiated study of child sexual abuse that retraction occurs far more commonly (16% in this series) than previously thought.
5. In my opinion, the extensive and detailed accounts given by both children that were repeated to different professionals contain details of sexual acts that such young children would need to have direct experience of.” (Note: in order to be able to describe them is the unwritten implication.)

To put it simply, Dr. Hodes is stating that there is physical evidence in support of both sets of allegations which really highlights how farcical the entire “they were coached” counter-narrative really is. Because children who have been coached to make false allegations in order to influence a custody battle we are told, were not even coached to lie about the minor physical injuries they suffered at the hands allegedly of the mother’s partner. What kind of coaching is that? It really shows the desperation to protect that this preposterous and absurd notion was even floated as the counter-narrative. It is pathetic and insulting. Truly laughable.

Dr Hodes signature
Dr. Hodes signs off on the September 22nd report. She plainly rejected the retractions.

Ethical and Legal Issues.
The leaking of these documents may constitute a criminal offense, I honestly do not know, but it is obvious that these records have been released in the broader public interest in order to oppose and expose a clear and outrageous injustice. These are exceptional circumstances in which otherwise unethical or even unlawful actions are necessary and just in my opinion. Why is this happening?
It beggars belief that this investigation was curtailed and destroyed in order to protect a Z grade actor or even the Staff and Institutional reputation of the school and church involved. Something far more important is being protected here, but it is completely unclear whom or what have managed to engineer the stunning travesty that led to the Investigating Police coaching and bullying retractions from the child victims, Witnesses and Victims A and G.

The real mystery at this point is who is protecting this and why? The way it is being covered up you would almost get the on it’s face ludicrous idea that this was some type of mad, satanic leadership induction program. The people involved may believe they are doing what is right for their children in some sick parallel universe sense. We Are Living in a Twilight Zone of Serial Denial.
It is completely possible that elements of the stories the children tell that do not relate to events they actually witnessed may be embellished or even incorrect. There is sadly no doubt that whatever the veracity of the claims the police made a decision, a bizarre and inexplicable decision to destroy the case and conduct a cover up. Unless and until the police have a rethink as is inevitable but may take decades, there is little that can be done to even begin to seek justice for the Hampstead victims beyond trying to expose this to enough people that it causes an uproar that requires an immediate police rethink. We seem to exist in a bizarre twilight zone where anyone with any connection to power can apparently do what they like to children and expect to suffer only the infamy of the grave. As long as you are not fussed about your reputation when deceased and you are connected you do not even have to be discreet. Once you die it will all emerge of course and your name and reputation will be destroyed but other than that there is no penalty.

While it has become clear again and again that the unthinkable has actually been rather routine, that these unbelievably evil crimes have been happening for decades and yet when confronted with a genuine contemporary cover up, the entire “official” British media have literally not a word to say. Other than the Hamptead and Highgate Express. The local weekly paper had their say recently, they covered the story from the point of view of the alleged perpetrators, predictably, so the reference to the case was rather incidental, but telling. Google under fire after leaked personal details of Hampstead residents remain on web – Crime & Court – Hampstead Highgate Express

The real story is instantly dismissed thus “The claims, which the mainstream media is barred by court order from reporting on, are said to have been investigated by police and found to be baseless.” Which I think can be fairly claimed to be a downright lie. Perhaps gratitude is the right response to the total lack of mainstream news coverage. Please note the brazen hypocrisy of the Hampstead and Highgate Express stating that “ which the mainstream media is barred by court order from reporting on” before continuing “are said to have been investigated by police and found to be baseless.” Clearly reporting (and indeed completely mendaciously and inaccurately) without naming or even alluding to a source, let alone any evidence to back up their dishonest claim. I hope they are proud of their work at the Hampstead and Highgate Express. Their efforts in support of evil will be rewarded in the deserved manner eventually I am sure, one way or another. It’s only a matter of time.

Return #WhistleblowerKids and #AbuseSurvivors to their Russian Family!
Sabine Kurjo McNeill | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy
Petitioning EU Parliament
14 09 15 Medical report.pdf – Google Drive
14 09 22 Medical report.pdf – Google Drive
Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead to be investigated over links with Jimmy Savile – Health – Hampstead Highgate Express
PLAYLIST of 45 videos re #Whistleblower and #WhistleblowerKids | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
JUSTICE DENIED: Live Recording as Police raid Pedophile Ring Whistle-blower kids mum’s home
Abusers Online | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest | From Child Snatching and the Secrecy of Family Courts to Forced Adoptions, Child Sexual Exploitation and Satanic Ritual Abuse
JOINING Video Dots with #WhistleblowerKids: Exposing World run by Powerful #Paedophiles | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
Dr Deborah Hodes
FORWARD UK on Twitter: “FORWARD Trustee, Dr Deborah Hodes, announces opening of the first specialist #FGM clinic in London
ZeeklyTV – Anonymous’s Channel
Dr Hodes Sources.
Lindsay C Malloy, MA Thomas D Lyon JD, and Joia A Quas
Fillal Dependency and recantation of Child Sex Abuse Allegations.
J.Am Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 46:2, 2007.
Bradley Ar, Wood, JM, How Do Children Tell?
The disclosure process in child sexual abuse.
Negl. 20 881-891. 1996
The British Medical Association Confidentiality Guide for Staff.(called the confidentiality toolkit)

Who is Melanie Shaw, why is she in prison, and what do her supporters want?

She was one of the first people to talk about abuse at Beechwood

By: David Whitfield Digital Content Editor, 11 JAN 2019
Melanie Shaw supporters hold posters outside the Old Bailey in London before former English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson arrives accused Melanie Shaw supporters hold posters outside the Old Bailey ahead of a court appearance by Tommy Robinson in September
Melanie Shaw supporters hold posters outside the Old Bailey ahead of a court appearance by Tommy Robinson in September (Image: David Mirzoeff/PA Wire)

Over the last year, an average of more than 14,000 people have searched for her name every month.

There are at least ten different Facebook groups dedicated to her.

And at a recent court appearance by Tommy Robinson, it was her name that was being chanted by supporters.

But who exactly is Melanie Shaw, why is she in prison – and what are her supporters calling for?

The simple answer is that Melanie was one of the very first people to make allegations of sexual abuse at Beechwood children’s home in Nottingham.

But have a quick browse of the internet and you will find a host of further answers involving buried bodies, secret court hearings, and Westminster paedophile rings.

We have therefore attempted to tell Melanie’s story below, as best as we can. It won’t answer all of the questions about her, but it will hopefully provide some detail which might not be immediately available to everyone.

Melanie’s story

Melanie was born in October 1970, and was placed in foster care at a young age.

She grew up in Kirkby-in-Ashfield, and from 1981 to 1987 she was at Ashfield Comprehensive School in the town.

When she was 16 she was sent to Beechwood children’s home in Mapperley. She stayed there for around a year.

The Redcot unit at Beechwood children's home pictured in September 2002 after the death of a child at the home.
The Redcot unit at Beechwood children’s home pictured in September 2002 after the death of a child at the home.

When she left, she overcame drug problems, started doing voluntary work.

In an interview broadcast in 2015, she described how she was a full-time mother for 24 years before she decided to speak out about what had happened at the children’s home.

In 2010 she went to the police to report what had happened to her at Beechwood, and was one of the first people to do so.

In more recent years she has lived in Sherwood and Sneinton.

What does Melanie say happened to her in Beechwood?

Melanie said that she was raped in the basement of the Lindens unit at Beechwood in Mapperley, and was physically and sexually abused.

She has spoken about one particular member of staff who she said had threatened to kill her ‘like the others’ if she spoke out over abuse. She said he told her that he had already murdered and buried two children in the grounds of Beechwood.

And she also said that, while she had never been abused by a politician, she was aware of young boys from Beechwood being taken by minibus down to London to be abused by ‘the rich and elite’.

No charges have been brought against anyone who she alleged had assaulted her at Beechwood. And she has said she has a fear that she is going to be found dead.

Why is she in prison?

As far as Nottinghamshire Live is aware, Melanie has been either convicted of or found to have carried out offences on five different occasions since 2014.

In December 2014 at Nottingham Crown Court, she was convicted of arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, and damaging property. She was given a community order for three years and a five-year restraining order.

In February 2016 at Nottingham Crown Court, she was given three restraining orders, fined £200, and handed a three-month prison sentence for displaying threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour to cause another harassment, alarm, or distress; and two counts of pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment.

Melanie Shaw pictured in 2015
Melanie Shaw pictured in 2015

In January 2017 at Nottingham Crown Court, she was given two years in prison; six months for breach of a suspended sentence order, nine months for breach of a restraining order, and nine months for breach of a separate restraining order.

In March 2017 at Derby Crown Court she was given eight months in prison; eight months in prison for making a threat to kill; three months(concurrent) for common assault, and one month (concurrent) for damaging property.

And in October 2018 at Leeds Crown Court, a jury found that Melanie – who was deemed unfit to stand trial – had committed three counts of arson being reckless as to whether property was damaged or destroyed. She will sentenced for this on January 14.

The Ministry of Justice does not give out information on release dates for individual prisoners.

Obviously, even in the event that Melanie served the full term of her two-year sentence from January 11, 2017, she would be due for release in January 2019.

However, she has been remanded in custody in connection with the arson offences which she is being sentenced for on January 14.

You can see a list of Melanie’s court appearances at the bottom of this story.

Where has she been held?

Melanie has been held in a number of different prisons. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, HMP Peterborough, HMP Foston Hall in Derby, HMP New Hall in Flockton near Wakefield, HMP Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire, and HMP Styal in Cheshire.

Foston Hall prison
Foston Hall prison

There have been a number of rumours online about Melanie being moved to Rampton in north Nottinghamshire. But her supporters sent her Christmas cards to HMP Styal.

What do the authorities say?

In terms of the allegations made by Melanie, Nottinghamshire Police said: “Nottinghamshire Police investigated all of the allegations thoroughly. Where the threshold was met, the CPS considered the evidence.

“Unfortunately, it was determined that the evidential test was not passed and, as such, no prosecutions brought.

“Our enquiries have also not identified any unaccounted-for people at Beechwood Children’s Home.

“Searches were carried out at Beechwood in February 2012.

“The work was undertaken by us in conjunction with national search advisors and searches were made of the grounds and building. It included the use of search dogs and radar following concerns reported by a member of the public.

Nothing was identified at the time that supported the reports.”

Nottingham East MP Chris Leslie said: “Melanie Shaw first contacted me several years ago, since when I have offered support as I would to any constituent in her circumstances. I have continued to enquire after Melanie’s welfare, including with the prison.

“It would be inappropriate and not responsible of me to discuss the details of these highly sensitive matters with anyone other than Melanie or her legal representatives, who are always welcome to contact me at any time.

“However, over many years now there have been stories circulating about Melanie’s case, and most of the posts circulating on social media are wildly inaccurate.”

Chris Leslie MP
Chris Leslie MP (Image: PA Wire)

Paddy Tipping, Nottinghamshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, said: “I’ve known Melanie for many years and we have talked about the difficulties she has faced.

“It’s disappointing that she is in prison while she waits for sentencing later this month, but we are doing what we can to help her and we are regularly in touch with the professional people who support her.

“However, in the short term this is a matter for the Crown Court.”

The two legal firms in Nottingham which represent Melanie for civil and criminal matters said they could not comment without explicit permission from their client, which has not yet been obtained.

The Ministry of Justice said they do not comment on individual cases.

What do her supporters want?

Although the various groups come from slightly different angles – with some focusing more on the what happened at Beechwood and others on the London/Westminster allegations – they all want Melanie out of prison.

A member of the Justice for Melanie Shaw group, which has been running since 2014, said that, taking into the account the time Melanie had spent on remand, she should have been released from prison in June 2018 following the completion of her two-year sentence.

She said: “I think she is being persecuted, and I can’t help thinking it’s a set-up. They wanted her in prison, and they’ve got her in prison.

“I’m not going to pretend Melanie is an angel. She can be a bit of a handful. Even if you think she’s all right, you still have to be a bit wary of how she can react, which is because of what she’s been through.

“But what is happening to her now is disproportionate to what she is supposed to have done. Prisoners set fire to their cells every day of the week.

“If it isn’t a conspiracy, why are they making it look like one?”

A protest against child abuse outside the Council House in Nottingham's Old Market Square in 2014
A protest against child abuse outside the Council House in Nottingham’s Old Market Square in 2014

She added: “We’ve always believed that the police weren’t trying their hardest to investigate the fate of children who had allegedly died at Beechwood – allegations I believe there is truth in.

“I’m prepared to believe that when Melanie went to the police she produced quite a bit of evidence about what she was saying.

“Melanie said she gave evidence to the police and it disappeared. I can’t prove that’s true, but that’s what she said.

“I think it’s accepted that the authorities didn’t know how many children were in care – and what happened to those who disappeared.”

Melanie’s court appearances

Nottinghamshire Live contacted eight courts – Nottingham Crown Court, Nottingham Magistrates’ Court, Derby Crown Court, Derby Magistrates’ Court, Peterborough Crown Court, Peterborough Magistrates’ Court, Cambridge Crown Court and Leeds Crown Court – in order to try and get a full picture of Melanie’s court appearances.

Nottingham Magistrates’ Court declined to provide information about Melanie’s court appearances. However, some information about her appearances at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court was provided by another court.

It remains a slightly confusing picture, with different parts of the criminal justice system giving – at times – conflicting information about her court history.

But as far as we can best establish, these are Melanie’s court appearances since 2014. Not all will necessarily have been appearances in person, as some may have been by videolink.


Melanie Shaw’s court appearances

  1. December 11, 2014 (Nottingham Crown Court)

    Found guilty of arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered at an address in Bonnington Crescent, Sherwood on February 1, 2014; and damaging property at the same address on June 26, 2014.

    She was given a community order for three years with supervision from the probation service. She was also given a five-year restraining order banning her from contacting the victims of the arson attack or going to their home.

  2. August 26, 2015 (Peterborough Magistrates’ Court)

    Pleaded not guilty to a charge that between June 22, 2015 and July 13, 2015 at Peterborough she pursued a course of conduct which amounted to the harassment of [a named person] and which she knew or ought to have known amounted to the harassment of her in that sending flowers, gifts and card to HMP Peterborough, telephoning and camping outside HMP Peterborough, harassing members of staff on their way in and out of work, contrary to section 2(1) and (2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

    Remanded on bail for trial at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court on Nov 11, 2015.

  3. November 11, 2015 (Peterborough Magistrates’ Court)

    Pleaded guilty to the charge above. Remitted to Nottingham Magistrates’ Court on conditional bail for sentence on December 4, 2015.

  4. December 4, 2015 (Nottingham Magistrates’ Court)

    Appearance for sentencing over the above charge. Remitted to Nottingham Magistrates’ Court to Jan 20, 2016. Remanded on bail.

  5. January 20, 2016 (Nottingham Magistrates’ Court)

    Appearance for sentencing over the above charge, sent to Nottingham Crown for sentence on February 10, 2016.

  6. February 17, 2016 (Nottingham Crown Court)

    Given three restraining orders, as well as other penalties, after being convicted on three counts.

    (1) Pleaded guilty to displaying threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour to cause another harassment, alarm, or distress on July 21, 2015 in Nottingham. She was also fined £200 for this offence.

    (2) Pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment from June 21 to July 6 in Nottingham. She was also given and a three-month prison sentence (suspended for two years) for this offence.

    (3) Pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment from June 26 to July 13 in Nottingham. She was also given and a three-month prison sentence (suspended for two years) for this offence, concurrent.

  7. June 3, 2016 (Peterborough Magistrates’ Court)

    Appeared charged with attending HMP Peterborough on June 1, 2016 – which she was prohibited from doing by the restraining order imposed by Nottingham Crown Court on February 17, 2016. Case sent for trial at Peterborough Crown Court on July 1, 2016.

  8. September 16, 2016 (Peterborough Crown Court)

    The above matter was transferred to Nottingham, as the restraining order was issued at Nottingham.

  9. January 11, 2017 (Nottingham Crown Court)

    Sentenced to a total of two years in prison.

    (1) Six months in prison for a breach of a suspended sentence order in relation to the indictment of February 2016;

    (2) Nine months in prison (consecutive) for breach of the restraining order in relation to the indictment of February 2016;

    (3) Nine months in prison (consecutive) for the breach of the restraining order dated June 1 at HMP Peterborough.

  10. February 8, 2017 (Derby Magistrates’ Court)

    Appeared charged with one count of criminal damage on August 25, 2016, one count of making a threat to kill on August 20, 2016, and one charge of assault by beating on September 24, 2016. All sent to Derby Crown Court for March 8, 2017.

    (Also, one charge of assault occasioning ABH in February 2016 was withdrawn; and one charge of threatening to destroy and damage property in August 2016 was withdrawn.)

  11. March 8, 2017 (Derby Crown Court)

    Given a total of eight months in prison for the offences listed above. This was:

    (1) Eight months in prison for making a threat to kill on August 20, 2016;

    (2) Three months in prison (concurrent) for common assault on September 24, 2016;

    (3) One month in prison (concurrent) for damaging property on August  25, 2016.

  12. January 10, 2018 (Derby Magistrates’ Court)

    Appeared charged with two counts of arson on February 8 and February 10, 2017, and one count of sexual assault on February 15, 2017; all sent for trial at Derby Crown Court on Feb 7, 2018.

  13. March 16, 2018 (Derby Crown Court)

    The arson cases above were transferred to Leeds Crown Court.

  14. July 21, 2018 (Derby Magistrates’ Court)

    Three charges of criminal damage and one count of sexual assault dating from February 2017 were all withdrawn.

  15. October 16, 2018 (Leeds Crown Court)

    A jury found that Melanie – who was deemed unfit to stand trial – had committed three counts of arson being reckless as to whether property was damaged or destroyed.

    She committed the offences on February 8 and February 10, 2017, at HMP Foston Hall, Derby; and on June 21 at New Hall prison in Wakefield, West Yorkshire. She is being sentenced on Jan 14.

Roland Perry, The Fifth Man – Victor Rothschild a Communist Spy

Roland Perry, The Fifth Man
Pan Books London 1994. Selections by Peter Myers, September 12, 2001; update May 4, 2006.

Comments within the text are shown {thus}.

This book alleges that the “Fifth Man” in the Cambridge spy-ring was Lord Victor Rothschild.

{p. xi} Some of the key information. in this book came from interviewees – scientists, politicians, diplomats, businessmen and intelligence agents – who did not wish to be acknowledged, for understandable reasons. …

I am grateful particularly to my contacts in British Intelligence … they were responsible for leading me to a key revelation in 1978, which finally fitted the Fifth Man jigsaw in the 1990s.

Thanks also to my CIA contacts …

Acknowledgement must also go to the seven main KGB respondents …

Documentary film-maker, Jack Grossman, who fought with both the

{p. xii} RAF in the Second World war, and the Haganah after it, was of assistance with background and Israeli Intelligence. … Appreciation for explanations of some of the more esoteric bomb and radar technology goes to Sir Mark Oliphant …

{p. xx} The Fifth provided Stalin almost on a daily basis with what Churchill and Roosevelt were saying about the USSR. The spy also had particular links to the US military and intelligence during and after the war.

His work and that of the others in the ring went on for longer than originally believed by investigators. They were all involved in spying for the Russians before, during and after the war. Their espionage was wide-ranging and included the 1943 Anglo-American discussions on the opening of a second front in the west; information on major war projects such as the atomic bomb and biological weapons; data on Eastern European nations in exile in London (who were anti-Stalin); background to discussions on the post-war Marshall Plan to redevelop Western Europe. Furthermore, while calling the Five a ‘ring’ implies they worked

{p. xxi} together, they mainly operated independently of each other. However, at times two or more would combine. Often their linking revolved around Blunt, who was the middleman most closely in contact with Soviet Controls in London from 1942 to 1963, the year Philby defected and Blunt was exposed to MI5 investigators.

Another important clue, on which those who knew the Fifth Man’s identity all agreed, was that after his main spying days for the KGB finished in the UK in 1963, he went on to have a ‘successful career’ in both business and public life.

This again cut down the list.

Apart from fitting the many facts and dues to the Fifth Man jigsaw, intangibles such as motivation were vital. This had to go beyond the altruistic obligations of those who felt it their duty to defend Western civilization against Hitler’s barbarity. The spy in question had to be inspired on a higher level than his belief, shared with the others in the Ring of Five, that Soviet Marxist ideology was superior and would eventually dominate Western capitalist democracies.

The Fifth Man’s original motive was survival, for himself, family, race, and country. He was compelled to supply the Soviet Union with information that would smash Hitler, for over the duration of the war its people were prepared to sacrifice and suffer more than any other to defeat him. But after the war, the Fifth Man’s ideological commitment caused him to go on spying for the KGB. In so doing, he became caught in a web of betrayal and tragedy, which lasted half a century.

The Fifth Man was Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild (1910 to 1990), better known as the third Lord RothschildHe was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which apart from prolific achievements in art, science, wine and charity, had shaped recent history by such acts as the financing of the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and the purchasing of the Suez Canal for Great Britain and Prime Minister Disraeli.

Victor Rothschild’s purpose was to go a step further and change the course of history …

{p. xxxiv} … Rothschild had been on the inside through the war until 1945, and since then on the outside as an intelligence man who had a unique relationship with his wartime employer.

He had left them officially, yet unofficially still ran agents after the war in Israel, Iran, China and other nations from 1945 to at least 1969. He was the classic outsider-insider. His special place in the Establishment as a power-broker, with unsurpassed connections in every major institution in Britain, allowed him to bypass the usual restrictions on lesser-born citizens. He couldn’t actually pull the files in M15 or M16, but he could always find someone who would do it for him, if he needed access. Rothschild was a regular visitor to British Intelligence offices. He lunched and dined constantly with its directors at his favourite pubs, Pratt’s and White’s, and always made it a pleasure when he picked up the tab for expense account-conscious spy chiefs.

Rothschild had been on intimate terms with most of them: Guy Liddell, Roger Hollis, Dick White, Maurice Oldfield. He became a sort of father confessor, someone who understood the machinations of intelligence and was compassionate about the chiefs’ problems in defending the realm. Rothschild was always there to give sound advice, or pick up the phone to help with a contact. In dealing with directors-general, he transformed from an aloof, even sullen character to an effusively charming, extremely helpful and trusted friend. The demure, introverted lord vaporized and was replaced by the communicative fixer.

Rothschild provided relief for intelligence chiefs from the pressures of the office. He was the confidant with whom they could share the intrigues of the espionage game. In their time, every one of them in varying degrees had divulged the key intelligence secrets to him, the ones which the Russians were after.

In 1958, Rothschild’s fostering of Peter Wright turned quickly to patronage on the basis that they were scientists who got on awfully well. Wright was an easy prey for the sophisticated peer. Although talented, Wright was not Oxbridge educated and therefore an outsider in a service which was run by the old-school ties. He felt snubbed by those too ignorant to comprehend his great value in the intelligence war. Wright was also ambitious, prepared to put in many hours of overtime to achieve his goals, whether it was developing a new device, or gaining an expanded budget. His

{p. xxxv} diligence and intelligence may have been unsettling to those used to the antiquated methods of defending HM, the realm and the masses.

Not so with ebullient Victor, who took him under his golden wing. For the first time in his professional life, Wright felt wanted, understood and appreciated. In this atmosphere, Wright spilled everything that was happening inside MI5. Rothschild offered help. He was in the oil group Shell, overseeing scientific development. He seconded staff to MI5. Wright told him about every piece of espionage technology under development. Rothschild offered ideas of his own and actually devised some new technology himself. He made introductions to heads of major British organizations like the AWRE (Atomic Weapons Research Establishment), which led to further expansion of MI5’s R & D.

This new, powerful chum, who impressed Wright more than anyone else in his life, was in effect responsible for expanding British Intelligence budgets. This was an individual to be almost worshipped, especially in the niggardly world of Whitehall departments. It was damned hard to convince the bean-counters that Intelligence needed more funds. Why should we give you more money? the Government accountants would ask. The war is over. We’re not under threat, are we?

Here was a noble obliged, apparently by his breeding, conscience and generosity, to dispense largesse and influence for the good of the services, and the nation. This way, Rothschild developed enormous goodwill within and without the services. No one was respected more, not just amongst the worker bees such as Wright and Arthur Martin, or the chiefs. Captains of industry, mandarins of Whitehall, ministers of the crown and successive prime ministers knew of his help and activity. Many wanted his services, but until 1970 – apart from the occasional Government committee – Rothschild preferred to keep the mystique of the outsider-insider and a little distance from those with whom he worked and consulted in Intelligence. His job at Shell, particularly from 1958 to 1969, allowed him all the freedom of activity and travel he desired.

It’s accepted among MI5 agents that during the 1945 to 1963 period, the Russians were receiving vital information which enabled them to thwart British operations run against the Soviet Embassy and the KGB. All Russian interviewees said that the Moscow Centre received the data. Ex-KGB Colonels ‘F’ and ‘B’ and Modin admitted

{p. xxxvi} that the Fifth Man was at least prominent in gathering the data and informing the Russians about MI5 missions.

All through the post-war years to 1963, the Fifth Man was active in passing on vital information about MI5’s plans and projects concerning the Russians and the KGB. Because of the failures, breakdown, conflict and fear this caused within British Intelligence everyone on the inside believed that MI5 had been penetrated by someone. The inference was always that it had to be an insider. But as this book will show it wasn’t Hollis or Mitchell. Even one of the leading Russian double agents working for MI6, Oleg Gordievsky, who defected to Britain in 1985, denied that the Russians had anyone of importance on the inside of M15 in the contentious years from 1945 to 1963.

Wright, Martin and the various committees over the decades that chased around the British Intelligence maze searching for a mole, did not consider that he or she never existed. If that was correct, and all the evidence overwhelmingly suggested it was, then there was never penetration. In that case, the Fifth Man had to be an outsider who looked in often enough and listened with an expert technical ear hard enough to be more effective in compromising British Intelligence than any insider, including Philby, and for far longer.

Modin and ex-KGB Colonels ‘F’ and ‘B’ confirmed that the Fifth Man worked in tandem with the Fourth Man, Blunt, who after 1945 was the key middleman, the main receiver of espionage data from the Fifth Man and others to be passed on to the KGB Controls. That is why, under interrogation in 1964, Blunt made much of the definition of the word spying. No, he confessed, he had not spied for Russia, lately.

‘Lately’ implied after 1945. He, Burgess and Philby and several others interrogated, sang the same refrain. They had all done the right thing by the Allies, who included the Russians, in the Second World War by passing on information to the Moscow Centre in the drive to defeat Hitler. But they claimed they had not continued after 1945.

This was inaccurate. According to Modin and several other KGB agents, all of the Ring of Five went on operating after the war, in increasingly dangerous circumstances, as did many of the second-rank spies such as Cairncross (which Cairncross denies). Modin has become an unofficial spokesperson for Russian Intelligence in recent

{p. xxxvii} years. His status in KGB ranks and fame in the West is based on running the Ring of Five after 1945. He did not take up residence in Britain until 1947.


In the late 1950s, the Cold War was in deep freeze as the clandestine techno-battle expanded between the USSR and the West. The US was using Britain as a floating aircraft carrier in its preparation for an expected conflict with the Communists, which the Americans wished to confine, if that were possible, to Europe. US bomb, defence, military and communications bases linked with British bases and formed a mosaic across the length and breadth of the country.

The Moscow Centre knew about every extension to the Anglo-American network, and planned to counter it. At first it didn’t know how this could be done without detection. Many Anglo-American military installations were placed in obscure locations in the country.

An ingenious suggestion to the KGB Controls from one of their British agents was that a petrol retail outlet chain should be set up. Pump stations could be built on back roads near the installations and could be used to spy on the network by, for instance, intercepting the microwave communications between bases. In preparation for war, the pump outlets could be taken over by special Soviet military forces in order to destroy the bases.

The idea seemed outstanding in principle, but any Russian-controlled company selling petrol would have to appear legitimate to fool the CIA and British Intelligence. The Russians had never set up such a capitalist enterprise before. It would have to compete with major Western retail corporations in Britain. Specialist products would have to be developed by scientists. Marketing and distribution know-how would be needed.

By coincidence or otherwise, Rothschild joined Shell in 1958 in a relatively lowly job as a part-time adviser to its research section. He immediately made his presence felt and his role was quickly expanded.

A year later, Nafta Great Britain, a Soviet retail outlet chain began operations in the UK. By the eariy 1960s, it was competing

{p. xxxviii} with the bigger Western companies. Its marketing strategy was unique in the business. Nafta set up pump stations on out-of-the-way B roads, far from the population centres and competitive outfits such as Shell and Mobil. The Russian company’s managers claimed that it would compete where the big boys would not bother to go. Scores of these Nafta stations never made money in the thirty years they were open for business. They were suspiciously close to the most important defence installations in Britain.

Was Rothschild the mastermind behind Nafta? The timing for his move to Shell and the creation of the Russian company would suggest he was a prime suspect. So would his background. He had investigated commercial espionage early in his career at MI5. As its security offficer during the war, he learned all there was to know about how to steal equipment and documents. Rothschild’s scientific expertise also made him a candidate as Nafta’s founder. His early work at Shell covered research into gas, oil, petroleum, diesel engine fuel oil and several other products, all of which were found among Nafta’s offerings to the British market. But he didn’t restrict his interest to science and research. Fellow executives at Shell were stunned by his inquisitiveness in all fields from production to packaging, distribution, marketing and advertising.

His great hunger for knowledge allowed him to absorb it all, and his skills did not go unnoticed at Shell. He gained quick promotion. By 1963, he was Shell’s scientific research and development supremo worldwide, even though the company never quite sorted out whether their distinguished lord was a full-time employee or not. His power and position allowed him to be around when he liked, which gave him the chance to carry on his clandestine activities, such as running agents for Dick White in Israel, Iran and China. The Shell position was just right as a cover for his frequent travels to the Middle East, where the company produced its raw petroleum.


After Burgess and Maclean defected to Russia in 1951, Rothschild spent the next four decades – the rest of his life – covering trails which linked him to them as the Fifth Man. Internal British

{p. xxxix} Intelligence investigations began in late 1951, and like every other person connected to the defectors, he was questioned. It was mild then, but when Philby defected in 1963, and Blunt ‘confessed’ in exchange for immunity from prosecution in 1964, the interrogations increased.

Many, including Rothschild, took Blunt’s lead and opted for the immunity card. Some made the deal which prevented prosecution then made certain admissions, such as ‘yes, I passed on data to people like Blunt during the war, but never to the Russians directly.’ Others said ‘thanks for the immunity’ to avoid first, being falsely accused, and second, guilt by association. They then proceeded to give away precisely nothing. Rothschild was in the latter category. Yet no matter what he did after that, the issue dogged him. He protected himself legally against defamation by threatening to sue anyone who accused him of being the fifth Man. But Rothschild never sued an accuser. Nor did he ever act like an innocent person. Someone with his clout, who was innocent, could have calmly waited for an accusation or innuendo, then pounced. No one, unless it was an intelligence insider with specialist knowledge, could have presented evidence which would have indicted Rothschild. Only a confession was strong enough evidence to convict major spies. The trouble with a court action would be the skeletons it would reveal which would have increased the suspicion that the accused was in fact a Soviet agent. This was the danger that forced him to keep up his legal threats and bluff, but to avoid the courts.

In defending himself, Rothschild instead chose the indirect but effective media route to keep the lid on accusations and deflect them from him. He wrote books and articles, and made highly publicized speeches. These improved his image away from the secret world which preoccupied him for fifty years of his life. He spoke and wrote only rarely and evasively about his links to those in the ring of five. He could hardly dismiss his close friendships with Blunt and Burgess, but he tried to distance himself from them.

He used intelligence, press and publishing contacts to create books which deflected suspicion away from him and on to others, such as the long-suffering ghost of Roger Hollis.

{p. xl} The Third Lord Rothschild was camouflaged as the Fifth Man by virtue of his powerful position in the Establishment. The vast wealth of his banking dynasty embedded him in the power elite more than the other members of the Ring of Five. It was a perfect cover and served to shield him. He seemed the epitome of the ruling class of twentieth-century Britain, and therefore the least likely to be a traitor. Yet a closer scrutiny showed that he had other allegiances, which over time and on specific occasions ran contrary to British interests.

Rothschild was more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English. He showed this in his long commitment to his race’s problems. After his political awakening at Cambridge in 1930 he supported refugees from Soviet and German pogroms. In the war, he feverishly fought the Nazis. Once Hitler was defeated, Rothschild assisted in the creation of a homeland for the Jews who had been dispossessed. When the new nation was established he again helped in guiding Israeli leaders to the people, technology and weaponry which would defend it.

He was never so committed to his country of birth and its established order. In fact, more than once when confronted with a conflict between race and country, he chose race. For instance, when the British tried to thwart the birth of Israel, which would have upset its power base in the Middle East, Rothschild intrigued against British interests. It would not have been difficult for him to make another commitment, this time to another power – the Soviet Union – and what for decades he considered was a superior cause.

As a secret communist and professed socialist he would like to have seen the collapse of the old Establishment order in Britain. There was some irony in Rothschild’s secret desire to destroy the House of Lords and capitalism. These sources of power developed his own privilege and prestige, which in turn allowed him to contemplate being in the vanguard of change.

His background again gave him an international view of the world, which paralleled the aspirations of the communist movement. Its emphasis between the wars on science as the vehicle for brave, new Marxist societies appealed to him and many of his colleagues at Cambridge. It was put to him as an experimental phase in the build

{p. xli} towards a grand, classless society. Like all experiments there would be failures, but in the end the logic of it would lead to success.

Rothschild’s deep involvement in Britain’s power structure protected him and may partly explain why he lived longer than anyone else in the Ring of Five. All were under enormous strain while involved in espionage. Burgess, Maclean and Philby were from the upper class but none had the wealth, privilege and prestige of the lord who bestrode politics, business, science and society. Only Blunt, as the monarch’s art curator, was guarded in a similar way. But he didn’t have the money to buy further protection if required.

This extra protection provided security of mind and it’s not surprising that the other four were afflicted by alcoholism in varying degrees. Burgess and Maclean were killed by it. Philby nearly was too, whereas Blunt could not stand pressure without being anaesthetized by gin or Scotch. Rothschild liked his wines and spirits but remained in control.

Another factor not to be ignored in Rothschild’s survival was a successful second marriage to his understanding wife, Tess. She admitted in an interview with me that her husband carried too many secrets, and that she was not privy to all of them. (Tess was Rothschild’s assistant at MI5 for five years and would have known some secrets within British Intelligence.) While she would not have been aware of his activity involving the KGB, Tess held similar political views to Rothschild and thus provided stability, comfort and communication over issues about which he was passionate. Rothschild was only troubled in his final years, when the pressures brought on by his decades of covering up the past caught up with him and depressed him.

By comparison, Burgess and Blunt were homosexuals in an era when it was illegal, which brought its own pressures. Both philandered most of their lives and had many relationships. Burgess’s affairs were unstable and transitory, and it is unlikely that either man could have confided anything of their KGB activity with any partner. Instead, they were forced to bottle up tensions.

According to Modin, Maclean’s wife Melinda knew he was a KGB agent (something she has denied), but their marriage was unstable and Maclean was tormented by his bisexuality, especially during times of strain in his double life. Philby only found fulfilment in his fourth marriage to a Russian in Moscow late in life. His brief first

{p. xlii} marriage of convenience was to a communist agent in the 1930s, but for the greater proportion of his spying days in the West it is unlikely that his female partners knew of his true masters.

Postscript: Modin published a book of his own on the Cambridge spies in 1994, first in French, Mes Camarades de Cambridge, and then in English, when its title changed to My Five Cambrtdge Friends. The French edition had Modin playing his game of not divulging the name of The Fifth. But the English edition included some subtle changes which implied Cairncross was number Five. Confused by this, Richard Norton-Taylor of the Guardian newspaper rang Modin in Moscow early in November 1994. He found the Russian angry that the English edition now seemed to be saying Cairncross was the Fifth ManHe categorically stated that he had never said or written this. Daniel Korn, a researcher for the British documentary film company Touch Productions, investigated this contradiction and verified Norton-Taylor’s findings. At least Molin remained consistent in his deception about number Five.


A book on Russian espionage would not be complete without a conundrum. Modin supplied one during our interviews in Moscow in 1993.

‘Just as the Three Musketeers were four,’ he said, ‘so the Cambridge five were six.’

In the tradition of the conundrum, Modin appeared to confuse the issue by also saying:

‘To these five names a sixth was added: John Cairncross.’

However, the Russian would not then admit Cairncross was therefore one of the Ring of Five (which was really a Ring of Six).

Why was he playing this enigmatic game? Why not say yes, the five (six) were Philby, Burgess, Maclean, Blunt, the Fifth Man, and Cairncross?

I could find only one explanation. Cairncross, who was never in the same league as the Ring of Five (six), was added as a red herring to hide the identity of a still living number six.

A key was the use of the word names. Five names could only represent six people, if the names of two of the people were the same. {End of the Prologue}

{p. 54} Espionage, if shared, could cement a relationship. If it wasn’t, the spy’s disintegration could be faster and greater. Keeping his secret life from a perceptive woman led to increased tensions.


While making his assessment, the ever gracious Otto delivered his polished lines of enticement. Philby, Blunt and Burgess had warned him that Rothschild had to be reeled in on the Jewish, anti-Hitler line. Too much clap-trap about the ‘rightness’ of the communist view might cause his eyes to glaze over with uncertainty and boredom. He had heard and comprehended all the theory but was unconvinced. He knew too much about Stalin’s Jewish pogroms in Russia.

Rothschild judged Stalin and Hitler to be about equal in their appalling treatment of Jews. A dictator was a dictator, and a dead, starving or tortured human was the same on either side of the Eastern border. {Stalin was murdered in 1953, over his plans to counter perceived collusion between Russian and American Jews: death-of-stalin.html}

Otto found he had to be more careful in his sales pitch with Rothschild than any other of the key targets that he, his protege Arnold Deutsch, and Philby had been after. Victor would not be seduced like Burgess and Philby by ideology and the panacea of a perfect communist world with a post-Stalinist figure astride East and West. Nor could this target be lured like Blunt by appealing to his artistic vanity and his detestation of the foibles and conservatism of his own, elite class.

Rothschild, like Watson, was influenced into believing that Russia’s laboratories of social and scientific experimentation would lead to a better, albeit Godless world with test-tube man in charge. Otto had been briefed by Blunt and Kapitza that this could be used as a second line of argument. Rothschild, Otto had been informed, was a believer in the certainties of scientific development even if it went down spurious or counterfeit trails.

Young Victor’s chosen line of research was some proof of this. He was investigating how fast sperm swam, and why only one sperm managed to fertilize an egg. ‘It occurred to me,’ he wrote in

{p. 55} Meditations, ‘that light might be shed on this problem by treating an egg in a suspension of sperm as if it were a sphere being bombarded by gas molecules.’

In one sense this may not have been deemed a ‘sexy’ topic, but it was neither spurious nor counterfeit. In the secret laboratories of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, scientists were already scanning Rothschild’s published literature (in Russia this would continue for a quarter of a century) for data that would help in cloning a German super race, or a Soviet superman.

Rothschild’s work would contribute to the build-up of data Hitler’s scientists would use to weed out the non-survivors and the weak in his cock-eyed grand design. It would also assist Stalin’s white-coated brigade in their inhuman experiments with drugs, social behaviour, genetics, and psychiatry.

Otto was well briefed about Victor’s research and even feigned knowledgeable interest in the subject. Rothschild’s smugness about being at the forefront of his field was fortified by flattery. Otto, with his worldliness and articulate elegance, managed conversational insertions about communism providing the best facilities for improving modern man’s lot.

The work Rothschild was doing was germane to a ‘brave new world’, and he knew it, although he was not then aware of the hideous attempted and actual uses to which it would be put.

The main anti-Hitler argument had to be delivered with equal care also, for despite his youthful naivety, the young Victor on some levels was already shrewd and perceptive. For that reason, Blunt had advized that the other key Comintern control, Arnold Deutsch, should not be used first in attracting Victor. Deutsch was a Jew. If he dwelt too much on the persecutions, he might make the target suspicious that his recruitment was too contrived. Philby had convinced the Controls that Rothschild was potentially their most important catch. He had to be wooed with great subtlety and finesse.

Rothschild was well aware of the stark choices emerging because of Hitler’s rise to power. The German ‘Third Reich’ was to last, according to its architect, for a thousand years, which for civilization would mean a barbaric period in history, a darker age than had ever gone before. There was a sense of noblesse oblige in Rothschild’s

{p. 56} response. His privileged, hereditary position would mean he could influence events if he so chose. Tackling Hitler, via communist opposition, seemed the only effective route.

Many British politicians had no stomach for another conflict like the Great War. They had let the military run down to the point that even a middle European power could challenge Britain. Leaders were already talking about appeasement with Hitler, which was tantamount to political capitulation and eventual concessions to German expansionism. This led to a sense of impotence and frustration amongst those who sensed the dangers posed by Hitler.

Rothschild’s status in society and his political leanings meant that he was, in a sense, ‘ripe’ for persuasion to take up a cause against Nazism and fascism. He was an elite rebel with a cause, but in search of a way to exercise it. The Comintern’s secret path was the only one available to him, unless he turned to more active politics, like his friend Churchill. But Rothschild was not about to contemplate that. He preferred, like his powerful antecedents especially his grandfather, Nathaniel Mayer (‘Natty’), the first Lord Rothschild, to keep his politics as private as possible. Like Natty, he would employ his ability to get things done and influence major events from behind the scenes.

Natty was a powerful back-room manipulator of late Victorian politics, who supported Disraeli and intrigued against Gladstone. In addition, the splendour of Tring Park was the setting for negotiations ranging from the extension of Cecil Rhodes’ diamond empire to the reconstruction of London University. Churchill became a regular visitor as Natty supervised the destruction of Liberalism in the hope of strengthening the Conservative Party, which was his most notable political accomplishment.

Aware of all this, Otto first painted a raw picture of the expected mighty battle between fascism and the left. He then dabbed in points about the skirmishes already begun in Austria, which would ring true from what Philby and the Viennese Rothschilds were saying. The Control next added a few big brushstrokes about the might of Germany and the danger this posed to civilization, without mentioning the Soviet Union just yet.

‘Hitler is marking time,’ he told the target, ‘so he can build his military force. Then he will move. Nothing is surer. We have to be ready.’

{p. 57} Otto also worked on demonstrating that only Russia would have the will and might to tackle fascism. He did this by reminding Rothschild that he, Otto, had experienced at first hand the Allied efforts, which included the might of half the world, to crush the fledgling communist revolution in Russia in the early 1920s. The control then spoke of the financial, military and trade deals on-going between Germany and Britain.

This touched a nerve, for young Victor had seen this during his time at the Bank. Making money overrode moral principles in some international dealing and he became more disgusted with this as his political sensitivities became more acute.

Otto obliquely referred to glowing editorials about Hitler in some leading conservative papers, implying that the ruling classes were pandering to the German dictator. That gave Rothschild pause before he agreed dejectedly that he too had sensed this. Even at his mother’s dinner parties there had been ignorant talk about the importance of forging links with Germany and pacifying the strutting demagogue with bribes and concessions.

There were also Hitlerites amongst the City’s merchant-bankers and businessmen. They were combining with right-wing Tories in favour of rapprochement and conciliation with the Nazis, no matter what they did. Otto warned that the far right elements amongst the Tories were gaining the ascendancy within the party. More moderate members such as Winston Churchill were ‘unlikely to gain power’.

Otto suggested that it was conceivable Germany and Britain would combine in an attempt to overthrow the Soviet Union. This struck a further chord with Rothschild. There had been much discussion about it at Cambridge.

Later, Otto switched to the obvious line that Hitler and fascism had to be obliterated. Only a nation the size of the Soviet Union, if it was strong and prepared by Intelligence reports, could do thatAgents in Britain could play their part by climbing into positions of power and decision-making. They could then guard against conspiracies between Britain and Germany, by informing the Soviet Union if there were any. Otto even suggested there could one day be a link between Britain and a strong Soviet Union, especially if the right people were in positions of influence in Whitehall.

Details from Otto were few. The objective had been to arouse Rothschild’s interest in secret work to defeat Hitler and that meant

{p. 58} supporting the Soviet Union. It was an accumulated appeal to his survival instinct as a Jew, his protective urges towards the family, his ego, and his rebellion against the Establishment, which he believed would be overturned and replaced by a better, science-driven society.

Otto made his proposals sound as if the new recruit would be able to take part in history-making events. He could even shape them, as Rothschilds had done for two hundred years.


The Comintern considered the question of Rothschild’s immediate role. A person of his name and stature could hardly slip away like Philby with a false ID and pose as a freelance journalist in fascist-controlled countries. Although the dirty word ‘espionage’ was never used, the next Lord Rothschild was not the type to act as a straight agent. It was ludicrous to suggest he could be used to infiltrate extreme right-wing groups.

Otto suggested, however, that he might consider helping to finance the setting up of a front to assist other operatives in order to create the right credentials for infiltration. Otto explained that it would be useful for those supporting the cause to become members of, for instance, the Anglo-German Fellowship. It attracted the cirdes in which the Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VIII, moved. He, himself, was pro-Hitler {is this why he was forced to abdicate?}, as were several of the upper-class members who filled the Fellowship’s banquets.

Rothschild was inquisitive about who would be asked to penetrate that circle.

‘Guy Burgess is enthusiastic,’ Otto replied. ‘So is Kim.”

It was the first time Rothschild had been given direct evidence that members of his circle had joined the cause. The thought of the quieter, shrewder Kim changing his image was plausible. But Victor scoffed at the idea Burgess could present himself as a fascist.

Otto was adamant. Guy, he claimed, was qualified for the job. All he needed was a preparatory link to neo-fascism. The concept was straightforward. Rothschild was asked to contribute towards funding a newsletter specializing in economics, finance and business with strong links to Germany. Burgess was ignorant of such matters

{p. 59} so a professional journalist sympathizer, German communist Rudolph Katz, was ready to be brought in to do most of the donkey work in London by writing and editing the newsletter. Burgess acted as the titular editor and, under Katz’s direction, researched and wrote some contributing articles.

It would be an entree to the fascist networks linked with the Anglo-German Fellowship. Burgess could roam free in these circles. Again, Otto didn’t have to spell out some of the methods randy, debaudhed Guy would use to extract information and develop contacts. Rothschild’s thoughts changed from bemusement to amusement. Grubby Guy’s frenzied dalliances had their uses, it seemed. He could be discriminating after all.

Rothschild was able to go further and use his family contacts to introduce Burgess to influential members of the Conservative Party. According to Modin, these induded George Ball, an MI5 agent and founder of the Conservative Research Unit – the Party’s information service. (This led to Burgess becoming parliamentary assistant to a young, extreme-right Conservative, Jack Macnamara. He was a homosexual and a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship.)

In further discussions with Otto, Rothschild brought up his own image. How could he be seen financing a right-wing business letter? It wouldn’t be good for the family name, or the Bank. Otto explained that no one would need to know he was behind it. In any case, some of the funds would be provided from elsewhere. Rothschild volunteered that they could always claim his mother Rozsika was financing Burgess’s ventures. Technically this was accurate because she looked after most of Victor’s finances. Burgess was on a retainer from her of £100 a month for advising her on stock investments.

Rothschild warmed to the idea and even volunteered that Burgess and Philby could act as couriers for the family banking operations, if a front was needed. Victor’s family was familiar with private intelligence networks – they had their ‘spies’ at court, in governments, the military and business – people retained to inform the family’s decision-makers of a business deal here, a political intrigue there.

More than a hundred years ago Nathan Mayer Rothsdlild, the founder of the British dynasty, had run a swifter spy service than those of the British or French Government. His agents followed

{p. 60} the armies everywhere and were so efficient that Nathan knew Napoleon had been defeated at Waterloo before either government. The Rothschild network had remained intact since 1815. What’s more, it had already been activated to help Jews in trouble in Germany.

Victor’s cousin James had influenced him into supporting the setting up of Israel in order to give the tens of thousands of dispossessed a ‘home’. James, a Liberal MP, was giving financial backing to creating many Jewish cooperatives in Palestine. However, expansion of the settlements was being held up by a ‘pro-Arab’ lobby in Whitehall. Britain didn’t seem likely to honour the declaration of Foreign Secretary Balfour who in 1917 had promised to recognize Zionism and had called for a Jewish homeland.

At the last of their initial meetings in 1934, Otto and Victor discussed Rothschild’s plans for the future. He didn’t really see himself ever reaching for a position of influence within Government, mainly because he was loving his research and being at Cambridge.

‘I can see myself going on to the age of forty or fifty,’ he told Otto and many contemporaries.

The Control was not happy with this response at first. He suggested it would be most helpful if he could set his mind on a key position now. Otto flattered him by saying he could achieve great things for Britain.

Rothschild wanted to know why it was so important to join Whitehall. The Control gave the stock reply he had been using with some sincerity in discussions with other recruits.

‘War is inevitable,’ he maintained. ‘That is when positioning really counts.’

This gave Rothschild more to consider, but he did not respond. Otto had already concluded that this young man would be the most difficult to direct. Normally this would cause a Control to not proceed with the recruitment. Yet he understood why Philby had been keen to add Rothschild to the network of agents. Apart from his intelligence, he was single-minded, independent, and apparently in awe of no one.

Otto salvaged something by suggesting it would be useful to know of the secret work of scientists at the major institutions, such as Cambridge. The Comintern agent said he was aware that secret research had been going on in the area of ‘gas’ warfare since the First

{p. 61} World War. Knowing how far it had gone would be helpful. Rothschild agreed that he would assist where he could, as he had in gaining information for Kapitza over the last two years.

Otto wrote to Moscow about Rothschild, explaining the unconventional nature of his activation as a functionary, and his usefulness in financially supporting other agents and supplying useful scientific data.

According to several KGB sources, Otto, Deutsch and the Moscow Centre were then ambivalent about ‘fully recruiting’ Rothschild to a point where he would be regarded as more than a subagent, that is, someone on the fringe who could help with finance and information from time to time, or as a supplier of intelligence data to full agents such as Burgess, Blunt and Philby.

They had other misgivings because the target had no obvious ambition to join British Intelligence or the government. They were impressed by his intellect but worried about his wife Barbara not being ‘suitable’ for the cause. There were further concerns about his attitude to Palestine and the campaign to create a Zionist state which confused the Moscow Centre. The Soviet Union had no firm policy on the issue and it was unable to voice an opinion when Otto asked for one to give Rothschild.

{But if Trotsky had been in power, a deal with Rothschild would have been straigtforward; Trotsky used to play chess with Baron Rothschild at a cafe in Switzerland, before the Revolution (Joseph Nedava, Trotsky and the Jews, p. 36): nedava.html}

The Centre also found problematic the fact that Rothschild had independent means. It was harder to manipulate or ‘keep’ agents who were not financially dependent in some way, even if it just meant the odd cash payment for expenses.

Otto sent numerous communications to the Centre about several agents in the last few months of 1934. Despite Moscow’s uncertainty about Rothschild, this period marked the beginning of his secret life. Otto advised him, as he did Burgess, Philby, Maclean and Blunt, to sever all relationships with the far left. Rothschild gave up his links to the Communist Party.

{p. 76} Victor Rothschild, like several Comintern supporters, waited through the early months of 1937, but did not hear from Otto or Deutsch. The death of his uncle Walter meant that the newly-titled 26-year-old had taken his seat in the Lords and was busier than ever. Having been elected to a Fellowship at Trinity in 1935, he was now lecturing in Zoology and advancing his study into sperm movement and fertilization.

In June 1937, Rothschild learnt that Otto had returned to Moscow at Stalin’s orders. The Soviet Dictator had been purging the Comintern in an attempt to eliminate all remnants of Trotskyism. At their last meeting eight months earlier Otto had hinted that he might be in danger. He knew that Stalin’s assassins had been hunting down some of the leading Comintern people in several countries, and he expected trouble.

Blunt, who saw more of Otto and Deutsch, the two key agents in England, and acted as a conduit for any information Rothschild might wish to pass on, thought Otto’s life might be at risk.

The information chilled the other three key British agents then working for Moscow: Philby, Burgess and Donald Maclean, the main Cambridge spy at the Foreign Office. It worried Rothschild too. Although he had less direct contact with the Comintern Controls, he had met Otto and Deutsch on at least six occasions for discussions, and several more times socially. The two Comintern agents had from time to time turned up at private functions involving the five and other British agents.

Rothschild was still on the fringe of Comintern activity, but his sponsorship of the Katz-edited financial magazine had allowed

{p. 77} Burgess to join the Anglo-German Fellowship. Burgess had successfully buried his far-left connections to emerge as a fascist-sympathizer, using his homosexuality to insinuate himself further into important far-right circles.

Rothschild kept in contact with Kapitza in Moscow and wrote reports on scientific developments to accompany data published in obscure journals and papers, largely restricted to the international scientific community. These covered a range of subjects, including biological toxins and nuclear physics, which would eventually lead to research into germ warfare and atomic weaponry. Some of the data he passed on was classified. It was all of enormous help to Russian scientists.

If anything, his prose style was even more deft than the brilliant yet verbose Burgess, and the precise Philby. Furthermore, Rothschild was breaking down far more esoteric information than the others. His reports would often be accompanied by explanatory drawings, which demonstrated his extraordinary capacity for comprehending anything scientific.

Whether it was the very early rudiments of the gas centrifuge method of collecting ‘fissionable’ uranium or the experimentation of scientist Mark Oliphant in ‘Hydrogen power’ at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, Rothschild could twist his mind around the theory and picture it, in much the same way as Einstein visually perceived his theory of relativity.

He built up friendships with the relevant science departments at Cambridge and other strategically-placed agents such as Alister Watson, who met in discussion groups and in relaxation hours to inform each other about developments in their respective specialties. Rothschild would dwell on areas outside his discipline until he could understand the principles well enough to hold his own with the experts.

‘Knowing other [scientific] developments allowed us to crossfertilize,’ he later told his MI5 scientist friend Peter Wright. ‘It stimulated the imagination. For instance, after a discussion with nuclear physicists, who were forever in discourse about bombarding this and that with gas molecules, I applied it to my own work.’

Apart from regular talks with his scientific peers, Rothschild daily had his face buried in papers and journals. He made a point of reading everything. …

{p. 88} … Moscow’s instructions, it was Rothschild who remained the least dictated to of the subagents, those on the fringe willing to help the Soviets as major conflict in Europe loomed.

Even though he was not yet thirty he had a commanding presence. The Soviets did not wish to lose him because of his increasing power and influence. The Centre was well aware of Rothschild’s proximity to Churchill, now jockeying behind the scenes for leadership as they learnt from Rothschild himself. The Soviet Controls decided at first that they would use his close friends to influence him. Blunt in particular could usually persuade him.

Gorsky set about ‘activating’ all his agents. The Nazi-Soviet Pact marked the beginning of the key agents’ and second division of subagents’ attempts to get important jobs, preferably within the Intelligence community. To many, war seemed inevitable but in Britain until it was declared there was a reluctance to put funds into developing Intelligence departments.

A few days after the Pact, the Fuhrer, now free to bully whom he wished, marched on Poland, which the West was ill-prepared to defend.

{p. 89} Moscow wanted spies in all sections of British Intelligence, the Foreign Office, and the military, but they couldn’t make real penetration until Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939. Then both MI5 and MI6 expanded by recruiting the best minds from Oxbridge.

The incestuous network helped themselves. Burgess, at MI6 and still on a retainer from Rothschild, recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI6Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war,had been in turn recommended to MI5 by Burgess, and Guy Liddell, then deputy director of MI5’s B division, who had in turn been introduced by Burgess to the young lord.

However, according to ex-KGB Colonel ‘F’ and Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring’s penetration of British Intelligence.

‘He had the contacts,’ Modin noted. ‘He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI6.’

Churchill and Rothschild had long since patched up their minor differences, and the still-frustrated politician had put in a good word for his brilliant young friend after he had submitted a paper on the German banking system to the War Office. The paper showed how, using spies in the international banking system, the Nazis’ plans could be predicted. The science all-rounder left his research at Cambridge for a position in the Commercial Espionage Unit of MI5‘s Section B.

{p. 116} … But despite the slow start, Enrico Fermi made a big leap forward with his 1942 Chicago Experiment. This relied on Peierls’ chain reaction concept but demonstrated that the bomb could be made using plutonium. This was done by building a reactor using natural uranium fuel – that is, 99.3 per cent U-238 and 0.7 per cent U-235 – encased in graphite. During the chain reaction some of the uranium was transformed into plutonium, and it could then be separated chemically and used as bomb fuel.

Peierls, Frisch and Co. were not impressed with this experiment and Rothschild couldn’t rely on information about plutonium – or any other secret work – coming through from them to the Government and M15, as with the famous Memorandum. And since not all scientists were as motivated to stir the Government to action as these two outstanding Jewish physicists, Rothschild instead had to go out and glean facts from his other contacts in England and the US like an assistant researcher in order to comprehend the fundamentals. This meant visiting every defence research establishment and asking questions about all aspects of a project. The problem was, how could he do this and remain above suspicion?


Rothschild found an ingenious legitimate way of learning everything he needed in all areas of secret research involving not only nuclear and biological weapons but also radar. He wrote a memo to Guy Liddell reminding himof the laxity he had found in commercial organizations in his earlier intelligence work. There was now an urgent need to tighten security in all defence and research establishments. Liddell put him in charge of security, giving Rothschild the right to examine any building he wished. It also meant, if he was doing his job properly, that he should understand every development in order to make sure it was secure.

Late in 1942 he visited Birmingham University and examined every aspect of the Peierls/Frisch laboratory. Then he went next door to check on Oliphant who was refining the magnetron, which would turn radar into a war-winning weapon for Britain.

‘It was our one and only meeting,’ Oliphant told me in an interview in January 1994. ‘Rothschild wanted to know everything

{p. 117} about it [the operation of the magnetron]. He went over the whole lab and absorbed information like blotting paper. He wasn’t an expert but he didn’t pretend to know things. He asked a lot of questions, and took notes in a long discussion which ranged across our areas of scientific expertise. Rothschild was cheerful enough in that meeting. He was a very bright individual and I liked him very much.

The MI5 security inspector did more than learn about the secret work. He slipped a three-inch diameter magnetron into his pocket when Oliphant wasn’t looking. That night Rothschild drove to his Cambridge home and copied the design of the device, with its three terminal electrodes, which generated short radio-waves.

Early the next morning Rothschild drove to London, gave the magnetron and drawing with explanatory notes to Blunt at Bentinck Street for passing on to the Russians, who microfilmed everything by the afternoon. They gave it back to Blunt, who returned the device to Rothschild at his MI5 office in St James’s.”

Rothschild wrote a note to Oliphant, attached it to the magnetron, packaged it and sent it back to Birmingham by special messenger. Oliphant was shocked to receive it. The note said:

Perhaps you should tighten up your security. Enjoyed our meeting, Yours etc Rothschild

Oliphant had no reason to suspect Rothschild was doing other than his appointed security job. In fact, the scientist was most grateful, even beholden to him.

‘He could have caused us trouble by reporting our slackness,’ Oliphant commented. ‘But he didn’t. I immediately tightened up our procedures and made sure no equipment was left lying around. Rothschild never commented about us, but in a report he was scathing about security in general.’

Early in 1943, Rothschild visited Professor G. P. Thompson’s laboratory at London’s Imperial College, again for ‘security’ reasons. There he had the plutonium route to the bomb explained to him. Thompson’s team had the right principle for generating plutonium but had failed by using heavy water instead of graphite as a moderator in the reactor.

{p. 118} Rothschild was able to inform Blunt, again with his trademark diagrams of explanation, how it worked and Blunt wasted no time in passing it all on to a Control.

According to former KGB Colonel ‘F’: ‘This was the kind of data our scientists were looking for. It took us some time to develop a nuclear weapon using plutonium, but that initial clue was the start. We admit it [the first Russian bomb, exploded in 1949] was just a copy of the American design, which led to ‘Fat Man’. [The bomb, ‘Fat Man’, exploded on Nagasaki soon after ‘Little Boy’ – fuelled by U-235 – was exploded over Hiroshima on 6 August 1945.] It also educated us in the rudiments of [plutonium] breeder reactors for industry.’

By March 1943, Rothschild had achieved his aim of having a complete overview of the struggle to be first to make a ‘superbomb’. Through his diligence as MI5’s security inspector, he had developed a knowledge of every major scientific development in the Allied war effort. No one in Britain or America, not even Churchill’s scientific adviser Baron Cherwell, knew as much as Rothschild. He made sure Russia’s scientists had the basics of every secret project from biological warfare to radar and the various types of potential nuclear bomb.

[p. 119} In April 1943 German troops uncovered the Katyn Woods site not far from the Soviet city of Smolensk where the KGB had massacred 8,000 Polish officers. Most had been shot in the back of the neck. It was known that these officers had been interned by the Russians in the winter of 1939, after Soviet forces had occupied eastern Poland.

The Nazis made quick propaganda out of the grisly discovery and it caused outrage amongst the exiled Poles, notably General Wladyslaw Sikorski, the premier of the exiled Polish Government and commander-in-chief of all that country’s forces abroad.

The first man to bring him the news was Donald Maclean from the Foreign Office, who was in charge of ‘administrative liaison’ with Allied troops in Britain – at this time mostly Poles and French.

On 15 April Sikorski and Count Racynski, the Polish Ambassador in London, went to see Churchill at 10 Downing Street.

‘Alas’, Churchill told them, ‘the German revelations are probably true. The Bolsheviks can be very cruel.”

KGB agent Maclean had reported to Gorsky that the Poles were suspicious of Stalin, who had similar feelings towards Sikorski. Now he informed his Control that the Poles were going to call for an investigation into the Katyn murders by the International Red Cross. Sikorski did this publicly the day after his meeting with Churchill and against the British Prime Minister’s advice. Moscow was well prepared and it retaliated by breaking off relations with Sikorski’s Government. It called the Poles ‘Fascist Collaborators’ and blamed the massacre on the Germans.

{p. 150} … the Cold War marked the beginning of defections from Russia by those who had experienced a better life in the West. The defectors needed to have something to sell.

This put the Soviet bomb espionage networks in jeopardy. Those Russians abandoning their posts enhanced the concept of ‘the wilderness of mirrors’ in which defectors became wittingly or unwittingly involved in molehunts based on the new data they gave. If a KGB defector suggested there were spies inside Western services nearly everyone became a suspect, because the game was to be undetectable which meant that possible moles ranged from the most to the least obvious.

The first major Russian to leave his post in the West post-war with promises of major secrets was a 25-year-old cipher clerk in the Ottawa Embassy named Igor Gouzenko. In September 1945, he claimed that Moscow had an important spy at the heart of British Intelligence. But Gouzenko couldn’t make up his mind whether he worked for MI5, or Section Five of MI6.

Gouzenko was speaking about a spy who had operated until 1945, which at first could have meant any one of twenty people. Over time it narrowed down to a handful, including Blunt, Roger Hollis (then in charge of monitoring the British Communist Party) Guy Liddell and Rothschild – all at MI5 – and Philby at MI6.

A few weeks later, KGB operative Konstantin Volkov in Istanbul told a British Embassy official that he wanted to defect. His deal was £27,500 and sanctuary in Britain in exchange for data about five British double agents in Intelligence and two in the Foreign Office. The key spy again was initially thought to be in MI6, but over the years Volkov’s claims were reassessed and could have meant a section head of MI5, which then pointed to Hollis once more. But Liddell and Rothschild’s roles could also be interpreted to mean head of section until 1945. (Philby alerted the Centre and Volkov was taken back to Moscow and executed.)

The upshot of such defections and accusations was to make both British Intelligence and the FBI (the CIA was not yet in operation) far more alert to moles inside espionage agencies and spies within vital operations such as the Manhattan Project. The agents and their Controls were suddenly under far more stress than they had ever experienced in wartime as the hunts began.

{p. 151} The end of the war signalled a confirmation of the commitment of the Ring of Five to their espionage work for the Soviet Union. But now a clandestine approach was paramount. They were working for the new enemy of the West. If exposed now as KGB agents, they would be viewed as full-blown traitors.

Rothschild decided to formalize his relationship with his close assistant, Tess. In 1946, he divorced Barbara and married Tess, thus beginning a far more settled and successful private life for the versatile spy. He officially gave up service for MI5 after helping to reorganize its structure. In public, he lifted his profile in keeping with his background by continuing to do research at Cambridge and by taking up directorships, such as with the British airline BOAC. He accepted war honours and awards in Britain and the US, and continued his work in the House of Lords.

In private, unlike others who left the service, he was addicted to the secret world and could not give it up. Because of his independence, position and the reputation he had gained during the war, he was able to keep in touch with the secret services’ most powerful men.

He could afford to dabble when and how he liked. But as always with Rothschild, there were strong motives behind his affiliations. He was closely connected to the Jewish drive for a homeland for the millions of refugees made homeless by the upheaval of the war and used his position in the Lords to make powerful, cogent public statements, which would get wide press attention.

His unseen contacts with Intelligence were useful in helping the Jewish Haganah – the precursor to Mossad – learn what the British

{p. 152} were thinking and doing, for the Foreign Office jealously guarded its influence in the Middle East.

The Arab nations were against any form of a Jewish state in their region. The FO was determined to maintain its standing with the Arabs and it was difficult for Zionists to get support for the radical idea of a new country in the midst of hostile nations.

The political campaign for it had to be subtle, thoughtful and persistent. There was much education to be done in a parliament and political system that had not exactly been feverish in its support of the Jews during the war. There had been some sympathy, especially in the Labour movement, but there had also been ignorance, even hostility before the war amongst Conservative elements, including newspapers, who backed Hitler. Despite the horrors of the death camps there was a deal of work needed to turn the pre-war apathy into post-war support.

As the months of the first post-war year were eaten up with his various public and clandestine activities, everything Rothschild did seemed increasingly to be inspired by the Jewish refugee/homeland problem. It was a continuation of his work in the 1930s, but now with the possibility of a humane solution, he was redoubling his efforts in public and in secret.

Rothschild had cleverly cultivated a ‘neutral’ position concerning the politics of the issue and had friends in the press comment that he was ‘the most pro-Arab Jew in the UK’. He went further in a Lords speech and stated ‘I have never been a supporter of Zionism, or what is called political Zionism; nor have I been connected officially or unofficially with any Zionist organisation.’ But in a debate on ‘The Situation in Palestine’ on 31 July 1946, he came out into the open.

The debate coincided with great unrest in Palestine, a few days after the King David Hotel was blown up by Jewish terrorists members of the notorious Irgun and Stern Gang. British soldiers were killed in the incident.

Rothschild made his speech in response to an official Anglo-American Commission recommendation, which wanted Palestine partitioned into four areas with the right of entry, into a ‘Jewish Province in Palestine, of 100,000 Jews to be selected primarily from Germany, Austria and Italy.’

Rothschild started by again denying that he was a Zionist or connected with its intelligence operations, and then proceeded to

{p. 153} make a near-emotional (for him), but always rational case for Jews being allowed to have their part of the partition.

He pointed out that, in the worldwide tradition of the past few hundred years, pogroms were still going on, the latest as recently as July 1946 in Kielce, Poland. Rothschild reminded their lordships that ‘almost all the young Jews in Palestine had fathers, mothers and relations who were among the six million Jews tortured or gassed to death by Hitler’.

He gave a graphic account of an aunt, ‘whom one loved dearly – she was seventy-five years old and quite blind – [who was] … clubbed to death by the SS on the railway station outside an extermination camp …’

Rothschild then spoke of a Foreign Office-influenced, 1939 British White Paper, which was against a Jewish settlement. It was viewed by many Jews as ‘a betrayal of previous promises’ going back to the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, in which the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote the following reply to Lord Walter Rothschild, Victor’s uncle:

Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of s~rmpathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which have been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet: ‘His Majesty~s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur Balfour

Victor invoked Churchill’s reaction to parts of the White Paper: ‘That is a plain breach of a solemn obligation, a breach of faith . . . What will those who have been stirring up the Arab agitators think? Will they not be tempted to say, “They are on the run again. This is another Munich.“‘

{p. 154} Rothschild attacked some Arab nations for their anti-British and pro-Hitler stances and then commented on the Anglo-American recommendation:

‘A prerequisite of this recommendation being implemented was that no further acts of terrorism should take place … that illegal armies in Palestine should all disarm before these displaced people were allowed into Palestine. The Jews, constrained to Palestine, felt, quite wrongly no doubt, that this added condition was directed against them, rather than against the Arabs, who had all the surrounding countries such as TransJordan and Syria, in which to prepare for resistance.’

Rothschild defended the Jewish Army and at the same time showed the English connection to it by noting that many of its members ‘did many acts of valour for England during the war’, and that it was trained ‘by a national hero of ours,’ General Wingate.

Rothschild added an historical perspective: ‘Palestine … is the only country where the Jews, after 2,000 years, have been able to get back to their business of tilling the soil and living on the land …’ Then he invoked some passion by speaking of Gestapo torture, which explained why the Jews had become desperate for a safe refuge from persecution.

He ended his speech with a back-handed compliment: ‘I remember that only a few years ago my grandfather was the first Jew your Lordships allowed to sit in this House, and I therefore felt it my duty to try and explain something of the trials and torments of my co-religionists in Palestine.’

The speech attracted worldwide attention and signalled that Rothschild’s war had not ended. He would put the same fervour into setting up Israel as he did in defeating Hitler. This meant he would court the Americans with whom he had built such superb relations during the war. Money and support would come from the powerful Jewish lobby in the US, but Rothschild had not forgotten his contacts in the Kremlin. If they and the Americans backed a Jewish homeland it would more than cancel out British intransigence.

The KGB were hoping that Rothschild could still help them as they geared up their efforts to steal Western bomb intelligence. He was secretly anti-American when it came to their drive to be the biggest military power and, like Oppenheimer, he was keen to do

{p. 155} what he could to create a ‘balance of terror’, where each of the superpowers had the bomb as a deterrent to each other’s aggression. He also still held a strong ideological belief that Socialism should be the dominant system on earth.

One way the Russians could be sure of his help would be if they acceded to his demands about a Jewish homeland. In 1946, he kept lobbying for more refugees to be released from behind the Iron Curtain, and news kept coming in that more than a trickle of Jews were moving across the borders.

{For more on the Atomic Spies see atomic-spies.html}


In 1946, the heavily guarded Los Alamos compound at a secret spot in the desert of New Mexico became a place of confusion as the Manhattan Project fell into limbo for more than a year as scientists tried but failed to bring it under civilian control. This period hampered the KGB’s access to secrets as scientists came and went, without leadership and direction. The situation was salvaged when the Atomic Energy Act formed the AEC, which resuscitated the Project, followed by the McMahon Act on 1 August, which put civilian control over the military.

These changes didn’t worry the Russians but they were concerned that the new Act would affect all Anglo-American scientific exchanges. Section 10 of the Bill made the distinction between ‘basic scientific data’, which could be shared with other nations, and ‘technical processes’, which could not. Only US citizens could have access to ‘restricted data’ — information concerned with the use of atomic weapons and the production of fissionable material.

This severely cut the amount of data the British Mission at Los Alamos could access and saw a steady drift of scientists, including Fuchs in 1946, back to research, or academia in Britain. Fuchs had emerged over a five-year period as the key atomic scientist spying for the KGB. He had worked overtime at Los Alamos, helping in as many areas apart from his own speciality as time would allow, and his departure was a major blow to the Russians. The KGB would either have to increase its espionage in the US, or find other ways of obtaining data from the new AEC.

Controls had urgent discussions with their top agents in the US

{p. 156} and Britain. In the US, more was required from the agents coded PERSEUS, BULL, SHOT and TIFF, as well as conduits such as Gold, Greenglass and the Rosenbergs. Amongst the now excluded foreigners, only one, Rothschild, had the flexibility and connections to adjust to the new dilemma. He had used the brilliant ploy of making himself security inspector during the war, now he had to find an excuse to visit Washington and the AEC.

This time, through his friendship with the head of the British Mission, physicist James Chadwick, he had himself appointed as a special liaison with American scientists concerning the development of a dubious new atomic weapon based on releasing radioactive material.

An American scientist had thought of using the radioactivity from the cyclotron – the nuclear accelerator for producing a stream of electrically charged atoms or nuclei travelling at a very high speed – in a bomb. This could destroy the human population of a large city.

Some of the British scientists, such as Oliphant, were against it, but US General Leslie R. Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, wanted it to be considered in depth. He ordered Chadwick, Oliphant, Rothschild and others not to say anything in Britain about the possible new bomb in case the discovery became public.

Rothschild was a friend of the Chairman of the AEC, Admiral Lewis Strauss, and made several trips to the US. He combined his liaison work with US scientists, which broadened from the consideration of the hideous new radioactive bomb to fallout in general, with his other roles such as his position on the Anglo-American Commission on Palestine.

Rothschild was given access in his scientific role to major atomic weapons secrets, but he couldn’t stay in Washington to monitor AEC-Manhattan Project progress. He hoped to persuade the Americans to ignore or avoid the McMahon Act and to return to the ‘spirit of cooperation’ engendered between the two nations during the war after the agreements between Churchill and Roosevelt. However, there was a new mood in Washington under President Harry Truman, who was against sharing, not the least because he was suspicious of the new Labour government under Clement Attlee. He was aware of some of the current cabinet members’ efforts to improve relations with the British Communist Party before the

{p. 157} war. Truman’s appointees at places such as the AEC were of a like mind.

Nevertheless, Rothschild lobbied Strauss concerning the proposed shut-off of US atomic secrets under the McMahon Act. On one visit, Strauss arranged a dinner for him with several other senior military and scientific personnel. Rothschild again raised the subject of exchange of atomic secrets. The Americans became ‘edgy’.

Strauss had been quiet on the subject when he suddenly responded in front of the gathering at the end of the dinner:

‘Why should we let you have secret inforrnation when you’ve got Mr John Strachey, a communist, as War Minister?’

Strachey had been a frequent visitor to Bentinck Street during the war and was more than an acquaintance of Burgess and Rothschild.

‘So that’s what’s bothering you,’ a stunned Rothschild eventually replied.

‘Yes, and you can tell the Prime Minister.’

‘I can assure you and everyone else,’ Rothschild said, trying to salvage some ground, ‘that the information I have will not go to him [Strachey].’

The Americans accepted the assurance, but were not impressed. Rothschild informed Attlee, who addressed his cabinet on the matter, warning them off any association with the Communist Party.

By 1947, not even Rothschild was allowed access to AEC data, although the KGB still had an ‘in’ via Donald Maclean, who had been appointed as Secretary to the British Delegation on the Combined Policy Committee. The Committee determined the nuclear policy of the US, Britain and Canada in tandem, but as the McMahon Act had thwarted meaningful cooperation on the important secrets, it was a lame duck.

At this point there was a marked lull in top nuclear intelligence coming through to the Centre. Beria was desperate. It didn’t seem that the Soviets could deliver the much-desired bomb for Stalin. Beria had instructions and letters sent to scientists such as the Dane, Niels Bohr, who had been helpful before, asking for the latest research data. Bohr sent a message back saying that the Americans had denied him access.

Beria gave instructions to London and Washington that more had to be done. With guidance from Rothschild and others Maclean

{p. 158} could gather ‘basic scientific data’ from the AEC, such as the type and amount of raw materials used, the weight of bombs, and patents, which were filed in order to legally protect any device or process developed at Los Alamos.”

Maclean had been issued by the AEC with a ‘permanent pass to the Commissioners’ Headquarters’. He made at least twelve visits, five of them at night according to AEC records, between June 1947 and his departure for an appointment in Cairo a year later.

A later AEC damage assessment found he had access to estimates of uranium ore supply and requirement forecasts for the period 1948-52, although these later turned out to be inaccurate.

Pressure on the KGB increased after America’s successful tests at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific. They revived Russian fears about their own capacities and Beria began to fret that the Soviet Union would never detonate anything like the American productions. However, in 1947 the indefatigable Fuchs, who was at Britain’s atomic research station at Harwell, was able to furnish Beria with refined details of the plutonium route to the bomb, which had first been supplied in principle by Rothschild in 1943.

Fuchs had not originally worked in the plutonium field, but after the explosion of the ‘Fat Man’ bomb over Nagasaki and his transfer from Birmingham to Los Alamos, he garnered – with Oppenheimer’s acquiescence – as much data on the alternative weapon technology as possible. Everyone in the Manhattan Project remembered Fuchs’s extraordinary diligence and selflessness in helping out in areas outside his expertise.

By late 1947, Igor Kurchatov, who directed scientific work on the bomb, was so sure that the Russian scientists finally had the technical skills to build the weapon that he took the nuclear charge of the first proposed Soviet atomic bomb – a nickel-plated plutonium ball about ten centimetres in diameter – to Stalin in his study at the Kremlin.

‘And how do we know that this is plutonium, not a sparkling piece of iron?’ Stalin asked. ‘And why this glitter? Why this window dressing?’

‘The charge has been nickel-plated so that it would be safe to touch,’ Kurchatov replied. ‘Plutonium is very toxic, but nickel-plated it’s safe.’

Stalin handled it. He noticed its heat.

{p. 159} ‘Is it always warm?’ he asked. ‘It always is,’ Kurchatov replied. ‘The continuous nuclear reaction of alpha-disintegration is underway inside. It warms up. But we shall excite a powerful fission reaction in it. This will be an explosion of great power.’ Stalin was not completely convinced but he later authorized the testing of the first bomb. It was to take until September 1949.

{p. 220} … connection had to be secret even to the other members of the ring although in reality the Five and others knew who fellow members were. It developed a brotherhood. Rothschild only took this underground camaraderie seriously when the war began.

Every position he had in wartime whether at Porton Down or within MI5, gave him autonomy. While investigating Nazi commercial espionage, he had his own little team. When Guy Liddell took him on in his counter-espionage section at M15, the over-indulged yet deserving Victor – a favourite of Liddell’s amongst the brilliant young spies he was commanding – was given his own section, the small yet important counter-sabotage unit. There were just six members at the beginning and Rothschild was boss.

Yet he never shirked his responsibility. The boss was first to risk life and limb. As MI5’s security inspector turning up on secret research doorsteps, he worked solo and effectively. With SHAEF on the Allied thrust into the Continent, it was Rothschild who took command of the Ring of Five and even directed the KGB Controls who he had running to Paris to receive espionage data. Rothschild was the dictator of which intelligence should be purloined and from where. The KGB Controls kept their complaints to themselves.

By 1943 Rothschild, the KGB men realized, was indeed a one-off. He, more than any other agent, had the power to collect vital information for the Centre. He and they knew he was in a better position to determine what espionage was useful in the struggle against the Nazis. Yet still he cooperated if what he considered important requests were made.

Not surprisingly, he upset people when he took on the Chairmanship of the Agricultural Research Council in 1948. This was a much bigger, bureaucratic show, where one paid due deference to offficialdom and the pace was slow. He no longer had the pressure and excitement of rushing the Soviets something they should know about a German tank division. There was not even the driving force of a profit motive, which the disdainful young Victor had briefly experienced at N. M. Rothschilds. He had dealt with the slow grind of the civil service and government institutions before, but not from the inside as at the ARC, which he thought was an apt acronym.

Rothschild, as everyone from his wife to his various intelligence networks knew, liked to get things done by the fierce and energetic

{p. 221} application of reason and logic, which he was certain was the solution to all problems. It could apply to defusing a complicated bomb, or understanding the making of a nuclear weapon, or the mechanics of reproduction. He worked best on his own, and found fellow human beings occasionally difficult and often not governed by the laws of physics. They had ideas, admittedly often moribund and unimaginative ones compared to his, but minor intellectual inspirations nevertheless. These people would insist on airing their views or voicing opinions. If they were irrelevant to the way he wanted to go, he would ride roughshod over them. Former employees at ARC recalled that Rothschild was ‘impatient’, ‘insensitive’ and, on occasions, ‘intimidating’.

Some claimed he treated people like fools unless they could prove they were not. When they could not present evidence to the contrary, he would not suffer them. This upset and angered subordinates and colleagues.

‘He would do drastic things without consultation,’ an ARC executive recalled. ‘He could be very persistent in trying to get his own way even against the majority of the Council. The Secretary, Sir William Slater, found him a great trial, interfering in things that were in the realm of management, not policy.’

At heart, Rothschild was more an active governor or manager, not a policy-maker floating above the action and destined to create guidelines and stay aloof.

Whether he appreciated it or not he was trapped in areas that didn’t suit him. He certainly understood that after twenty years his clandestine world, the extent of which only he knew, was still the field that extended his mind and diverse skills more than any other. This was because his espionage work was linked with survival, which had been his motivation during the war and after, when he was helping create and defend Israel. Consciously or unconsciously, Rothschild was dinging to the secret world for succour, and the intermittent sense of achievement, which he craved.


Months after Israel was formed, Rothschild was involved with Chaim Weizmann in setting up a special nuclear physics department

{p. 222} in a scientific institute in Rehovoth. The establishment was named after Weizmann, the nation’s first president and himself a distinguished biochemist.

Its aim even in those heady days of 1948 was to build nuclear weapons for Israel. It became the nation’s best kept secret and the most fervent desire of the new nation’s founders. They never wanted their race to be threatened with another Holocaust. Atomic weapons would be the ultimate deterrent to future Hitlers.

Yet when the idea for an Israeli bomb was first conceived, the Soviet Union was still a year away from its own first trial blast. The Russians were expecting to detonate, literally after seven years hard labour, when it should have taken perhaps a century of normal research. They had thrown enormous resources, thousands of scientists and strong spy networks at the problem. Israel would have to copy that approach from a standing start. It had limited resources and a trickle of Jewish technicians. But it did have espionage networks.

The dream of an Israeli bomb was ambitious indeed, but it spurred Rothschild to keep abreast of all things nuclear so he could pass on data to the Weizmann Institute, which was planning a nuclear reactor at Dimona in the Negev Desert. Under a modified guise of concern about the spread and dangers of nuclear weapons, he was able to keep contact with appropriate scientists around the world. He began this official and legitimate process at the end of the Second World War by becoming an expert on fallout, which allowed him to monitor the Manhattan project. He continued in the 1950s, even on occasions attending informal conferences on controlling nuclear weapons held by leading British atomic scientists, who were beginning to comprehend and assess their creation.

The Dane, Niels Bohrhad stimulated consciences post-war by arguing that nuclear matters belonged to an ‘open world’, with which the Russians – desperate to build a nuclear arsenal – agreed wholeheartedly. He had plenty of support from the scientific community in the US too, but Washington was never going to support ‘the free interchange of ideas’ with those dangerous Russians, even if it had nothing to do with detail about bomb technology.

{But the US Government did make such a committment in the 1946 Baruch Plan: baruch-plan.html}

Bohr’s idea was taken up by mathematician and philosopher, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and the British Atomic Scientists

{p. 223} Association, many of whose members Rothschild knew well. They set up their first conference at Pugwash, Nova Scotia, in 1955.

Rothschild assiduously kept contact with the key organizers so that his involvement always seemed natural.

Correspondence with Russell in early 1955 was typical:

Dear Russell, I would like to present the manuscript of your recent broadcast dealing with the Hydrogen Bomb to Trinity. Can you suggest any way in which I might acquire it? Yours Sincerely, Rothschild

The so-called Pugwash Conferences emerged as the scientists’ response to the arms race between the US, USSR, China, Britain and France, and the dangers of fallout.

Scientists from twenty-two nations turned up and problems concerned with peace and the impact of atomic weapons on humankind were discussed. Rothschild later floated ideas about how to harness the nuclear genie for ‘peaceful purposes’ and not war. He urged the idea of breeder reactors for energy, of which he was a long-term supporter. What he avoided mentioning was the ease with which breeder reactors could be adapted to extract weapons-grade nudear fuel.

Everything he learnt ended up at the Weizmann Institute, which was in part his creation. (His secret support of it with information and finance was rewarded publicly in 1962 when he was made an Honorary Fellow of the Institute.)

Rothschild was not a technician like Klaus Fuchs. He could not create the weaponry for Israel. But he could inform its Intelligence leaders (with whom he was very dose as an important, secret member of Mossad) which scientists might be helpful, where the available technology might be and how it might be obtained and funded.

The Israelis sounded out several possibilities. In 1956, Shimon Peres, then director of the Defence Ministry under Moshe Dayan, had many meetings with ministers in Guy Mollet’s French socialist government as they prepared for the Suez Canal operation. The French, British and Israelis planned to wrest back the Canal from President Nasser of Egypt, who had nationalized it.

{p. 224} Peres first gained the trust of the French, then he struck a deal with Defence Minister, Bourges Maunoury. In return for Israel’s help over the Suez Canal, in which it would make the initial attack on Egyptian defences, the French promised to consider supplying nuclear plants at Dimona. Israel carried out its part at Suez, and fortuitously Maunoury replaced Mollet as prime minister. Maunoury and his foreign minister signed a top-secret agreement with Peres and Asher Ben-Natan, a Mossad agent at Israel’s Defence Ministry.

In it, the French promised to supply a powerful 24-megawatt reactor, the technical know-how to run it, and some uranium. The secret deal was only known to about a dozen individuals, induding Rothschild, and with good reason. The fine print of the document allowed for the inclusion of equipment which would permit the Israelis to produce weapons-grade nuclear fuel.

In 1957, French engineers began building the two-storey reactor facility at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert, which secretly went down six levels below ground. The subterranean construction would be the place where nuclear weapons would be built. With several Mossad officers in attendance, the engineers also dug an 80-foot deep crater in the sand. In it they buried Machon 2 – a unit which would allow the Israelis to extract weapons grade plutonium, the fuel for the bomb.

{When Mordecai Vanunu revealed Israel’s nuclear weapons, Shimon Peres ordered Mossad to arrest him; he was jailed for 18 years: vanunu.html}


In July 1955, Peter Wright joined MI6 as the agency’s first full-time scientist at a starting salary of £1700. …

{p. 225} By 1955, British Intelligence needed to be dragged into the scientific age as espionage was rapidly moving beyond the straight human skills of thieving, agent-running and watdhing.

Wright was chosen to facilitate the change, cautiously. But he ran into problems of background, attitude, class, style and ignorance. He was a technocrat, the first at MI5, and this generated suspicion. Wright had power over the gadgetry, the new-fangled devices of the Intelligence war. For men who hitherto had considered even the secretary’s typewriter a mystery, there were inherent difficulties in learning the new technology, whidh in the 1950s was as much scorned as feared.

At first, the new man didn’t really seem to have hardened political allegiances, whidh was also a worry for those around him. He knew little about politics and cared less …

{p. 248} … MI5 had limited resources and the gesture seemed generous to Wright.

‘Rothschild was fascinated by my plans for the scientific modernization of MI5,’ Wright recalled, and admitted being particularly garrulous in his company. ‘[He] offered me many suggestions of his own.’

After dinner they talked until late into the night.

‘I soon realized that he possessed an enormous appetite for the gossip and intrigue of the secret world,’ Wright said, ‘ and we were soon swapping stories about some of the more bizarre colleagues he remembered from the war.’

Rothschild was in full charm mode from the beginning with Wright, whose deference to his friendly lordship left him gullible and open to manipulation. Wright came away ‘feeling for the first time that, with his backing, great achievements were possible.’

This demonstrated Rothschild’s pervasive influence from outside British Intelligence, thirteen years after he had officially left MI5. The Intelligence services’ key scientist in the now dominant technowar could only look forward to continuing achievement, developing operations using modern techniques, if Rothschild supported him.

Wright looked up to him, not only socially but professionally and intellectually. He was also in awe of his subtle power and influence:

‘I doubt I have ever met a man who impressed me as much as Victor Rothschild,’ he commented in Spycatcher. ‘He is a brilliant scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, with expertise in botany and zoology, and a fascination for the structure of spermazotoa. But he has been much, much more than a scientist. His contacts, in politics, in intelligence, in banking, in the Civil Service, and abroad are legendary. There are few threads in the seamless robe of the British Establishment which have not passed at some time or other through the eye of the Rothschild needle.’

Wright was very proud of the relationship. It showed that he was not neglected by the amorphous establishment after all. On the contrary, one of the greatest amongst its ranks was fulsome in his recognition of the scientist’s skills. He was even patronizing him and willing to become friends.

It gave Wright a certain sense of his own importance and power. He could pick up the phone to the high and the mighty and say

{p. 249} with increasing confidence, ‘Victor … er … Lord Rothschild said I should speak with you.’

Rothschild also showed he was a man of action as well as talk by putting some Shell laboratories at MI5’s disposal, which made everyone happy. The meagre MI5 budget was augmented by Shell’s generosity, and Rothschild was able to keep abreast of everything MI5 was doing.

He went further and began work himself on ‘a variety of technical developments, including a special grease which would protect equipment if it was buried underground for long periods’.

The grease was developed. British Intelligence used it ‘extensively’ as they did other of Rothschild’s inventions. Not only was he aware of and knowledgeable on everything from British Intelligence bugging techniques to surveillance operations, he was creating the technology himself and overseeing many new developments.


Rothschild went further in his lordly patronage of Wright. He had kept abreast of nuclear weapons progress in Britain and was a close friend of Sir William Cook, then the deputy head of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE). He suggested that Wright should approach Cook for resources.

‘His well-timed lobbying made my visit much easier,’ an evergrateful Wright remarked.

Wright told Cook of his approach to counter-espionage, which was to develop technical ways of attacking Soviet spy communications. Communications were the only vulnerable point in an agent’s cover, because he had to send and receive messages to and from his controller.

Wright said in Spycatcher

‘I explained to Cook that Rafter already provided us with the most valuable weapon of all – an entree into Russian radio communications – but that we urgently needed new techniques to attack their physical methods of communications as well, such as secret writing, microdots, and dead letter drops. Progress on these would vastly improve our chances of counter-espionage success.’

{p. 250} Cook responded by providing MI5 with thirty people at AWRE including top scientists, and resources. AWRE paid for everything for two years before the UK Defence Research Policy Committee took over the funding.

This example demonstrates Rothschild’s power to instigate developments which embraced so many people and resources that it hid his action as the trigger of the expanded activity. Yet with his great capacity and passion for absorbing all matters scientific, he kept intellectually on top of all these new activities.

AWRE’s people devised four programmes. The first was a chemical agent which used radioactivity to detect any secret writing. Secondly, AWRE produced a neutron activation process for detecting microdots – photographs which were reduced to microscopic size, making them virtually invisible and easily concealed under stamps, on top of punctuation marks in typed letters, or under the lips of envelopes.

The third programme encompassed a counter to the success of dead letter drops – so called because instead of dangerous face-to-face meetings, an agent could leave espionage material in containers in, for instance, a tree trunk, where it would be picked up later by the receiving spy.

The KGB treated their containers so they could tell if they had been tampered with by MI5. AWRE came up with a special X-ray technique, which allowed MI5 to inspect containers without tampering with them and fogging unexposed film inside.

The fourth programme caused ecstasy among MI5’s buggers. It developed an X-ray method of reading safe combinations from the inside which, according to Wright, ‘gave MI5 potential access to every safe in Britain.’ Thanks to Rothschild the KGB knew of every development and were able to take steps to counter them. Furthermore, they used the technology themselves against Western agents.

MI5 inventions and technical advances went on, while Rothschild kept in contact with the key figures and digested the reports. This, coupled with his close contact with Dick White, other intelligence chiefs, Wright and the heads of the key research facilities in everything from weapons to radar, meant that Rothschild understood better than anyone in MI6 or MI5 every aspect of British Intelligence, from technical developments to their application in the field.

{p. 251} By comparison, Roger Hollis, MI5’s head, had the power of veto on operations but he did not comprehend the detail of the technology or its application. He would have known when, where and why an operation was being run, but would have had little knowledge of how. Hollis’s attention to them would have been at times scant, given his key function as an administrator. Even then, according to most, he was at best a competent paper shuffler.

He was not atypical of the underwhelming civil servants in the British bureaucracy, who had risen to prominence due to diligence rather than talent. His background – Oxford undergraduate, with a serviceable, unspectacular intelligence record – rather than his brilliance had seen him rise with little trace to a top job, which really needed someone as safe but with more intellect and flair. The same limitations applied to Graham Mitchell, Hollis’s deputy, although he was sharper and more cunning than his boss.

Rothschild made a point of keeping strong contacts with them both, so that if he was in the MI5 building, seeing Peter Wright or someone else, it would seem natural. There were many ex-service officers who visited the offices from time to time, but never with the frequency and interest of Rothschild.

His role was unique in the annals of British Intelligence, and he was welcomed as a VlP, a vital friend with the whiff of power, money and influence, always used to the good of the Secret Service.

It was an overwhelming front, used creatively during the war when research facilities opened up to him unquestioningly. After all, he was a peer of the realm, a man of enormous wealth, great intellect and at times an imperious manner which if anything boosted his overall image.

From the doorman to the director, everyone showed the highest respect to the busy lord, who often seemed to be in a rush from a meeting in Whitehall or the Bank, or on his way to Cambridge.

Until 1962, little Rothschild did was questioned. He had information, access and the best understanding of the espionage war of anyone, including Wright. The scientist may have known as much about what was going on in the research laboratories, although even this is doubtful. Rothschild himself was creating and directing some of it at Shell.

Yet Rothschild also knew the information that counted, which Wright would never be privy to. This was the vital data, including

{p. 252} secrets, discussed at the top of the Establishment in clubs and at dinners held by Rothschild and his peers.

This information on the espionage demi-monde would filter down to Wright only if it were necessary. The data in question was not only concerned with this operation against the Russians or that versus the French. It might be about a new appointment, the cutting of a budget, the boosting of another and the power-plays in politics and business, all of which affected the shape and destiny of British Intelligence.

Everything of importance was passed on to Sir Anthony Blunt for consumption inside the Soviet Embassy and the Centre in Moscow. He had not been entirely above suspicion since the Burgess/Maclean defections, but nevertheless he had near-impeccable credentials as the Queen’s art surveyor and expert. What’s more, Her Majesty liked him. He had been a favourite of her father’s and he had done an important service for the Royals during the war.

It all added up to Blunt having an excellent cover. Even though his own direct spying days were over, he was still an important conduit for others and the KGB could rely on him. It meant that the Controls had steady, fast access to the important operational secrets.

Over a period of time, Wright began to notice that every single counter-espionage operation run against the Soviets was failing. He began to wonder why.

{p. 253} In mid-December 1961, a stocky, Ukrainian-born KGB major defected in Finland and set up a chain of events which would eventually lead to exposure of the complete Ring of Five. Anatoli Golitsyn was not running for ideological reasons. He had been caught in a typical Soviet Embassy power struggle between the Ambassador and the KGB Resident. Golitsyn had sided with the Ambassador, who had lost the battle. Golitsyn thought he might be murdered, so he defected with his family and was happily accepted by the CIA.

The KGB major was in such a hurry that he departed empty-handed, with no files or stolen documents. But the determined, tough son of a peasant carried much information in his head. He doled enough out to the CIA to encourage them, particularly Angleton, to persevere with him. The head of counter-intelligence was most interested to hear what he had to say about a Ring of Five spies recruited in Britain in the 1930s. This was the first confirmation from Russia of rumours circulating in the West since the Burgess/ Maclean defections in 1951 that there was a Cambridge Ring of Five Soviet agents.

Golitsyn claimed they were close to each other, close enough to know that each had been recruited by the Comintern as dedicated, secret communist agents. The bonding had made them a formidable combination.

Golitsyn could give no names, except that one of them was codenamed STANLEY and had been connected with recent KGB operations in the Middle EastIt stunned Angleton. Philby was in Beirut at the time working for the Observer.

{p. 254} ‘Jim had been pondering the subject of Philby’s betrayal since 1951,’ former CIA operative ‘I’ claimed. ‘I would say that he had at first rejected the idea and then had gradually, slowly come round to the idea that Kim could have been a traitor. But it was hard [for Angleton], very tough. Not just because he had looked up to him and had been trained by him. Jim was one very proud Chicano. To have been conned like that was not palatable. Now there was a pretty goddamn strong indicator that Philby was a traitor.’

It preyed on Angleton’s mind. He began to wonder about others he had met in London in 1944 and 1945.

‘He had a little list,’ the CIA man recalled. ‘It was the other suspects among the British.’

Was Rothschild on that list?

‘He wouldn’t show the list to anyone. But he was already suspicious of Rothschild. He had first annoyed Jim on his patch. Jim had special connections with Israel and he felt the British [Intelligence] through Rothschild were interfering. He had the same doubts about Philby that he had about Rothschild. They never uttered sentiments [one way or the other] about the communists.’

Angleton also took note of Rothschild’s maverick attitude and subsequent behaviour in dealing with Israel. In the 1940s it ran contrary to British interests. He was serving two masters with a conflict of interest: MI5 and Mossad. If he was capable of serving two, could he secretly serve a third?

‘Jim worried about Israel’s left-wing politics when it was formed. He was concerned that some of the British agents [including Rothschild] had been happy with that. But not Jim. He wanted them to be a wholesome [laughs] anti-communist US satellite. That took a little time [laughs].’

Angleton let British Intelligence know of Golitsyn’s revelations. He encouraged them to investigate further.

‘The Philby and Blunt cases were exhumed,’ Peter Wright recalled, ‘and a reassessment ordered. MI5 and MI6 came quickly to the conclusion on the basis of the new leads that Philby was the Third Man.’

British Intelligence was abuzz with the new data. Meetings were held. Key MI5 people like Dick White were keen to move against Philby immediately. It soon became a matter of not if but when something would be done. But the Intelligence chiefs and their

{p. 255} masters in Whitehall decided as early as February 1962, that Philby would not be charged.

Instead he would be offered immunity in exchange for disclosing all. It was thought that it would be far better to interrogate him in depth to drain from him as much information about the KGB as possible. He would have been the best placed of all foreign spies to explain Soviet operations abroad. According to a former senior MI6 offficer:

‘If he didn t accept that [immunity], the general feeling was that it would be better if he defected, though the former was preferable to the latter. We had kept such situations quiet before. The last thing we wanted was a scandal.’

Former KGB Colonel ‘F’ was in agreement:

‘Philby was a major prize for them [MI6]. We were informed that they wanted very much to question him, but without fuss without trouble.’

Philby and his biographer, Phillip Knightley, considered it more likely that British Intelligence wanted to engineer his defection:

‘My view, and that of my superiors in Moscow,’ the spy told the writer, ‘is that the whole thing was deliberately staged so as to push me into escaping, because the last thing the British government wanted at that time was me in London, a security scandal and a sensational trial.’

Modin agreed with this assessment. ‘They didn’t want him back,’ he told me adamantly. ‘The publicity would have been damaging to MI6. The Government would have been in trouble.’

It was a difficult time. George Blake, another of Modin’s former agents working for MI6, had been arrested and charged under the UK Offficial Secrets Act. Blake confessed, was tried at the Old Bailey and given a forty-two-year jail sentence, the longest term ever imposed under English law. The British Government would have been upset by another public airing of the poor security in British Intelligence, especially as Philby was a far bigger operator, and someone viewed as part of the ruling class. It would have been a severe embarrassment for Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who seven years earlier had announced that Philby was not the Third Man. He would be made to appear either a liar or unable to control British Intelligence if Philby now confessed.

Early in 1962, there were also calls in Whitehall for an inquiry into

{p. 256} MI5’s failure to detect another spy, John Vassall, at the Admiralty. Fleet Street was making matters worse by catching spymania.

Under instruction from editors, journalists were looking for any new angle on espionage, no matter how thin or hoary the story. They were picking up on rumours and scurrilous tales such as the one about the senior member of the Cabinet who was sharing a girlfriend with a Russian from the Soviet Embassy. In fact, it was later discovered that this triangle involved John Profumo, Secretary of State for War, Christine Keeler and GRU officer Yevgeny Ivanov, whose cover was Soviet Assistant Naval Attache.

It all added up to the KGB having the luxury of time to examine its options and cover the tracks that might lead to the Fourth and Fifth men, should Philby defect. According to several sources in the KGB, MI6 and the CIA, Modin planned and executed the whole operation.

Although Modin admitted a ‘knowledge’ of what was happening, he refused to speak of his involvement. It was ‘a KGB operation matter’ he couldn’t discuss. Yet fellow officers, Colonel ‘D’ and Colonel ‘F’, were less reticent.

‘He lectured about defection [at the Andropov Institute in Moscow in the 1980s],’ Colonel ‘D’ recalled. ‘While he never mentioned his own part [in the Philby affair], he seemed to be an expert. It is unlikely that the Centre would have given that [operation] to anyone else. Modin had been the Control for the Five. They knew and trusted each other.’

In fact, Modin travelled to Beirut in May 1962 to warn Philby via the local Control of the evidence against him and to explain that a decision not to prosecute had been made.

How were the Fourth and Fifth men involved?

‘They were the two left in the ring. He [Modin] couldn’t just leave them without some contingency.’

Colonel ‘F’ suggested that Blunt was again asked if he wished to defect. But the KGB still couldn’t offer him access to the Palais de Versailles.

‘We wanted to know how he felt now,’ he said. ‘It was a decade since he had refused to leave with Burgess and Maclean. But he was sure, still. He would stay in London and face the situation.’

And the Fifth Man?

{p. 257} ‘He was not directly under suspicion. I don’t believe there had been any thought of him defecting.’

But the KGB still had to cover the Fifth Man’s tracks or create an alibi for him, something that would put him above suspicion at a critical time. Modin was in touch with Rothschild and a scheme was hatched.

It was also decided that Rothschild, who had been monitoring the attitude to Philby by talking to Dick White, Hollis and Wright, was to get a message to Philby warning him that British Intelligence were prevaricating over his fate. He should be prepared to face interrogation and make contingency plans for escape. However, Rothschild was to make it clear that Moscow preferred he stay in place for as long as possible. Defection was to be a last resort.


In August 1962, a few months after British Intelligence planned to move against Philby but not put him on trial, Rothschild was in Rehovoth, Israel. He made contact with a fellow Mossad agent, who was despatched to Beirut to contact Philby and brief him on the latest attitude of White and Hollis towards him. They were now planning to interrogate him in Beirut. He would probably be offered immunity in exchange for a full confession.

Rothschild was visiting the Weizmann Institute, to take part in a ceremony at which he was made an Honorary Fellow. He went to a party at Weizmann’s house afterwards and met Flora Solomon, ‘a Russian emigre Zionist’ and former friend of Philby’s, who was an executive at department store group, Marks and Spencer. She had introduced Kim to Aileen and had been a witness at her wedding.

‘She had obviously been in the thick of things in the mid-1930s,’ Wright recalled, ‘part inspiration, part fellow accomplice, and part courier for the fledgling Ring of Five, along with her friends Litzi Philby, and Edith Tudor Hart.’

Now Solomon and Rothschild were claiming that she had come forward to denounce Philby. The reason? Philby’s pieces in the Observer about Israel. She was saying that their anti-Israel slant had ‘angered’ her.

{p. 276} … like an American might take the Fifth Amendment. They said, “Yes thank you very much”, and then proceeded to hide behind the arrangement by confessing absolutely nothing – except that they might have known someone from the Comintern during university days, or that they had once been members of the Party.

‘This way, if the connections ever became public they could say with impunity: “There was never a shred of evidence that I was ever a Soviet agent.”‘

Rothschild appeared to have been in the second group. He was interrogated eleven times.

Commenting much later, he said:

I was questioned very extensively. The authorities, as I call them, said that they wished to talk to me and they talked in quite a friendly way.

I have a feeling that they believed in me. I was quite happy to tell them everything I knew. We had a very long talk. I was quite happy to tell them how well I knew Burgess and Blunt. I have no recollection [of] anyone asking me if I was a Soviet agent and it would have been naive for a professional interrogator to do that. I think they were more interested in who were my friends. I know all sorts of people who were questioned in the same way. I know people of great distinction, greater distinction, who were also questioned. All sorts of people. There really was an investigation. And I don’t object to that. You have to help your country and I think all the people concerned did that.

According to former MI6 agent James Rusbridger, Peter Wright and another MI5 source, Rothschild was fed information in 1962, which ended up ‘in the wrong place’ – namely with the KGB inside the Soviet Embassy in London. This did not prove he had spied, for the data just conceivably could have been stolen from him. Yet it raised suspicions. However, Rothschild still managed to convince people that he and Tess were victims by association. Their friends Guy, Anthony, Kim, Michael, Leo and so on, with whom they dined, drank, studied, lived and worked, had duped them.

So believable was Rothschild that his links with MI5 in 1964 did not diminish. In fact, while Blunt took the brunt of the on-going inquisition, and others were hounded, transferred to unclassified work, even forced into suicide, Rothschild intensified his MI5 connections, as if he were making amends for ill-advised, always innocent past friendships.

{p. 277} The first day Wright took over the interrogation of Blunt from Martin, his tape recorder broke down. He knelt to thread the loose tape spool which had jammed it.

Blunt remarked to Martin: ‘Isn’t it fascinating to watch a technical expert do his stuff?”

Blunt had never met Wright before and was supposed to know nothing about him. The remark told Wright instantly that someone had briefed him about his new inquisitor. According to KGB sources, it would most likely have been the Fifth Man.

‘Who else would it have been?’ Colonel ‘F’ remarked. ‘He was a friend, still in contact, and the Fifth Man was the only one of the ring left unexposed. Logically he would have been concerned to help Blunt.

It added to Wright’s confusion as he began a monthly questioning of Blunt. Each session drifted into drunken reminiscences and the interrogator walked away with nothing, except well-honed disinformation. Blunt was surviving where Philby had feared to tread. He was fortified by the knowledge that he would never be charged and secretly informed by the Fifth Man of every reaction by Wright.

His work at the Courtauld and the Palace continued, allowing him to keep his respected public status, and sustaining his air of superiority.

It added to Wright’s perturbation. Not only were his technical operations against the Russians a failure but he could not elicit the vital information from Blunt that would have directed MI5 to the Fifth Man. Frustration led to anger and a growing desperation to find someone, anyone that would even vaguely fit the profile of the mystery mole within.

Wright’s initial, unauthorized investigations failed to find any

{p. 278} evidence remotely connecting Graham Mitchell, Hollis’s deputy, to the Soviets. Furtive eyes began to turn towards Hollis himself. Meanwhile, spurred on by Philby’s duplicity, the CIA and MI5 turned their attention from deeply burrowed moles to witches.

If they couldn’t find Soviet agents inside British Intelligence, why not look outside? The ensuing witchhunt even pointed to the new socialist prime minister, Harold Wilson.

In the US, Angleton’s disappointment over his former friend Philby’s betrayal had led to a determination to exact revenge. He would help, push, even force British Intelligence into divulging or disgorging other key spies. If Angleton couldn’t have Philby himself he could still thwart and destroy KGB aims, which he saw as the vanguard for attempted Soviet world domination.

Angleton worried about Wilson with his Fabian Society membership, his trade deals with the Soviets and, in the CIA man’s eyes, his strange assortment of Eastern European emigre businessmen friends. These factors added up to the absurd rumour that Wilson might be a Soviet agent.

Angleton and Wright’s continuing rapport was based on an increasingly common goal. When they met on either side of the Atlantic, they fuelled each other’s doubts, fears, paranoias and complexes, which ranged from superiority over their enemies to inferiority about their backgrounds.

The American often asked about Rothschild and Wright obliged by talking about his great companion. Angleton could never be convinced about him. His suspicions grew.

‘He could never get over Victor’s closeness to Philby, Blunt and Burgess,’ Wright told me in a 1988 discussion. ‘I tried to reassure him but the same doubts surfaced. He would tick off a list of links … This included Cambridge, his, shall we say, quiet membership of the Communist Party in the 1930s … he was an Apostle, he had [Soviet] agent friends, and so on.’

Rothschild managed to partly allay those doubts by alleging, for instance, that he supported the Shah in Iran in 1953. Furthermore, his work for Mossad drew him on occasions close to Angleton, who had encouraged close ClA-Mossad links. In fact, at one point in the 1960s, the American was so keen to keep British Intelligence out of his cozy US/lsrael intelligence link that he complained to Wright’s superiors about his closeness to Rothschild.

{p. 279} In 1964, Rothschild told Angleton an Israeli agent had ‘hinted’ that Wilson could be a Russian agent. Wright remembered Rothschild telling him something similar but couldn’t recall if it were in 1964 or later. Rothschild was busy deflecting scrutiny from himself by spreading unfounded innuendo. The fact that Wilson was a Socialist gave the rumour greater credence.

‘Victor didn’t seem to have much time for Wilson,’ a former business colleague recalled. ‘It may have been because Wilson was seen as a “soft” liberal and not a tough enough Socialist. Victor liked his Socialism undiluted. He was interventionist in his mentality and much influenced if not by Marx, then Keynes. He wanted govemments to step in and take charge to stimulate the economy and achieve things. He was an ideas man, who liked to see them come to fruition. It didn’t seem to matter if the state or a corporation was involved.’

A far-fetched conspiracy theory emerged from the Israeli source. Wilson had taken over the Labour Party leadership after the former right-wing leader, Hugh Gaitskell, had been murdered by the KGB. Gaitskell had died from a rare tropical disease – Lupus disseminata erythematosis, or something like it. After discussing it with Rothschild, Wright checked with scientists at Porton Down, who had been working on quick-action biological toxins, which could be used for assassination.

Wright then asked Angleton to comb all Russian medical literature to see if there were any mention of the disease. Angleton sent him a translation of an article in a 1956 Moscow journal: A drughydralazine – had produced Lupus-like effects in rats. Porton Down scientists informed Wright that the Russians could have refined it to a one-shot drug, but it seemed unlikely. The inane conspiracy theory fizzled, but only fired the Angleton/Wright desire to score a victory in the real or imagined intelligence war with the KGB.

So far both men had been outsmarted by their Soviet agent counterparts. …

{p. 284} The report, predictably, was highly critical of British security. It recommended a greater US presence to ensure its secrets were better protected. Hollis was attacked for failing to implerr~ent effective counter-espionage.

It seemed that the CIA was looking at Britain as it did every other country from Iran to Vietnam. In order to create a political climate suitable to US interests, the CIA would bolster its local station, take control of the local secret police, use espionage and other methods to remove hostile politicians, and replace them with puppets. Hollis was so enraged by this American interference that he approved Wright’s own ideas for strengthened MI5 counter-intelligence operations, which partially thwarted the CIA takeover. Wright also placated Angleton by convincing him that when Hollis retired at the end of 1965, he would be replaced by a suitable hawk – Martin Furnival Jones.

Consequently, Wright’s power was elevated. He had a stronger counter-intelligence operation and less opposition to his forceful, obsessive and maverick ways. He decided to investigate Soviet rings at Oxford and in the scientific community, particularly at Cambridge’s Cavendish laboratories. He became interested in Peter Kapitza. As usual, Wright turned to Rothschild for help. He knew Kapitza and it was important for him to cover his links to him.Rothschild organized a dinner party so that Wright could meet Lord Adrian, Cambridge University’s Chancellor and President of the Royal Society.

Wright was overawed. At the party he was able to ‘guide him gently on to the subject of the Russian scientist.”

Adrian recalled Kapitza, for whom he had a high regard, but did not have a clue about espionage. It was not his field. He gave Wright the names of people who had worked with Kapitza.

‘More names for my black books,’ Wright noted wearily in Spycatcher. ‘More names to be checked in the registry. More names to be traced, interviewed, assessed, cleared, and in one or two cases, removed from access [to classified material].’

{p. 285} In reality, no one was removed from any major British project. No spies were caught. Rothschild’s diversion had sent Wright up another score of back alleys leading nowhere, except into the espionage wilderness. The ever grateful Wright was thankful to Rothschild for his introductions to an Establishment figure. He would mark it down as another example of his friend doing the patriotic thing.


Also in 1965, Rothschild was elevated to director of Shell International, and he acted as research coordinator for the Royal Dutch Shell Group. In short, he had taken charge of all Shell research whether it be for the Dutch, which owned 60 per cent of the group, or the British.

It allowed him to roam the world and was convenient as a cover, when he needed it in the Middle East or even China, where his agent-running took on an intensity with the build-up to the Cultural Revolution.

His secret work for Dick White and MI6 included running agents who were monitoring political events and the mood of Chairman Mao and his administration. As the Russians were even more nervous than the British and Americans about China’s intentions concerning military expansion and weapons development, it’s most likely that Rothschild’s assessments of events would have been passed to the Moscow Centre. But Wright linked Rothschild to a bizarre plot that may have been based on some fact. Wright claimed to dose confidants that by the early 1960s the Chinese had frightened the Russians and the Americans with their development of nuclear and biological weapons, which they seemed willing to use. Chairman Mao Zedong had told India’s Nehru in the late 1950s that nuclear war would be no bad thing. Even if half of mankind perished, the other half would survive and imperialism would vanish from the face of the earth.

The KGB knew the extent of Chinese germ warfare research, partly because it had given some of the technology to them. Furthermore, the Chinese had taken over a huge biological weapons

{p. 286} centre at Harbin, Northern Manchuria, which had been run by the Japanese during the Second World War. Japanese doctors and scientists had used POWs as guinea pigs in hideous experiments, which rivalled those in Nazi concentration camps.

Now Chinese scientists had begun experimenting. According to Wright’s wild theory, the Asian and Hong Kong flu viruses in the 1960s were part of that experimentation.

This, the strange story continued, caused alarm in sections of the CIA and KGB. They then combined to run agents in China who encouraged Mao to purge the intellectual class, which would include the key scientists, particularly in the area of biological weaponry. Mao was apparently convinced that he could be murdered by ‘a drop of invisible poison on his skin’.

In fact, the KGB and the CIA did draft in more Chinese experts and built up their Embassies in Beijing. The numbers increased further in 1966 at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, when Mao unleashed unprecedented terror across China. He stirred the youth of the country into forming Red Guards who were encouraged to root out ‘bourgeois and revisionist tendencies’.

If the KGB did encourage the Cultural Revolution, the plan backfired on them a year later when families of Soviet diplomats and KGB of ficers were manhandled as they tried to escape at Beijing airport. However, during the terror,‘intellectuals’ – which meant anyone qualified and working in a major university – became targets for assassination. About 50,000 of them were killed, including those working in important scientific research and development, such as biological weaponry. Mao boasted about this, comparing himself to previous emperors, who had butchered intellectuals.

But was this part of a combined CIA/KGB project? Such operations are known to have occurred in a very low-key way over the decades. Yet I found no evidence to support Wright’s erratic claims.

However, KGB personnel – including Modin – did have something to celebrate with their CIA counterparts in October 1993. During our Moscow interviews in July and August 1993, Modin told me he was flying to Washington ‘soon’ for a ‘get together’ with CIA agents. I was in correspondence in September with him asking follow-up questions. He replied in one letter from Washington DC. The unusual rendezvous of supposed ‘enemies’ was, according to a CIA source, to celebrate a ‘joint operation’, yet its nature was

{p. 287} not specified. Whether it concerned the prevention of China’s advances in germ warfare is speculation.

Wright did not elaborate on Rothschild’s or Modin’s links to the Cultural Revolution, although both of them were agent-running in China at the time.

The only other thread which could be remotely connected was the expertise that both Rothschild and Wright had in biological and chemical weapons. Rothschild had built up a vast knowledge since the late 1930s, particularly from Porton Down in 1940, where he garnered much for the Russians.

‘The whole area of chemical research was an active field in the 1950s,’ Wright wrote. ‘I was cooperating with MI6 in a joint programme to investigate how far hallucinatory drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) could be used in interrogations, and extensive trials took place at Porton. I even volunteered as guinea pig on one occasion. Both MI5 and MI6 also wanted to know a lot more about the advanced poisons then being developed at Porton, though for different reasons. I wanted the antidotes, in case the Russians used a poison on a defector in Britain, while MI6 wanted to use the poisons for operations abroad.’

Wright was at one stage the only British Intelligence operative who had quick access to antidotes for various poisons.

He was at least indirectly involved in plots to assassinate foreign leaders as he pointed out in Spycatcher:

‘[Two MI6 agents] both discussed with me the use of poisons against Nasser, and asked my advice,’ Wright said matter-of-factly. ‘Nerve gas obviously presented the best possibility, since it was easily administered. They told me that the London Station had an agent in Egypt with limited access to one of Nasser’s headquarters. Their plan was to place canisters of nerve gas inside the ventilation system, but I pointed out that this would require large quantities of the gas, and would result in massive loss of life among Nasser’s staff.’

According to Wright, Prime Minister Anthony Eden, who had first called for Nasser’s assassination, later ‘backed away from the operation’.

The remarks, however, demonstrate the mind-set within sections of British Intelligence. Sources close to Wright claim it wasn’t the only time he was involved in plots to kill with such weaponry.

{p. 288} Six months after Philby arrived in Moscow he was well into his debriefing by KGB agents when he received word that a person from the Centre who was important to his career would be coming to the apartment to meet him. Philby thought it might be former KGB Chairman, Alexandr Shelepin (1958-62) and hoped it would not be ‘cold-blooded’ Ivan Serov (Chairman 1954-58), who was hated throughout the KGB. He was nervous with anticipation. …

No car pulled up at the central Moscow apartment. There was a knock at the door. A tall, handsome man of about forty was standing there. Philby’s face dropped. It wasn’t a KGB chief, but nevertheless

{p. 289} an important figure in his professional life as he had been forewarned.

‘I’m Yuri Modin,’ the man said, with a grin. ‘You know me as “Peter”, I think.’ …

Modin continued to give his former star agent assignments, from political pieces for Russian magazines, which the Control enjoyed translating, to reports advising the KGB how it should react to international events. Philby was not impressed, for instance, with the KGB’s reaction to President Kennedy’s assassination. …

Philby found that his advice was being ignored. For instance, he warned the Russians not to get too involved in Africa in the mid-1960s, but they overdid their financial and military aid and it cost them dearly.

{p. 292} While Philby was using Rothschild‘s name to stir up his adversaries, the man himself was causing trouble for Israel’s enemies in the Middle East. Rothschild had long urged Mossad to use as much modern technology as possible in preparation for probable war with its hostile neighbours. He had informed Mossad chiefs of the need for computerized data in intelligence work, even introducing them to contacts in the CIA via Angleton and Helms, who could secretly assist in the electronic upgrade.’

Since the early 1960s, Rothschild had pushed for the use of electronic listening devices (thanks in part to what he had learned from Peter Wright) to replace human agents as guards on Israel’s vulnerable borders. Consequently, Mossad developed the signals

{p. 293} side of its Intelligence operations so that it could intercept enemy communications.

By the mid-1960s, masts, antennae and radar discs began to appear on Mount Hermon above the Golan Heights. They allowed military Intelligence to listen to phone and signals traffic in Damascus, which was only forty-three miles away. The listening system was a replica of the one developed in Britain for use by America’s National Security Agency, the CIA and British Intelligence in their techno-battle and war defence against the Soviet Union.

Israel was using the information captured by its giant border ears to computerize data about every enemy officer in the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. By 1967, every Israeli field Commander had a dossier on his potential opponents in the field, down to the military qualifications of each opposing platoon and company leader.

On the eve of the Six Day War, Jews worldwide prepared to rally to Israel’s cause. For many who had, in the two decades since the Second World War, settled as refugees in new countries, the horrors of the Holocaust were still stark. They would do everything to avoid a repetition.

Among the deeply concerned was Miriam Rothschild, now sixty and recovering from a major operation. She had to be restrained by her brother from rushing to the airport. Victor had just donated a million pounds to Israel on behalf of the family, but Miriam was not satisfied. However, he managed to make her see she might be a hindrance rather than a help.

Besides, Victor pointed out, a Rothschild would be there. Baron Elie of the French house was flying out in his own private plane. Victor was also confident that Israel would cope. He more than anyone knew the preparation that had gone into the country’s military.

Yet Rothschild still looked on with nervous anticipation and a sense of deja vu on the eve of the Six Day War with the Arabs as Israel’s Signals Corps cracked enemy army codes, intercepted messages and transmitted false ones, in much the same way that British Intelligence did against the Nazis in the Second World War.

Israeli and Egyptian troops massed on either side of the border. Nasser delivered an ultimatum demanding the removal of the UN buffer force in Sinai. The force left. Nasser’s troops occupied the

{p. 294} region of Sharm-el-Sheikh, which threatened to blockade the sea route to the Israeli port of Eilat. The move made war inevitable.

Israel’s Intelligence readiness was now to be tested. The large amount of data gathered indicated how vulnerable and unprepared the Arab armies and airforces were. Once the Egyptians made their anticipated moves in Sinai, the Israeli air force mobilized and carried out pre-emptive air strikes.

The Israelis boldly sent false messages about Egypt’s success in Sinai to Jordan in order to draw that country into the conflict. Later, the Israeli Signals Corps cheekily demonstrated its skills by eavesdropping on a radio conversation between Egypt’s President Nasser and Jordan’s King Hussein.

Israel’s superiority in the techno-war allowed it to win a quick and resounding victory. Their spectacular success caused Jews to hope that the homeland’s troubles might be over, especially as Jerusalem was a united city and a safe border had been established on the River Jordan.

Yet Israel’s Intelligence chiefs were already considering the consequences of humiliating its neighbours. They did not anticipate the response of dejected Palestinians, who had hoped Israel would be defeated and banished from their region and whose guerrilla groups would join forces for a new kind of conflict, which would be harder for Israel’s technology to monitor and control. Instead Mossad chiefs were expecting that regrouped and improved Arab military forces would again try to destroy Israel.

When Rothschild flew to Israel not long after the Six Day War, uppermost in the minds of his friends in the military and Intelligence was an enhancement of the nation’s nuclear weapons programme.

In the decade since the Dimona Plant had been completed, Israel’s leaders had felt some measure of comfort in knowing that they had the technology to develop a nuclear arsenal as an ultimate deterrent to aggression. The Six Day War was an urgent reminder that they still needed access to the nuclear weapons’ raw material: uranium.

Israel had been supplied with uranium partly thanks to the efforts of Zionist Dr Zalman Shapiro, a research chemist who had worked on the Manhattan Project. Shapiro set up an Israeli-financed corporation called Numec, which handled nuclear materials and equipment.

{p. 295} Over the next decade, 206 lb of enriched uranium disappeared from Numec’s Pennsylvania plant and ended up in Israel. The corporation was investigated by US authorities and fined a million dollars, causing it to shut down.

Along with the cutting of this supply, US regulations safeguarding uranium supplies were tightened after the Six Day War. Some in the State Department feared Israel’s aggression and Arab revenge could see an escalation of war to a nuclear conflict in the Middle East.

Now Rothschild’s expertise in both banking and bombs was needed in a more complicated plot to acquire uranium. He was consulted by Intelligence chiefs and became privy to a plan to set up a European operation – codenamed Plombat – involving dummy Israeli companies and shipping, which would eventually see a large amount of uranium being hi-jacked to the Israeli port of Haifa and transported to Dimona.

Scientists at the plant were thus able to prepare a ‘substantial number’ of atomic devices, which were stored in tunnels under the Negev Desert.

According to both CIA and Mossad sources, Rothschild was also useful to the Israelis in ‘mending fences’ with some neighbours in the Middle East after the disruption of the Six Day conflict. For instance, he called on his old friend the Shah of Iran and suggested several ‘crop breeding’ ventures, which had been perfected in Israel and elsewhere. Some were adapted in Iran. By 1968, he had put his money, exceptional know-how, contacts and influence at the disposal of the state he had helped create and protect. …

{p. 298} Blunt and Rothschild tried to deflect guilt from themselves and on to the innocent Watson, but he never confessed to spying.

Wright continued his zealous hounding of suspects, who included Leo Long, John Cairncross and highly-placed civil servant, Dennis Proctor. Often he took them back to meet Blunt in harrowing encounters, at which much alcohol was consumed but no new or surprising secret connections were divulged.

Wright felt he had found his true niche as a-spyhunter. He widened his brief to several scientific and academic institutions. But it seemed, each time the ruthless investigator came close, the pressure on suspects caused tragedy. While he was probing an Oxford University spy ring, Sir Andrew Cohen, a diplomat who had been an Apostle at Cambridge with Rothschild and Blunt, died of a heart attack soon after he learned he was to be questioned. Bernard Floud, a proposed junior minister in Wilson’s cabinet, committed suicide after tough questioning by Wright and before he had to endure another interrogation. A few days later, Phoebe Pool threw herself under a tube train. She had been a courier for Blunt in the 1950s and a colleague of his at the Courtauld Institute.

Wright’s relentless pursuit of those he envied for their privileged education of three decades ago was causing a spiralling despair among the former ideological students from Oxbridge. The fear generated would touch everyone involved for the rest of their lives.

All during this time Blunt anaesthetized himself with alcohol and stood firm. He insisted there had only been a ring of four at Cambridge – himself, Burgess, Maclean and Philby – with secondrank spies, such as Cairncross and Long, existing independently of the central ring members. There was no Fifth Man, Blunt insisted. But the more he protested, the more Wright became suspicious that there had to be a key figure he had missed, someone who could even be right under his nose.

{p. 299} He complained to Rothschild that it could be the only reason that all their investigations led to dead spies or those who were already under suspicion. For once, his genius companion seemed perplexed. Not even he could offer a plausible explanation.


Anatoli Golitsyn, the defector, addressed a conference of counter-intelligence officers from Canada, Britain, the USA, Australia and New Zealand in Melbourne in late 1967, and made a convincing case for there being a lack of understanding of his methodology the way he went about searching for Soviet spies.

He had bounced back and forth across the Atlantic maintaining his marketability with ‘new’ information about Soviet penetration of Western Intelligence. But until that conference, he had slipped in credibility because many of his leads were too general and proved fruitless. MI5’s chief, Martin Furnival Jones, Hollis’s successor, was impressed and offered him the files on all MI5 personnel.

From the spring of 1968 Golitsyn was given £10,000 a month to peruse the files in a safe house near Brighton. The defector concentrated on Venona – the several thousand KGB radio communication messages, which had been partly or completely decoded. Eight codenames had been found.

Two in particular interested him: DAVID and ROSA. The messages decoded indicated that they had worked together, most likely as a married couple. Golitsyn asked for the files of all MI5 officers who had been working for British Intelligence at the time of the Venona traffic. He studied the files and after a week asked Wright to come and see him in Brighton.

Wright arrived at the safe house excited about a break-through. Golitsyn pointed to two files on the desk in the study.

‘I’ve discovered DAVID and ROSA,’ he said excitedly. ‘My methodology has uncovered them.’

Wright glanced at the name on the files. He knew them well. They belonged to Victor and Tess Rothschild.

Wright told him not to be absurd. Rothschild, he informed the Russian, was one of the best friends this Service ever had. Golitsyn, however, was emphatic and Wright asked how he came to such a conclusion.

{p. 300} ‘They are Jewish,’ Golitsyn replied. ‘DAVID and ROSA are Jewish names.’

Golitsyn was guessing wildly and was incorrect. Tess was not Jewish. Nor did she marry Rothschild until 1946. Although they had worked closely during the war, they were not always together. Rothschild often went on assignments alone, such as when he acted as MI5’s security inspector at weapons research facilities. Wright put the accusation down to typical ‘KGB anti-Semitism’, which had been rampant since Stalin’s purge after the ‘Jewish Doctor’s Plot’kaganovich.html.

Golitsyn could not give any further reason for linking David and Rosa with the Rothschilds and Wright dismissed his claim as another attempt to justify his importance and the money he was being paid, which irritated the MI5 man. In the bitter atmosphere of accusation and counter-accusation in the late 1960s, which had been in the main engendered by Wright himself, this appeared to be another hopeful, ill-founded guess.

‘I could not help thinking that if this had been the CIA and I had been Angleton,’ Wright remarked in Spycatcher, ‘Victor and Tess would almost certainly have been listed as spies on Golitsyn’s groundless interpretation.’

Fortunately for Rothschild, his close companion and confidant had been the one informed and there was no further investigation. Golitsyn had earlier informed Wright about a file marked ‘Technics’ in a safe at the Moscow Centre. It was basically a file on all MI5 technical operations against the Russians, which Wright and his team had initiated. This proved to him that a mole had indeed been spying on him and his activities. Wright never discussed with Golitsyn what he had told Rothschild. If he had, the Russian would have realized that his guess had been accurate.

{p. 432} From 1945 to 1963, the Fifth Man became enmeshed in the Cold War spying game on the Soviet side …

After 1963, … Capitalism, for all its miserable faults, had survived, as had Churchill’s ‘best worst’ system, Western-style democracy, which had been scorned by Rothschild. He knew at base it was a charade. From his perspective, the country was really run by the Establishment, of which he was a prominent member.


Pavel Sudoplatov on the Atomic Spies: atomic-spies.html.

Victor Ostrovsky on How Mossad Got America to Bomb Libya & Fight Iraq : ostrovsky.html.

Rothschild might have changed tack since the early 1960s. The Middle East wars of 1967 and 1973 led many Jews to switch from Communism to Zionism.

Perry makes it clear that Rothschild was pro-Communist but not necessarily pro-Soviet Union. That depended on how amenable the USSR was to Jews and Zionism. When the USSR was un-cooperative, Leftists commonly switched over to the New Left (new-left.html), to Marxist Anti-Communism (kostel.html), or even came out as Neo-Cons: cia-infiltrating-left.html.

They were thus switching over to a Trotskyist, a Fabian or a Green position, all of which had much in common.

Many people are wondering whether the West really did win the Cold War, given the political correctness in our universities and public discourse, the Open Borders, the World Court, the Gay Marriage. Instead, the “Convergence” idea – convergence of Capitalism and Communism – seems to be what we’ve got: convergence.html.

The Anglo-American Establishment: quigley.html.


Source: You are at http://mailstar.net/perry.html



How public education cripples our kids, and why by John Taylor Gatto

Against School*

John Taylor Gatto**

I taught for thirty years in some of the worst schools in Manhattan, and in some of the best, and during that time I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world, and if you asked the kids, as I often did, why they felt so bored, they always gave the same answers: They said the work was stupid, that it made no sense, that they already knew it. They said they wanted to be doing something real, not just sitting around. They said teachers didn’t seem to know much about their subjects and clearly weren’t interested in learning more. And the kids were right: their teachers were every bit as bored as they were.

Boredom is the common condition of schoolteachers, and anyone who has spent time in a teachers’ lounge can vouch for the low energy, the whining, the dispirited attitudes, to be found there. When asked why they feel bored, the teachers tend to blame the kids, as you might expect. Who wouldn’t get bored teaching students who are rude and interested only in grades? If even that. Of course, teachers are themselves products of the same twelve-year compulsory school programs that so thoroughly bore their students, and as school personnel they are trapped inside structures even more rigid than those imposed upon the children. Who, then, is to blame?

We all are. My grandfather taught me that. One afternoon when I was seven I complained to him of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else’s. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn’t know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainly not to be trusted. That episode cured me of boredom forever, and here and there over the years I was able to pass on the lesson to some remarkable student. For the most part, however, I found it futile to challenge the official notion that boredom and childishness were the natural state of affairs in the classroom. Often I had to defy custom, and even bend the law, to help kids break out of this trap.

The empire struck back, of course; childish adults regularly conflate opposition with disloyalty. I once returned from a medical leave to discover that all evidence of my having been granted the leave had been purposely destroyed, that my job had been terminated, and that I no longer possessed even a teaching license. After nine months of tormented effort I was able to retrieve the license when a school secretary testified to witnessing the plot unfold. In the meantime my family suffered more than I care to remember. By the time I finally retired in 1991, I had more than enough reason to think of our schools – with their long-term, cell-block-style, forced confinement of both students and teachers – as virtual factories of childishness. Yet I honestly could not see why they had to be that way. My own experience had revealed to me what many other teachers must learn along the way, too, yet keep to themselves for fear of reprisal: if we wanted to we could easily and inexpensively jettison the old, stupid structures and help kids take an education rather than merely receive a schooling. We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness – curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight – simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then.

But we don’t do that. And the more I asked why not, and persisted in thinking about the “problem” of schooling as an engineer might, the more I missed the point: What if there is no “problem” with our schools? What if they are the way they are, so expensively flying in the face of common sense and long experience in how children learn things, not because they are doing something wrong but because they are doing something right? Is it possible that George W. Bush accidentally spoke the truth when he said we would “leave no child behind”? Could it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?


Do we really need school? I don’t mean education, just forced schooling: six classes a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for twelve years. Is this deadly routine really necessary? And if so, for what? Don’t hide behind reading, writing, and arithmetic as a rationale, because 2 million happy homeschoolers have surely put that banal justification to rest. Even if they hadn’t, a considerable number of well-known Americans never went through the twelve-year wringer our kids currently go through, and they turned out all right. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln? Someone taught them, to be sure, but they were not products of a school system, and not one of them was ever “graduated” from a secondary school. Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn’t go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry, like Carnegie and Rockefeller; writers, like Melville and Twain and Conrad; and even scholars, like Margaret Mead. In fact, until pretty recently people who reached the age of thirteen weren’t looked upon as children at all. Ariel Durant, who co-wrote an enormous, and very good, multivolume history of the world with her husband, Will, was happily married at fifteen, and who could reasonably claim that Ariel Durant was an uneducated person? Unschooled, perhaps, but not uneducated.

We have been taught (that is, schooled) in this country to think of “success” as synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, “schooling,” but historically that isn’t true in either an intellectual or a financial sense. And plenty of people throughout the world today find a way to educate themselves without resorting to a system of compulsory secondary schools that all too often resemble prisons. Why, then, do Americans confuse education with just such a system? What exactly is the purpose of our public schools?

Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3) To make each person his or her personal best.

These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not

to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.

Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.

The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s “Seventh Annual Report” to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German- speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens – all in order to render the populace “manageable.”


It was from James Bryant Conant – president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century – that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant’s 1959 book-length essay, The Child the Parent and the State, and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modern schools we attend were the result of a “revolution” engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis’s 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which “one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary.”

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever reintegrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose – the actual purpose – of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called “the conformity function,” because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in “your permanent record.” Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called “the favored races.” In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.


There you have it. Now you know. We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that “efficiency” is the paramount virtue, rather than love, liberty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn’t actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn’t have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era – marketing.

Now, you needn’t have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley – who was dean of Stanford’s School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant’s friend and correspondent at Harvard – had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: “Our schools are . . . factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned.. . . And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”

It’s perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the computer. We buy $150 sneakers whether we need them or not, and when they fall apart too soon we buy another pair. We drive SUVs and believe the lie that they constitute a kind of life insurance, even when we’re upside-down in them. And, worst of all, we don’t bat an eye when Ari Fleischer tells us to “be careful what you say,” even if we remember having been told somewhere back in school that America is the land of the free. We simply buy that one too. Our schooling, as intended, has seen to it.

Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don’t let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a preteen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there’s no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.

**  09/2003 Harper’s Magazine.

John Taylor Gatto is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of The Underground History of American Education. He was a participant in the Harper’s Magazine forum “School on a Hill,” which appeared in the September 2001 issue. You can find his web site here.

Source: https://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm

%d bloggers like this: