The murder of David Amess, and the strange possibility of a missing patsy

In a tweet that he pinned to the top of his Twitter output, David Amess announced that appointments to meet him at his constituency surgery could be made by telephone or email. The surgery, of course, was the one at which Amess would be killed by a knife wielding attacker. The attacker, now named as Ali Harbi Ali, didn’t have an appointment, but without this guarantee of being able to get to his intended victim, travelled from his home in London to Leigh-on-Sea in Amess’ Southend parliamentary constituency in any case.

So, here is a reason to understand that Ali Harbi Ali somehow knew that he would be able to get close to the MP better than the staff of David Amess who controlled access to him. The question for us to ask, of course, is how was it that Ali was able to have such assuredness? And the risk of this question emerging from the jumble of information presented by corporate-media is why, we must suppose, the official narrative would have Ali being present at the meeting having made an appointment to see David Amess.

And yet, this is not what is said by two people who were cited as witness by the Daily Mail, even while it was mainly trying to establish the Ali-with-booked-meeting line. One of the witnesses is evidently a source speaking to the Sun newspaper‡, but the other is a named local politician:

Another witness said the alleged attacker did not book ahead to see Sir David but was ushered in from a side room by his assistant.

The source said it had been ‘ad-hoc’ but Sir David agreed to see him, adding: ‘That’s the sort of man he was. He would take bookings from people who just turned up. This person was in the room with his assistant and she saw everything. His calmness sitting by the body was unnerving.’

Conservative councillor Dan Nelson said the attacker was waiting for 40 minutes, also claiming it had not been booked ahead.

There is a snippet of information in the above extract that is very significant. Apparently, there was some kind of special arrangement in place so that Ali could access Amess. This is clearly what is being said. The news is even more momentous when one understands that the attack happened right at the very start of Amess’ surgery, meaning that instead of seeing people who had made appointments, Amess’ first meeting was with a gatecrasher, and what is more, one who wasn’t even a constituent.

Now, that Ali’s proximity to Amess was a thing arranged through special consideration given to the assailant gives answer to the previous question. Ali travelled to Leigh-on-Sea safe in the knowledge that he would gain access to Amess because some special arrangement could be obtained. But how would he know this? Reader, if you are told by corporate-media that Ali planned his endeavour, then this is incompatible with turning up in Leigh-on-Sea not knowing how he was going to get at David Amess.

So, the next question is, who is influencing Amess that he would agree to see a non-constituent gatecrasher before he saw any of his booked appointments? Could it be Julie Cushion, of whom it is said dealt with Ali first before showing him to Amess? Well, The Sun reports that no comment can be had from her, neither it seems from another assistant, Rebecca Hayton.  “Her dad Barry”, reports The Sun, “said ‘She’s very upset and can’t speak. She’s been interviewed by the police.’” Therefore, if we think that, all things being equal, on his approaching her (if he even did), Julie Cushion just told Ali that he’d have to wait until Amess had seen his bookings, and if we think that she was prevailed upon by someone with more authority than Ali himself to make sure that the assassin was taken into his victim, then it will never now be shown to be a true comprehension. In these situations, a police interview – which one can be sure has happened to Cushion as well as Hayton – can be a two way street where establishing witness testimony involves the observer of the incident confirming suggestions by the interviewer. We know this for sure because of previous cases where (for instance) hospitalised victims of terror attacks are surprised by the content of their statements – what with having been too debilitated to make them at the time of their taking†.

As a matter of fact, we are told in the reportage that Amess was on the phone immediately prior to being attacked. This information suspiciously comes from The Sunday Times, military intelligence’s direct mouthpiece in the whole of Mi7 (as the author sees it). What is interesting is that it comes readymade with a backup interview of the other party to the telephone conversation already having taken place. While the extract is from the Mail (link above), the writers of the original Times piece, on the next day after Amess had been killed (in time for publication on Sunday), knew who Amess had been talking to, and somehow contact had been made between them:

The Sunday Times reported that just three minutes before the 12.05pm stabbing Sir David had ended a Zoom meeting with PR man Richard Hillgrove. They had been discussing the Children’s Parliament for which Mr Hillgrove’s daughter Lola, 11, had been matched with the MP.

Mr Hillgrove saw reports of the murder on TV and said: “I was honoured to have known him. He was such an inspiration.

“His engagement was incredible. He made sense of a crazy world.”

By Sunday night, Sky News had published a very detailed interview with Richard Hillgrove, who reveals that he seems to have been having a meeting about a meeting between him and Amess set up to take place in Westminster the next week. Interestingly, (bearing in mind the “attack on democracy” talking point engendered by the Amess murder) the interview deals at length with the subject of a planned children’s parliament, with direct quotes from Amess supplied regarding the subject: a “remarkable way to enshrine our democracy and make it available to young people”. If killing David Amess wasn’t evil enough, what about the taking of democracy away from the children? No wonder then that Hillgrove added, “we have vowed to continue [the children’s parliament]… in his name”.

So, this is suspicious. We are undoubtedly told about this phone call because it is something that evidently is going to come out in accounts to be disclosed in future legal proceedings by one or both of Amess’ assistants. However, it is indeed quite the coincidence – perhaps too much so – that its content is something connected with a talking point emerging from the incident. It is a call that involves a PR creature promoting (with disgusting talk of a sacrifice to it having been made) a means to inculcate children at a time when people are increasingly starting to understand that they shouldn’t abdicate their personal sovereignty to the legal layer fraud that is the Westminster parliament. So, the author wonders that this phone call might be a detailed and plausible cover story. Instead, irrespective of whether or not the Hillgrove-Amess conversation happened at all, or whenever it happened, could it be possible that Amess’ last telephone conversation was one in which he was told that he should see the character, who had been delivered directly from London to the place of the meeting in Leigh-on-Sea by associates of the caller, and was waiting to see him?

Other ways by which the author is informed in this opinion is the way that Ali did not flee the scene of the crime, but instead took a seat and waited for the imminent arrival of police. Ali was not shot upon this happening – which makes him a very unique knife wielding Islamist terrorist. Indeed, Ali was a very unique kind of Islamist terrorist, never being photographed previously in the company of so-called hate preach agitators (and military intelligence men) such as Anjem Choudary, for instance, and being from a very privileged background: he lived (with his family [in fact, in a dwelling owned if not shared with his father] – he wasn’t bedsitting) on a street of expensive three-storey townhouses also populated by minor celebrities, and his father had been a Somali government official, and an aide to the Prime Minister of that country, and then there is this (from Sky):

He [Harbi Ali Kullane (being the father’s name)] appeared to have good relations with the British embassy in Somalia.

A number of his tweets included photographs with British diplomats in Mogadishu.

Now, when corporate-media tells you, reader, that Ali was not known to military intelligence, this has got to be a lie, seeing as the dad was evidently mixed up with British Foreign Office doings in his own country.

So, with this broader picture, we can perhaps see why Ali was not shot by police – he was not the usual council estate replaceable, and perhaps too valuable an asset. At least, his being shot dead would not have been appreciated in certain avenues of important foreign connection. He would have awaited his capture because perhaps the plan had been such that later, people would turn up at Leigh-on-Sea police station – someone from the military-intelligence department who had ordered Ali’s mission – to tell the Woodentops that the mettle-earning Ali wasn’t their man, and he was to come along with them. Additionally, even though Ali was caught in the act, it might appear along these lines that police applied for extra detention time before charging him, just as if they were still expecting the visit after it hadn’t initially arrived.  Even now at the time of writing, days later, and with Ali still not having been charged for the crime he was caught red-handed in, perhaps police still won’t act too hastily just in case that visit is incredibly delayed.

To cut a long story short, it hadn’t been planned – as far as Ali had been told – that he was going to be the fall guy.

Well, the alternative is this, according to the corporate-media, incorporating the official narrative: Ali Harbi Ali sits at home during lockdown, bored, “hunched over a computer”, becoming radicalised into extremist Islam. He decides that he is going to attack an MP – quite randomly, in a strange place if necessary, as if not knowing the lay of the land, nor anything about how he might be discoverable in that place, while executing an escape, purely by his distinguishing features, was something that just didn’t matter. So, he books an appointment to see David Amess, having noticed that that MP has advertised his constituency surgeries, and he travels from London to Essex, arriving at the meeting place to be, as it just so happens, first in the queue. Then, after he performs the quite abnormal act of sticking a knife into a man – and like a professional to boot (so that Amess is sure to die) – even though he’s only just become radicalised by looking at internet videos, he is unperturbed, and without panicking, casually sits down to await arrest. He does this without any apparent concern about being shot, and being killed, which is the usual outcome in such cases (he would surely have learnt about martyrs at the hands of British armed police in his research), exactly as if he gave his real name and ex-constituency address when he booked (so that running away was pointless), and above all else just didn’t care that hanging around was tantamount to dying, according to precedent.

Here’s something else that must also go into the mix: in the domain of UK Government created political pressure and terror groups for problem-reaction-solution agenda progression, agendas and demographics in pursuit of them, and associated means to their ends are all things that are separated one from the other (for purposes of being easily identifiable, like actual uniform, by an enormously stupid public), and these separations are studiously maintained.  As such, Islamist terrorists attack civilians, and sometimes supposed soldiery (if an Army cadet counts), because they are meant to be a threat to a general way of life. They stab and behead, and use “bombs”, and threaten to use bombs.

On the other hand, UK Government has worked very assiduously in establishing an identity for white “far right” terrorism, which involves attacking political personalities. This is for claiming that white people are a danger to democracy (and has the added bonus in a race war because democracy is believed these days to be all about the empowerment of those who are not white-privileged). UK Government even set up an organisation, National Action, and populated it with current and ex members of the British Army to give the appearance that it was real, so that it could then proscribe it as a terror organisation, and create a focal point by which opposition to the agenda of UK Government from a particular demographic with particular reasonable politics could be demonised.

Of course, the patsy in the Jo Cox incident, Thomas Mair, was linked to the “far right”, and then to establish its credentials, National Action was seen to be celebrating and endorsing the attack. There was a case where alleged National Action members were jailed in connection to threats made to an MP – it’s all recorded in many pages at FBEL for the reader to check at his own leisure seeing how the author cannot remember the exact details off the top of his head.

Now, in addition to what has then been a patient historical build up to the Amess killing, there has been a recent broad operation to make anti-lockdown protestors appear to be capable of physically harming a politician (as this website has been trying to warn of), and it occurs to the author that, in order to make the attack on and murder of David Amess as effective as possible, not only should it have been seen to have been perpetrated by a white man – a patsy – but also by an “anti-vaxx or anti-lockdown extremist”. As it is, apparently, as far as the author is prepared to see it, this individual is missing from this operation. Or to put it another way, if it were possible for a false-flag attack to ever have its patsy disappear so that he could not be produced on the scene of the crime and accused, then maybe this is a case of it.

As for the assertion made above that this incident was a false-flag committed by UK Government, the final persuasive element must be measures being rolled out regarding the provision of greater protection to MPs by security forces: this a sign of the agenda. It comes after nearly two years of an economic blockade using the pretext of a fake pandemic – a war on the people which MPs facilitate by passing the destructive legislation. Naturally, UK Government would want to secure these operatives – but actually, making them safe is not the point. The point is to give the impression that they are at threat by use of the security measures.

In fact, the chatter around the Amess incident is filtering into internet abuse in connection with the physical threat of terror, and as well as indicating that solution in the Hegelian dialectic dynamic at play in this case is non-anonymous use of the internet, and whatever else it entails, it really does suggest that a white “right winger” was supposed to have killed Amess, because this is the demographic that UK Government all too evidently wants to establish in popular imagination as being the most abusive on the internet. An example that can be given is the (undoubtedly astroturfed) racialist trolling at the outcome of the failed European football cup psyop, which again is for tarring the reasonable politics that opposes UK Government agenda with the same brush.

Finally, the reader might disagree with the author when he says he thinks that the talking points of the agenda to come consequences of the incident are perhaps slow to materialise and have, as yet, less volume than we perhaps usually see. However, we should certainly agree that if a white man had been accused of killing Amess, then this reaction would have been furious.

In any case, there’s more to come. Surely, there’s more to come. Don’t get blamed for it. And reject the alternative media – which is liable for its comments sections even if there is serenity above the line – that would have you blamed by association.

‡ This is from The Sun article:

A separate witness said the attacker had not made a booking to see Sir David but was ushered in by his assistant after waiting in a side room. The source added: “It was ad-hoc and David agreed to see him. That’s the sort of man he was. He would take bookings from people who just turned up. This person was in the room with his assistant and she saw everything.

† The reference is to the experience of Helen Kennett after the Borough Market, mother-of-all Krypteia operations. Don’t doubt that the people who manufacture these things are not capable of making an MPs assistant see a white man stabbing her boss when she thought she saw a Black man (because these days, one has to capitalise the word – have you noticed too, reader?).

Update, 21:15, date as published:

Sometimes this stuff is handed to us on a plate (from the Evening Standard):