I have been reading the Chilcot report.. very interesting reading.. pretty damning of the whole enterprise. It is well written and clearly articulated, with a thoroughness that marks the mind of Sir John Chilcot. It is also well presented and numerated to make it easy to navigate.

But it is limited in its scope and didn’t ask all the questions that the UK public are entitled to know answers to, in my opinion.

Some of the several things it doesn’t address at all are:

  1. The whole raison d’etre for war on Iraq and the false use of 9/11 to justify it in the Bush and then Blair establishment
  2. Whether, as I believe to be the case, Bush and Blair are both active Freemasons and that Bush invoked this Freemasonic pledge of loyalty from Blair, and that this appeal transcended the use of rationality or indeed the cogent advancement of national self interest from a British serving Prime Minister
  3. What other pressures were put on Blair to so convince a seemingly rational man that the 9/11 attacks were a casus belli for war against Iraq ? (skeletons in the cupboard ?)
  4. Chilcot says in effect It is obvious that the intelligence was deeply flawed and was gerrymandered to be a pretext for war against Saddam – so while Blair asserts he “acted in good faith on the intelligence he was shown” one has to wonder why he didn’t actually ask on what basis the intelligence had been cobbled together (fantasies based on watching movies…)
  5. From my reading so far there are two conclusions: either Blair was totally Machiavellian and knew he was lying about there being a justification for war on Iraq, and still does, or he was a simpleton who was out of his depth and simply didn’t ask the right questions of his advisers, and had already made the illogical determination to invade Iraq “based on 9/11” in which case both Blair and Bush should have gone to an insane asylum – or he was so frightened of his freemasonic oaths of obligation that he simply caved in to moral blackmail and pressure, and daren’t tell the British public what was going no. This would explain his later flight to the Vatican as a refuge of retreat, since by and large the Vatican is antipathetic to freemasonry.
  6. My sense is simply that Blair is not as intelligent a person as he would like us to think, and was simply truly ignorant, and his ignorance operated in many spheres, such as the false causes given for the war, the lack of true and genuine intelligence for WMD, the failure to ask for cast iron proof of who was behind 9/11, the failure to challenge the assertion that it had anything to do with Saddam whatsoever, the failure to insist the USA delay the invasion until we were ready to adminster the aftermath, the failure to get true international and UN support for the invasion,and the failure to realise that it would stir up an endless hornet’s nest which has led to endless bombings and civil war in Iraq, that has now led to the formation of Isis and the meltdown in Syria, as well as ignorant in not listening to the warnings on all these matters that were a matter of common public discourse among the 2 million people who marched against the war in February 2001, myself among them. Blair also showed ignorance in thinking that he was advancing global freemasonic solidarity by launching the war on Iraq. Saddam Hussein had abolished freemasonry in Iraq and its once flourishing lodges had been pushed deep underground or simply destroyed by the use of Saddam’s secret police. (there are several definitive academic studies documenting Saddam’s war against freemasonry). Saddam’s anti Zionist rhetoric was also anti Masonic and he took whole swathes of ideas in this regard from Hitler’s similar hatred of freemasonry and the Jews. (Most anti-Smites in history have also been anti-masonic). However, the Bush and Blair invasion of Iraq actually played into the hands of the anti-Masonic and anti-Semitic Saddamist networks and further convinced the extreme anti Zionists and anti-Masons that the West is truly an evil and demonic entity and that freemasonry is really a diabolic secretive cult aiming at world domination, and that the only way to fight it is with blood and iron. This had been Hitler’s creed, it had been Saddam Hussein’s  and now it has become the creed of Isis and its henchmen. However, what Bush and Blair betrayed was the legacy of actual genuine freemasonry intended by its founders and transmitters – not a cult of secretive power and megalomania and imperialism but a genuine force for educational improvement and moral development, such as evidenced by the Lodge of the 9 Sisters in Paris, which was called by historian Nicholas Hans “The UNESCO of the 18th century” and which included in its members Helvetius, Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, Lavoisier, Antoine Court De Gebelin, Voltaire,  and many others. This kind of freemasonry brought us the “enlightenment” (la siecle des lumieres). The Bush and Blair kind of freemasonry has brought us polarization,and endless wars on terror, mass killings throughout the Middle East by Isis affiliates, random attacks in the USA and the West, violence in Turkey, killings on a daily basis, the destruction of Syria (an enclave of enlightenment Gnostic Islam based on Alawite beliefs which are probably one of the sources of medieval Templar freemasonry) and so on. But of course the Chilcot commission cannot have been expected to go into all this – they are not dealing with ideas, philosophies and motivations or what is often called “psychohistory”.  but I think they should have at least asked some of these questions as to Blair’s hidden motivations, as not to do so is to betray truth. But intellectual historians like myself can ask these supplementary questions. After all my doctoral thesis was precisely in the field of “transpersonal psychohistory and the search for peace”.
  7. The real question is – how can states, especially democracies, ensure that they get leaders who are genuinely intelligent, good, truthful and wise leaders ? One small but significant way would be to bring in the Duty of Parliamentary Veracity Bill, so that any parliamentarian who lies is immediately stripped of office.. An other way is to improve our higher education institutions and to ensure that our future politicians are actually educated in the classics of political philosophy, where they will learn that virtue is the best guard against disaster.Compulsory reading of Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, Aquinas, Hobbes, Montesquieu,  Hegel,  T.H Green, Whitehead,  for all MP’s in their first year, followed by exams !  I fear however we have got neither of these – we have got a class of politicians for whom truth is less important than power, and universities that are forced to assess research quantitatively rather than qualitatively and are more or less penalized if they hire actual living philosophers, rather than scholars who merely trail over the footnotes of dead philosophers.

The Chilcott Report is important reading and everyone who cares about this country should study it and together we should learn its lessons.

At least Jeremy Corbyn (and Robyn Cook and others) and the Liberal Democrats under Charles Kennedy took a principled stand for wisdom and true intelligence in these matters.

The question remains – who will speak up for peace in the malestrom of lies ? This is why the Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy took the step in 2008 of founding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the Middle East. Without truth there can be no lasting reconciliation. The Chilcot Report has brought us a little closer to truth in these matters. but there is still a long way to go before we get truth in all the related issues such as manipulation of 9/11 as a casus belli, which is not even mentioned by Chilcott.

Finally, whilst it is tragic that 129 British soldiers died in this war, needlessly, it is wrong for the media to largely overlook than perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the invasion. the question is, how does one prosecute nations for crimes of aggression ? The International Court of Justice says it is not able to do this. What about the International Criminal Court ? It has jurisdiction over Crimes against Humanity. Article 7 of its treaty defines crimes against humanity as acts “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack”. The criminal court does not as yet have jurisdiction over Crimes of Aggression against individuals, which is absurd.

Enjoy your reading. No doubt many other grave questions will come to the fore in the days ahead. And thank you to Sir John Chilcot and his team. They may not have asked all the right questions, they may not have transmitted all that they know and found out in writing. but at least they have begun a conversation. It is the duty of the rest of us to press home the debate till we get full disclosure and the actual deeper truths emerging which can alone bring peace to a tormented and fractured people of the Middle East and indeed the world. one way to cut through to this, is for people to sign the Interfaith Peace treaty – whether you are Jewish, Muslim, Zionist, Arab, Israeli, British, Scottish, Irish, French, anti-Zionist, Freemason, Secular, Christian, Buddhist, Druid, Pagan or whatever. It is time for peace on this planet and an end to the thought that by creating killing machines, and investing in huge military development projects or weapons of mass destruction we can guarantee peace on earth. This route than can never do that. Its the fantasy land of star wars and star shields. As St John put it, only perfect love casts out fear. The irony of this Iraq war is that whereas “intelligence told Blair that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction” and therefore this was a justification for invasion, in point of fact, it was the USA and the UK and the West (and Russia) who actually had and have the weapons of mass destruction – including nuclear submarines that parade outside the Castle of the Muses here in Scotland, and costs billions of pounds that could otherwise be used to house the homeless, feed the hungry, educate the ignorant, reassure the fearful and clothe the naked. So yes, Blair’s intelligence, ultimately was flawed. No Iraq didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. But we do.. time to invade ourselves ? perhaps we all ought to be practicing the inner jihad, the search for self mastery that Mahavira and Muhammad talk about.. time for “inlightenment” ?

Tempus Fugit, Stat Jus.