http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/index.php : an essential resource, which in its day did ground-breaking reearch, most notably into the 'Wilson Plot' (spook attempts to unseat Labour PM Harold Wilson) & also the British American Project, whereby the Labour Party was hijacked by US-sympathising neo-cons. Most articles are fully referenced, and over the years Lobster has covered a wide array of fascinating topics-use the site index to find out what. They still do--issue 60 has important articles by ex-Labour Minister Bryan Gould (editor Robin Ramsay's version of JFK-lite) and Corinne Souza on MI6. Nonetheless, it was a sad day when Lobster went 'defunctly virtual' (no new hard copies), though many back issues are still available for real. There are three criticisms though. First, there are far too few sample articles to give browsers an idea of what Lobster stands for. Second, while going virtual is one thing, the form in which Lobster has done so, abandoning the concise formatting of hard copy for 210 pages (issue 59/Summer 2010) of widely-spaced text is a disaster, access-wise, and discourages printing out issues for perusal. Naughty! Third, the links page is partial & variable--an uncritical link to David Guyatt's bullshit about Nazi Gold & so forth. The lack of updated links makes life interesting though--spot the defunct link that leads to a DVD/Car rental portal! Or is it really a clever cover for Osama Bin Laden's current business (beyond his watery grave) trading second hand cars?
http://www.statewatch.org/ In one guise or another, (as State Research Bulletin initially) this publication has been around for over three decades, although sadly the production values of associated Statewatch magazine have hardly improved, indeed deteriorated (essentially the magazine is square chunks of black & white text, no graphics, the site barely better). Their strength is the detail in which they explore issues/legislation/statistics. Strength can also be weakness--Statewatch is worthy not exciting, and covertly but rigorously censors opinions outside the Guardianista/London Left consensus. While many stories merely summarise newspaper/magazine articles published elsewhere, it would be a mistake to see it as comprehensive or authoritative--Notes From the Borderland and Eye Spy magazine do not exist in the eyes of this site. Statewatch's greatest asset is the close (even symbiotic) relationship it enjoys with the European Union's developing institutions in the repressive/surveillance sphere. Like a troubled courtier, Statewatch exhaustively chronicles, in pan-European detail, emerging trends. Resistance, of course, is not on the agenda--grants do not come your way for rocking the boat. But as a first port of call if you're desperate to track down that vital EU directive on sub-section xxvii of Schengen implementation Protocol 7, it can't be beaten. We ourselves have a slight preference for Molotov cocktails (to go). Nonetheless, we would far rather have Statewatch than not--were they to disappear much essential background material of use in genuine investigative research would be dissipated. To provide welcome light relief with serious undertones peruse the still relevant critique of Statewatch from 2001 Visit the Last Century Left section of this site or type into our internal search engine 'Flyer given out'. Don't tell Grand Master Tony Bunyan though...
http://wikispooks.com is a UK-based hub, if you can call it that, for UCT's (unofficial conspiracy theorists). As such, a few general remarks. Like us, they have problems with Wikipedia (a topic for another day). To be fair, the site has a ‘general disclaimer’ of which Point 1 says “content may be wildly inaccurate and does NOT necessarily reflect the opinion of the site owner”. This means no crap filter, and furthermore an instinctive aversion to ‘official’ sources: “a presumption against authority as a reliable source of information and evidence”--makes it difficult to distinguish between genuine information and disinformation. Indeed, their dogmatic view is so narrow-minded and prescriptive it makes reasoned judgement, evaluating evidence on merit, almost impossible. Alice in Wonderland-like, they simply invert traditional rules of evidence, thus producing not a counter to official disinformation but a mirror-image. Editorial policy states any official information “should be assumed to be in furtherance of a hidden--if more or less obvious--agenda and thus designed to mislead rather than to inform”. Sometimes, certainly, but a priori assuming such cripples any genuinely critical inquiry. On this reckoning, to avoid scrutiny and hoodwink Wikispooks any official source has merely to utter the simple and unvarnished truth. There is the further editorial view that the “veracity and accuracy of official announcements, documents, press releases etc should be treated as inversely proportional to the Power, Wealth, Statutory (or other claimed) Authority, in 'current Establishment hierarchies of their source”. If accepted, this means we should discount what Richard C Clarke has to say about 9/11, but take as gospel the contradictory confabulating accounts of World Trade Center janitor William Rodriguez. That, we are not prepared to do. Wikispooks lacks discernment, a prerequisite to any evidence-based enterprise. Consequently, they give credence to ideas deserving none: the page on Tsarist forgery ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ says Zionist apologists reaction to mention of the Protocols shows their “sensitivity is palpable” and the text introduction concludes with the emphasised remark “the Zionist doth protest too much, methinks”. Predictably, perhaps, pages on 9/11 & 7/7 merely replace the official narrative with a supposed alternative (i.e. cultist) version of both events, as deconstructed on our site and the 9/11 cult watch blog. Hardly surprising, a page is devoted to the specious proposition “9/11: Israel did it”. In short, a site those interested in parapolitics should be wary of: were they a doctor, every scratch would be gangrene, on the premise gangrene often starts with a scratch.