Monday, April 30, 2007


In response to the sentencing of Omar Khyam and four others today the new Chief of MI5 Jonathan Evans issued a statement defending the decision of MI5 not to follow two of the suspected bombers of London on 7/7. Evans' statement does not compute for several reasons;
1. there have been approximately one thousand arrests under the PTA, mainly Muslims, and the vast majority were either released without charge or found not guilty. What standard of evidence was used against them as compared to Kahn and Tanweer, who it appears were on the edge of a terrorist network arrested under the PTA and were even suspected of committing a crime (!?), fraud, to fund jihad and attend terrorist training camps? Kahn and Tanweer were thought dangerous enough to warrant further investigation if time allowed.

2. Reda Hassaine told David Leppard that he warned his MI5 handlers that Abu Hamza was a nasty piece of work and offered to wear surveillance equipment to record Hamza. MI5 told Hassaine that they considered Hamza to be a clown. This is not the only evidence of MI5 "complacency".

3. Martin Gilbertson sent material to West Yorkshire Police about Kahn and Tanweer late 2003.

Now, if the Police and MI5 had been busier chasing up real leads and not fitting up hundreds of innocent Muslims then perhaps 7/7 would have been stopped.

Or perhaps there is a cell within MI5 that wanted to allow 7/7 to occur for its own purpose...

What is the task of MI5? MI5 is tasked with the defence of the realm ie the Queen, all she fronts for and stands for and owns. This includes The City of London, one of if not the most powerful financial hubs of the world keeping us all in debt slavery. London was hit on 7/7. Who lost their job?

Below is a logo MI5 used NB the all-seeing eye above a pyramid with the capstone removed. The idea is that "they" see and know everything. As with 9/11 they didn't know anything about 7/7?


It looks like all that CO2 of ours is having an effect on Mars too...unless the whole "man-made global warming" argument is totally bogus. All you have to do to destroy the myth of man-made global warming is to go outside and sit in the sunshine. Feel that sun. Can you remember when it was so hot? I can't. At 8am in April I can feel it. I walk in the shade it feels like April, but as soon as I leave the shade within seconds I really feel the sun's heat.

I can believe that man-made CO2 does have an effect on warming. I think there is some very small basis to the man-made global warming argument, but I think that what is going on now is part of a natural cycle in our solar system and it is being capitalised upon by the NWO to gain more and more control over every last little aspect of our lives. I've been trying to find a quote, I think credited to The Club of Rome, which reads something along the lines, "we must focus on man's pollution affecting the world climate then mankind becomes the problem". That is what is going on; our everyday activities are being blamed for climate change when the change is part of a natural cycle.



Climate change hits Mars

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Friday, April 27, 2007


Last Sunday we saw The Sunday Times be used, wittingly or unwittingly, to spread the gospel that al-Qaeda in Iraq is in cahoots with al-Qaeda in Iran to nuke GB. Upon further scrutiny though the article proclaiming such a bold statement was based on "may" and "could be", but the idea was firmly planted in the mass psyche by the shock statement; al-Qaeda is now based in Iran.

So when I read that Prince Harry is to be sent to Iraq I wonder. Why is a Prince of the realm to be sent into an area in which it is now indisputable he will be Prime Target #1 for thousands of very angry insurgents who have shown their fondness for decapitation?

I detest the warmongers who send others into war for personal gain, be it power, money, both or more, while they and their families stay thousands of miles away from the bloodshed. But I think this is the first time I will support a member of the Royal family NOT to be sent into the battle. In most circumstances I'd say "get the warmmongers and their families on the frontline." But not this time.

We know the sort of people who sent the military into Iraq, Afghanistan and are now increasingly desperate for a war on Iran, particularly after Kucinich submitted articles of impeachment against Cheney this week.

My concern derives from the propaganda coup on both sides if Harry is (a) captured, and (b) killed on video, or even simply killed by one of those shape charges the military is fond of telling us about. Imagine the feeling such an event could create in the West, particularly here, and even in the USA. And with the slick propaganda machine the killing could be quickly linked to Iran in the minds of a shocked and angry public looking for revenge (a la 9/11).

But would Harry be knowingly sacrificed? I would not put it beyond certain people to run such a risk. I have hopefully shown some that there is a force of darkness, with a base in our Royal family, which was prepared to kickstart and profit from WW1, WW2 and is trying kickstart a devastating WW3. There is some doubt about Harry's lineage. If he is not a Windsor, I believe there are some who would manipulate to get Harry into a danger zone where his kidnap and beheading could then be used for war, and with the recent reference to "al-Qaeda in Iran" last Sunday, Iran would be blamed somehow. thus killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.



‘Dry run’ attack forces Prince Harry retreat
Michael Evans, Defence Editor, and James Hider in Baghdad

Army chiefs fear that a fatal attack on two British soldiers in Iraq last week was a dry run for an attempt on Prince Harry’s life, The Times has learnt.

The attack was made on a type of vehicle that the Prince will use, and took place in a part of the country where he is due to be deployed as early as next month. The two died when their Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb – the first time that British soldiers had been killed in a Scimitar as a result of enemy action.

The Army fears that extremists deliberately chose the vehicle knowing that the Prince is a troop leader for a Scimitar-equipped unit.

Prince Harry faces a kidnap threat from insurgents, who have become active this month even within bases used by the British Army in southern Iraq. Security has been tightened at Camp Sparrowhawk, a base in Maysan Province used by reconnaissance units such as Prince Harry’s.

Thursday, April 26, 2007


I think there is a high probability they are. Although Olmert pursued the war on Lebanon last year I think that he may well have been tricked into it and pulled out at the last moment before the Americans were then able to drag themselves and Syria into a wider conflict. Olmert seems to be looking for peace. Others are trying to kick him out. It should be remembered that as with any US President who tries to stand up against the Federal Reserve, any Israeli PM who tries to establish peace with Israels neighbours is usually assassinated, because the whole point of Israel is to create anger and conflict which can be used for terror and war, leading to more centralised control. Centuries of planning, lies, manipulation, war and mass murder have gone into creating Israel.

But who would replace Olmert? Any one who wants to nuke Tehran, probably Netanyahu or an ally of his, and possibly Lieberman who also wants to nuke Tehran and who Olmert (or one of his allies) recently regretted appointing to the post specially created for Lieberman.

Justice Ministry: Criminal probe against PM is 'inevitable'

Olmert: Iran nuclear issue can be resolved without arms

Sunday, April 22, 2007


The Homeland Security Chief of the USA Michael Chertoff has been allowed by The Washington Post to publish some drivel about there being a war on, or something. As with all these warmongers, they want us to fight each other while they make a tidy profit and gain more power.

In the article the first two paragraphs make the inevitable reference to 9/11. In fact 9/11 is referenced directly FIVE times, and indirectly once by a reference to 9/12.

9/11 = WAR!

Yes, of course 9/11 = war. Such an attack would inevitably lead to calls for retribution and war.

Chertoff makes no mention though of
1. PNAC and its agenda, which thanks to 9/11 is being fulfilled
2. "A Clean Break", which thanks to 9/11 is also being fulfilled
3. the many warnings, indications and down right suppression of evidence that 9/11 was in the pipeline which were either ignored and/or suppressed
4. the incredible catastrophic failure of the USAF and the US military in general on 9/11
5. Cheney running all those terrorist drills on or around 9/11
6. the Anglo-American oil corporations grabbing control of Iraq's oil after it was promised it would go to the Iraqis.

I watched "9/11: Press For Truth" the other day. I highly recommend it. It shows that there is an obvious cover up of who knew what and when. Bush, Cheney, and Rice are all singled out for special attention. They all said nobody could have predicted hijacked planes could be used as weapons, yet in 1995 Project Bojinka was busted which led to uncovering a plot which proposed hijacked planes to be used as weapons. And the warning that at the G8 meeting in Genoa a few months before 9/11 a hijacked plane was going to be used to kill Bush led to Bush staying on a luxurious yacht and not in a hotel building.

At the very least they knew and allowed it. They knew 9/11 was coming and its effect could be used for war and the fulfillment of the agendas of PNAC and A Clean Break.

Chertoff's drivel is at

There is also a curious piece in The Sunday Times which is not headline news, about al-Qaeda in Iraq in cooperation with al-Qaeda in... IRAN wanting to cause a Hiroshima or Nagasaki in Great Britain.


AL-QAEDA leaders in Iraq are planning the first “large-scale” terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.

Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on “a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki” in an attempt to “shake the Roman throne”, a reference to the West.

...The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al-Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq.

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi’ite regime of President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran’s leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation’s activities.

The intelligence report also makes it clear that senior Al-Qaeda figures in the region have been in recent contact with operatives in Britain.

However, further down the article you find this;
The report says there is “no indication” this attack would specifically target Britain, “although we are aware that AQI . . . networks are active in the UK”.

So the article begins with the unqualified statement that AQ is planning to nuke GB, but further down we find there is no evidence for such a claim. Hmm.

But what is more surprising is this;
Details of a separate plot to attack Britain, “ideally” before Blair steps down this summer, were contained in a letter written by Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, an Iraqi Kurd and senior Al-Qaeda commander.

According to the JTAC document, Hadi “stressed the need to take care to ensure that the attack was successful and on a large scale”. The plan was to be relayed to an Iran-based Al-Qaeda facilitator.

So AQ in Iran wants to bomb GB before Blair steps down and wants it to be a huge success for them in that there are many deaths. Now, what would Blair do in that case? Enact the Civil Contingencies Act and declare Martial Law and stay as PM for a little while longer while the available and manufactured evidence is linked to Iran? And who would therefore have benefitted?


The "electronic smog" is having its desired effect, but is also forcing people to rebel against it.

The smog is designed to interfere with the human system. We are made of matter, atoms, and have our own very subtle energy fields which can be affected by outside electromagnetic fields. This is why there is a rush to implement Wi-Fi and digital TV. The interference in our body and brains electrical system caused by both of these combined will be great, and we will lose alot of our "sixth sense" emotion and all that makes us different from the beast. Clarity of thought and compassion will be lost.

So it is good to read in The Independent on Sunday the following

Wi-Fi: Children at risk from 'electronic smog'

Britain's top health protection watchdog is pressing for a formal investigation into the hazards of using wireless communication networks in schools amid mounting concern that they may be damaging children's health, 'The Independent on Sunday' can reveal.

There are two other related articles
Leading article: Hi-tech horrors

The school that took on mobile phone companies

And also in The Sunday Times
Cancer clusters at phone masts

SEVEN clusters of cancer and other serious illnesses have been discovered around mobile phone masts, raising concerns over the technology’s potential impact on health.

Studies of the sites show high incidences of cancer, brain haemorrhages and high blood pressure within a radius of 400 yards of mobile phone masts.

One of the studies, in Warwickshire, showed a cluster of 31 cancers around a single street. A quarter of the 30 staff at a special school within sight of the 90ft high mast have developed tumours since 2000, while another quarter have suffered significant health problems.

The mast is being pulled down by the mobile phone after the presentation of the evidenceoperator O2 by local protesters. While rejecting any links to ill-health, O2 admitted the decision was “clearly rare and unusual”.

Now what sort of group would want to electronically imprison the human population?

Can you see three sixes in the Vodafone logo? (clue : look at the O's)

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

iframe found

The index page on my website contained the following code to create an iframe

src="" width=1 height=1>

a google search on lists this with a similar warning, "This site may harm your computer".

The coincidence, like Cheney running all those drills on 9/11, is too much.

I shall be creating a new website with the exact same info and more, probably on a different server, until this security breach has been rectified.


After my computer had been interfered with following the "WHO ARE THE DOUBLE AGENTS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER?" I blogged about it. Now my junk email box is full of emails from Google to warn me that my website theconspiracyexplained has been infected with a virus of some sort and it will no longer be listed at Google until the problem has been rectified.



The NWO don't like the idea that they could have been infiltrated or that there is an organised resistance to get out so we all just cower and let them trample all over us.

I am now removing the link to my website until further notice.

And if the virus can't be found then I'll just start a new website and place the same info (and more, coz it really does need to get finished) on that and wait until the next attack, and repeat as nauseum.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007


Since posting "WHO ARE THE DOUBLE AGENTS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER?" earlier today my computer has been playing up; when logging onto my computer, signing into my university email service, even trying to write some C++ code for my research thesis, the keyboard was playing up eg I would need to type in my username and password very slowly because the pressed letter would register at random. But when I log into Blogger and write this post it magically works fine!

Hmm. Is little me annoying someone with guessing who is a double agent in the NWO? How could such a question warrant such a brave response?

The same thing happened a few months ago too, to a similar post. Hmm.

You've got 'em, buddy! Time to hunt them down, doncha fink?

There's a rat in my kitchen, what am I gonna do?
There's a rat in my kitchen, what am I gonna do?
There's a rat in my kitchen, what am I gonna do?
I'm gonna catch that rat...

ps before posting this I logged out of Blogger, started my C++ development environment and behold, it works like magic. My computer is cured...until I ask the eternal question again, who are the double agents in the NWO?


Every morning Blair wakes up and salivates at the idea of war on Iran. Why he is so obsessed I don't know...or should that be was so obsessed? Maybe Blair is the rat.

Anyway, I think Blair's conduct during the recent "Iran hostage crisis" says alot.

He immediately said the sailors were captured in Iraqi waters when the maritime borders in that area have not been agreed.
He then would not apologise, just to get the sailors back, despite there being a very good probability that with Chris Air's interview he and the rest could have been tried as spies. Now that would have led to something much, much bigger...
But Ahmedinijad blinked, and the chance has gone.

No war for now, perhaps never.

The USA continues to hold five Iranians, and one released recently is suffering nightmares from the mock executions he was put through while held captive by the USA.

And poor Des Browne, forced to carry the can for a lame duck PM who is leaving soon in "a blaze of glory" (ie schools will get 3 pence per pupil extra while we spend billions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for energy companies to reap huge profits).

Three carrier groups will soon be in the Persian Gulf. THREE!!

Looks like someone wants a war, dunit?


Their plan for a WMD WW3 is definitely coming off the rails...and fast!

Who has worked their way in to their confidence and then betrayed them?

Is it Kissinger?

Is it one of the Rockefellers?

Could it be Putin?

Or is it someone we don't see or hear about in the MSM, and is thus someone with REAL power?

Somebody has betrayed them. But who?


Pravda is reporting that a French documentary claims the USA has spent over $100 million on financing the colour revolutions in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and that there are expected to be more such colour revolutions across the the former Russian empire, possibly including Russia itself.

From Pravda

The USA has spent over 100 million dollars on so-called color revolutions in post-Soviet republics of Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. The figures were unveiled in a documentary by French film-makers titled “ The USA. The Conquest of the East.” According to French film-makers, the USA stands behind a whole series of color coups: the velvet revolution in Serbia, the revolution of roses in Georgia, the orange revolution in Ukraine and the tulip revolution in Kyrgyzstan. The USA, the documentary says, is certain that the war is not necessary to bring the required regime to power in this or that country. It is not ruled out that the USA repeats its previous experience in other republics of the former Soviet Union, such as Moldova.

“Four violent revolutions, four totalitarian regimes and vestiges of the erstwhile Soviet power sank into oblivion within a couple of weeks. The events happened under one and the same scenario: falsified elections are held, authorities show desperate resistance and eventually give way to protesters,” the film-makers say.

The French documentalists believe that the USA tested that technique for the first time in Serbia. Serbia became the country were the theory of Gene Sharp’s book “From Dictatorship to Democracy” was put into practice. For example, the book contains a chapter on how revolutionaries should establish friendly terms with the police, or the stronghold of every dictatorship.

Gene Sharp wrote in his book that those, who attempted to dethrone Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia in 2000, were following his recommendations to avoid tough repressions during the revolution. When Milosevic’s regime collapsed, it was the Serbs who continued to distribute the US technique and helped Georgians overturn President Eduard Shevardnadze, who used to be the Foreign Affairs Minister of the USSR. Similar practice was used for the orange revolution in Ukraine, the French filmmakers say.

Ten months after the successful campaign in Serbia, the US Ambassador to Belarus, Michael Kozak, who has the experience of running similar actions in Central America, organized such a campaign in Belarus too, in an attempt to dethrone President Alexander Lukashenko. The efforts of the US official returned no results: “There will be no Kostunica in Belarus!” Lukashenko claimed.

Monday, April 16, 2007


The British media has been reporting all weekend about the protests led by Chessmaster Gary Kasparov and the umbrella organisation he heads, The Other Russia. I note that The Daily Telegraph in particular has been leading the reports and the attack on Putin. including today with its leader, "Putin's Reign of Fear".

Last Friday the world was stunned by Boris Berezovsky when it was reported by The Guardian that he claimed he was financing a revolution against Putin and that Putin could only be replaced by force. Berezovsky then claimed that he did not imply a bloody and violent revolution, but in other interviews he did explicitly state that violence is part of revolution and that should such a revolution occur that it would inevitably be violent. Instead of focusing on Berezovsky, how he and his fellow oligarchs economically raped Russia and why they are here, and his audacious claims over the weekend Britain has been forced to weep and sob into its cups of tea at the sad, heartbreaking news of Wills and Kate breaking up.

Now, back to Kasparov and The Other Russia.

I had a look at The Other Russia last month.

Its membership list is available for all to read at

You will find several members of The National Endowment for Democracy, Richard Holbrooke of the CFR, NED and other NWO fronts, and Michael McFaul of The Carnegie Endowment for International Misery Peace (who have been sending a rep of theirs to Bilderberg for the last six years or so). You will also find the Ambassadors to Russia of the UK and Canada!

But it is the relatively large nunber of representatives from the NED that is highly suspicious. For all those who support Ron Paul for President, here is Paul writing for on the NED;


National Endowment for Democracy: Paying to Make Enemies of America

The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects "soft money" into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections "promoting democracy." How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?

In an excellent study of the folly of the National Endowment for Democracy, Barbara Conry notes that:

"NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements...

"...the controversy surrounding NED questions the wisdom of giving a quasi-private organization the fiat to pursue what is effectively an independent foreign policy under the guise of 'promoting democracy.' Proponents of NED maintain that a private organization is necessary to overcome the restraints that limit the activities of a government agency, yet they insist that the American taxpayer provide full funding for this initiative. NED's detractors point to the inherent contradiction of a publicly funded organization that is charged with executing foreign policy (a power expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution) yet exempt from nearly all political and administrative controls...

"...In the final analysis, the endowment embodies the most negative aspects of both private aid and official foreign aid – the pitfalls of decentralized 'loose cannon' foreign policy efforts combined with the impression that the United States is trying to 'run the show' around the world."

The National Endowment for Democracy is dependent on the US taxpayer for funding, but because NED is not a government agency, it is not subject to Congressional oversight. It is indeed a heavily subsidized foreign policy loose cannon.

Since its founding in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy has been headed by Carl Gershman, a member of the neo-Trotskyite Social Democrats/USA.

Perhaps that is one reason much of what NED has done in the former Communist Bloc has ended up benefiting former communists in those countries. As British Helsinki Human Rights Group Director Christine Stone has written:

Both (IRI and NDI) are largely funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) ... which, in turn, receive money from the American taxpayer. Both have favoured the return to power of former high-ranking Communists which has also meant co-opting foot-soldiers from the new left who have extremely liberal ideas...

Skender Gjinushi, speaker of the Albanian parliament, thanks the IRI for its assistance in drafting the Albanian constitution in 1998. What the IRI does not say is that Gjinushi was a member of the brutal Stalinist Politburo of Enver Hoxha's Communist Party until 1990 and one of the main organizers of the unrest that led to the fall of the Democratic Party government in 1997 and the death of over 2000 people.

President Stoyanov of Bulgaria drools: "Without IRI's support we could not have come so far so fast." Indeed. Indeed. So far did they come that Ivan Kostov (who supplies another encomium to IRI) was catapulted from his job teaching Marxism-Leninism at Sofia University to being prime minister of Bulgaria and a leader of "reform."

In Slovakia, NED funded several initiatives aimed at defeating the freely-elected government of Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar, who, interestingly, had been persecuted by the previous Communist regime. After the election, an IRI newsletter boasted that "IRI polls changed the nature of the campaign," adding that IRI efforts secured "a victory for reformers in Slovakia." What the IRI does not say is that many of these "reformers" had been leading members of the former Communist regime of then-Czechoslovakia. Is this democracy?

More recently, IRI president George A. Folsom last year praised a coup against Venezuela's democratically-elected president, saying, "Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country." It was later revealed that the National Endowment for Democracy provided funds to those organizations that initiated the violent revolt in the streets against Venezuela's legal leaders. More than a dozen civilians were killed and hundreds were injured in this attempted coup. Is this promoting democracy?

The National Endowment for Democracy, by meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries, does more harm to the United States than good. It creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad. It is beyond time to de-fund this Cold War relic and return to the foreign policy of our founders, based on open relations and trade with all countries and free from meddling and manipulation in the internal affairs of others.

What the NED does is support revolution in countries besides the USA and its Bilderberg-controlled allies under the banner of "Freedom and Democracy", and then manipulates to get an Anglo-American-friendly leader installed who will support war on other countries and sell its natural resources to the Anglo-Americans at bargain-basement prices.

In 1953 Mossadegh of Iran, voted Iranian of the Century by readers of The Iranian, was ousted after a revolution controlled by our good friends British and American Intelligence after Mossadegh had the cheek and audacity to want to use the profits from Iranian oil for Iranians.

50 years later Putin wants to use Russian oil and gas for Russians, and is now facing the wrath of and demonisation by the Anglo-Americans through the NED controlling The Other Russia, while Putin has an 80% rating amongst Russians.

One has to ask how has Putin got an 80% rating? And if so, who was at the protests last weekend?

It's OK for Berezovsky to advocate a violent revolution to overthrow Putin, but not OK to put down a protest supported by very few Russians and blatantly controlled by the warmongering, greedy Anglo-American Establishment? Due to the build up of the reporting for the protests last weekend I would not be surprised if there were agents provocateurs present provoking a photo opportunity.

Yes, there is a moral question being raised about the use of violence. Is it OK to use violence to save your country from the grips of the New World Order?

Let's get this into perspective; Know thy ruthless enemy.

They provoked, financed and profited from WW1.
They provoked, financed and profited from WW2, provoked and allowed the Pearl Harbour attack, dropped two atomic bombs unnecessarily on Japan and allowed the Holocaust to occur.
They executed 9/11, killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and are now looking for any excuse for a nuclear first strike on Iran.

If you're attacked you defend yourself, don't you? Or are you supposed to turn the other cheek while your country is economically raped, if not brutally invaded under the pretext of installing "freedom and democracy".

Who should control Russian oil and gas? Russia, or the genocidal New World Order? Is Kasparov just naive or in someones pocket?

But I have a question of the Russian (state-controlled) media: if I can print this about The Other Russia, have you?

Friday, April 13, 2007


I am absolutely stunned by the audacity of Berezovsky. Surely there must be something not legal about his ambition and the content of his statement.

Violent overthrow?

Conspiracy to commit violence and possibly murder?

Surely not legal!

Well possibly, based in the revolutionary terrorist capital of the world, London.

Anything goes if it supports New World Order goals.


'I am plotting a new Russian revolution'

London exile Berezovsky says force necessary to bring down President Putin

The Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has told the Guardian he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain after forging close contacts with members of Russia's ruling elite.


That's a line in "Shooter", starring Mark Wahlberg. I saw it yesterday, and although it is not as smooth and coherent as it could be it was still encouraging to see skepticism of 9/11 on the big screen!

The above line is spoken about 15 minutes into the film when Wahlberg walks into his house and sits at a desk with a computer on it. The official 9/11 Commission Report is on the same desk next to the computer. Wahlberg says that line as he sits down at the desk with the 9/11 report clearly visible next to the computer. The camera then zooms into the book to leave just the 9/11 from the book title showing, so for about 5 or 6 seconds the film is as follows;
Wahlberg (out of shot) asks himself, "Now then. Let's see what lies they're trying to sell to us today", with the 9/11 Report clearly visible. Then with Wahlberg not saying anything the camera zooms in so that the 9/11 from the 9/11 report title is focused on.


The film is about government conspiracies, corruption and private military contractors.


Thursday, April 12, 2007


There is a line in the Gervais/Merchant "The Office" (series 1 I think) in which Gareth is talking about leaders, and how a military leader respected by his soldiers would create such a strong feeling of loyalty within them that they would gladly follow him to their certain death. I am wondering if a similar operation in mass psychology has been applied before successfully, and is now being applied again.

I am intrigued by the argument "FDR : Was He NWO, or Wasn't He NWO?".

The people at EIR present a reasonable argument that FDR wasn't NWO, although I am not 100% convinced.

FDR deliberately provoked and allowed the Pearl Harbour attack to happen (the December 1941 one, not the September 2001 one), a fact which is ignored.

The people at EIR present evidence that FDR took on the British-based bankers controlling America and was the subject of a fascist coup exposed by Captain Butler. However, Antony C Sutton in "Wall Street and FDR" presents a convincing case to me that FDR was a servant of Wall Street, receiving much more financial backing from Wall Street for his Presidential campaigns than his opponents. Sutton's other two "Wall Street" books reinforce the great significance that 120 Broadway had during the years 1910 - 1945. I am thus beginning to think that FDR's actions, and those that involved him eg the Butler Affair, were an act of window dressing to manufacture FDR as a President the general public of the USA could trust and would gladly follow into a major world war.

But I am also beginning to think the same trick could have been used to manufacture President Putin of Russia. Whether Putin is aware of this I am not sure.

They both came to power following severe economic conditions.
FDR came to power after the Great Depression.
Putin came to power after Russia had been brutally economically raped.

They then made moves which gave the appearance they wanted justice.
FDR apparently went after Wall Street through Ferdinand Pecora (which resulted in how many prosecutions?).
Putin apparently went after the Russian Oligarchs, but has so far, after years of trying, only one in prison, perhaps as a sacrificial lamb; Khordokhovsky.

What I can't understand about FDR is, if he really was anti-NWO why did he not "kill the Fed"? Did he lobby for a substitute for The Federal Reserve? Was it one of the acts passed in the first 100 days? Apparently not. Yes, it appears FDR did do something against the Wall Streeters, but not as much as he could have done being President and with such popular support. Instead, as Sutton proves, FDR was a product of Wall Street, had substantial business links with Wall Street, kept the basic parasitical Federal Reserve System in tact and in some ways increased its stranglehold over the US economic system, and the New Deal, which was a product of Bernard Baruch, was very profitable for Wall Street. And he then provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbour in connivance with his alleged enemy Winston Churchill, which led America to borrow ridiculous sums of paper money from the Federal Reserve owned by the same bankers FDR apparently detested, thus empowering them even more! And the whole Swope/General Electric cartel/GE German factories avoiding Allied strategic bombing thing looks very, very suspicious, particularly with FDRs Wall Street history.

Putin's rise to power is different, but similar. He emerged from Yeltsin's government under the tutelage of Berezovsky as a product of the intelligence services. He was appointed Prime Minister by Yeltsin and Yeltsin indicated he wanted Putin as his succesor. Upon Yeltsin's surprise resignation Putin became President, a position he has since held. Yeltsin was a puppet of the oligarchs. Putin then apparently began to change the script and went after the oligarchs, and rewriting energy contracts to get Russia more.

I am a believer in the 3-world-war strategy of the NWO, and that a strong Russia is necessary for that final third war. WW2 was about getting a world government established, which the USA would need to accept, and what better way than to convince the USA that a world government was required than to involve it in a 6 year long bloody world war! Putin is serving the WW3 agenda in two ways;
1. by slowly taking back some, but interestingly not all, of Russia's natural resources, Russia is now a military and economic force, but also Russia is now feeling it has something not only to defend but also to regain after suffering humiliation.
2. by doing this Putin is becoming a new FDR, someone the Russian people could adore and would gladly follow into a major war.

I read yesterday that Russia is threatening a new Cold War, in response to the betrayal by NATO ie the Anglo-Americans, in siting missiles and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic. NATO ie the Anglo-Americans, should never, ever be trusted, only when it has been disbanded. But does Putin really need to crank up the rhetoric? Does he really have to rush into that and place himself in a position from which he cannot escape. Why the aggression when a simple published letter explaining the state of affairs would do much more?

If Putin really was anti-NWO, which I thought was a possibility, what could and should he do? I have given a hint in a draft letter to the American people. So far such a letter has not been published.

I read in EIR that images and references to FDR are all over Russia, and have been for years. This would indicate to me that whichever side FDR was really on then Putin is probably working for the same side, wittingly or unwittingly. If he wants to borrow my copies of Sutton's Wall Street trilogy as well as Sutton's "National Suicide" he is welcome. In fact, so are George W Bush and Tony Blair!


Not every coffin, draped in the Union Jack, containing yet another dead British soldier is show returning from Iraq or Afghanistan. So why this morning?

BBC Breakfast showed the images of some of the four coffins being returned to Great Britain today. The four dead were killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq last week, about the same time the 15 captured naval personnel were being released by Iran. Naturally Blair blamed Iran, or "at least elements of Iran", and naturally without providing any evidence whatsoever. Is it just a coincidence that the day before these four corpses are returned home the USA provides yet more dodgy evidence that Iran is providing the bombs that blow up soldiers from the "coalition of the killing".

We have to ask, why are these four coffins of special significance?

Why have we been shown these coffins being carried home on the shoulders of living soldiers?

If the BBC, or indeed the Government, really, really wanted to pay their respect to these soldiers and the nurse who gave their lives for their governments lies then send a team of reporters and camera crew to the funerals, interview the friends, lovers and family of the dead ones blown to bits. Tell their story, not just show a few short images of the coffin and repeat unsubstantiated allegations from a proven Bliar that their deaths were Iran's fault.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007


Saddam was harbouring al-Qaeda.
Saddam had WMD which could hit British soil ie Cyprus.
The Iraqis would cheer and throw roses at our tanks as they chased away Saddam's troops.
Iraq's oil would be placed in a trust fund and the money from its sale would be used to rebuild Iraq.
Blah, blah, blah.

This is what we were told 4 to 5 years ago.

Many saw through that BS then.

If you can't now see what BS it all was then perhaps this nations "education, education, education" policy worked (or maybe you even helped to implement it!); you have no capacity for critical thought.

The architects of the invasion of Iraq had years to plan for a post-war Iraq.

Now look at it; a shithole.

Billions of dollars has gone missing.
There's no constant water or electricity supply.
There's segmentation of Iraq as Shia beheads Sunni, and Sunni beheads Shia.

And while this goes on, the hydrocarbon law being drafted will give Iraq's oil to the Anglo-American oil companies, and the apparent civil war is giving the Anglo-Americans a reason to demonise, and maybe an ultimate reason to invade, Iran by blaming it for fanning the flames of that civil war and the murder of US soldiers.

Five years they had to plan for a post-war Iraq. FIVE YEARS. AT LEAST!

The five years comes from a letter to then President Clinton sent in 1998 demanding urgent military action to get rid of Saddam. The signatories of that letter belonged to PNAC and in 2002/2003 they held very influential positions in the Bush administration. I cannot believe that such intelligent, though evil, men would not plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, particularly if they had FIVE YEARS AT LEAST to plan for it.

I believe 100% that the state Iraq is in now was planned to be so. Such a violent, fragmenting state with such in-fighting serves two purposes;
1. while Iraqis are too busy beheading each other they cannot organise to stop a) the rampant corruption, and b) the hydrocarbon law giving the oil to the Anglo-American oil thieves
2. with a state of civil war Iraq's neighbour Iran, a fellow member of "the axis of evil" can be blamed for supporting the civil war and supplying weapons which kill Anglo-American soldiers, thus giving a potential reason to invade Iran.

So when you read and see Faye Turney this week, remember there is a war with Iran to be manufactured. I told you Blair would not say sorry to get Turney and the others back, and I believe he and others were hoping deep down she and her fellow captives would be tried and perhaps executed as spies. But Ahmedinijad blinked first and released them. I believe everything Turney and the others are saying about their time in captivity in Iran. But I also believe they are now unwitting pawns in a dangerous propaganda war designed ultimately for yet more bloody war.

Monday, April 09, 2007


I can believe every word Faye Turney says.
I can believe every word they all say about how they were treated while in Iran.

I am not defending Iran's mild psychological torture, but let's get all this into perspective.

The USA has declared it open season on Iranians.
They went into Irbil, without authorization, and arrested/captured five Iranians (in fact the USA has been operating "extraordinary rendition" for years in which they kidnap anyone they want, and with this Great Britain in full complicity).
Iran had publicly threatened it would try to capture some blue-eyed westerners.
Chris Air admitted in a TV interview he was to "gather int" on Iran and this was broadcast and seen by Iran.
And despite this HMS Cornwall left 15 of its crew, including Air, 11 miles away without air or naval cover in hotly disputed waters.
The 15 were unharmed, and not physically tortured, though they were mildly psychologically tortured by the sound of it (but they signed up to the military voluntarily and should expect to die a bloody, gruesome death for their ultra-rich Queen and her country, or do they expect that because they are British they can shoot but cannot be shot at?).
Contrast this with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, etc, etc, etc.

I am still trying to figure out what the propaganda trick is. At the moment I can only think that if the 15 had told all at the press conference last weekend then all they said would have been taken in the context of a military operation and the effect of their tales of detention would have been diminished. However, on TV and in The Sun the individual emotional aspect can be enhanced and capitalised upon alot more, particularly with Turney, (is this why she was absent at the recent press conference?) thus portraying Iran as a vicious, inhumane monster.

I would be interested in knowing if, like in the street design of the capital city of "The Great Satan", there is an inverted, irregular and incomplete pentagram in the street plan of Tehran?

Saturday, April 07, 2007


They're really going for it with this global warming bollocks!

From The Independent

How the worst effects of climate change will be felt by the poorest
By Michael McCarthy and Stephen Castle
Published: 07 April 2007

Humanity will be divided as never before by climate change, with the world's poor its disproportionate victims, the latest United Nations report on the coming effects of global warming made clear yesterday.

Existing divisions between rich and poor countries will be sharply exacerbated by the pattern of climate-change impacts in the coming years, predicted in the study from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scientists' stark warning on reality of warmer world

· Hundreds of millions may be put at risk, says report
· Complaints of political interference with findings

David Adam, Ian Traynor in Brussels
Saturday April 7, 2007
The Guardian

The world's scientists yesterday issued a grim forecast for life on earth when they published their latest assessment of the impacts of climate change.

A warming world will place hundreds of millions of extra people at greater risk of food and water shortages and threaten the survival of thousands of species of plants and animals, they said. Floods, heatwaves, storms and droughts are all expected to increase, with people in poorer countries suffering the worst effects.

From The Daily Mail

Billions will be hit by flood and famine, warns the UN
Last updated at 23:33pm on 6th April 2007

Scenes like those witnessed in New Orleans in 2005 could become more familiar experts have warned

Global warming will put billions of people at risk of flooding and famine within a generation, the United Nations has warned.

Delivering its bleakest assessment of the problem, the UN added that up to 30 per cent of species could be extinct if temperatures continued to rise.

If the people who own the UN really were that concerned about "the poor" they would
1. write off all debt
2. create money for "the poor" and their poor nations to build defences or move "the poor" to safer zones
3. create money to research nuclear fusion as an energy source or to move from the lab some of the other "free energy" technologies out there in scienceland.

But that won't happen. They want to keep the current system so that we cede more control to the central people-planners.

Honestly, how people can't see beyond this hypocrisy is beyond me. The ultra-rich don't give a rats fart about "the poor". They get "the poor" to sign up to the military and have them fight each other to death and make a nice profit and as a result of the wars they finance they get more and more control over the world through such organizations as the UN.


Iran is claiming the statements issued at the press conference yesterday are a fabrication. I believe what was said yesterday.

But I still do not accept the explanation as to why Cornwall was so far away when the personnel were arrested. If the hull is too big why is it operating in such shallow waters, particularly in such a disputed area of sea, and when it is known that Iran had warned it would try to capture some one from the "coalition of the killing".

I find the use of psychological torture and the quasi-mock execution deplorable, but would expect that had Iran invaded France and was patrolling the English Channel and we had captured some of their sailors we would not throw a party for them every day. Military personnel here sign up voluntarily and should expect to be in a war zone where they could be captured and possibly die. It's their choice (although there are economic reasons).

But what we have done and are doing in Iraq and arguably in Iran through Jundullah, and the support we give to Irsael, Uzbekistan and all the other oppressive regimes, is much more deplorable and hypocritical.

What is perhaps more disturbing is that neither Great Britain, Iraq or Iran seem to want a discussion on agreeing to precise maritime borders between Iraq and Iran.

Friday, April 06, 2007


Cartoonist Martin Rowson at The Guardian has summed up the hypocrisy of "the Iran hostage crisis" in the cartoon below. We don't see the coffins brought back from the Middle East (another four soon, thanks to that lying b£st$rd). We don't see Blair attending any funeral, standing by a freshly-dug graveside among all the union jack wreaths trying to comfort yet another victim of his lies and hunger for power and personal wealth.



See Tony Gosling's website and forum (in the links section)


Surely Bush and Cheney MUST be impeached NOW!!

Although the date of release is a little suspicious, the day before Easter Weekend.



Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.


Knock. Knock.
Who's there?
The New World Order.
The Who?
No, not the Who. The New World Order. We've come to take you and your family into detention for eternal slavery where you will be worked very hard until you die.
Oh, yeah? Get lost. LOSERS!!


I was out this morning walking my dog, and even at 0930 on 6th April I could feel the sun burning my face. I also read Mars is suffering from "man-made global warming" too. Phew, that sun sure is gettin' hotter.

Gore is making a fortune from "An Inconvenient Truth", which is being shown in schools and colleges across the world and argues for global control due to "man-made global warming", so he almost certainly is in cooperation with someone. And it appears he is; The FBI!

From Anton Chaitkin, the co-author of "George Bush : The Unauthorized Biography", comes this,
"Racist Gore's Secret History As a Tennessee FBI Hit-Man" at

Racist Gore's Secret History
As a Tennessee FBI Hit-Man
by Anton Chaitkin

Al Gore got into national politics as a police agent, rewarded with a seat in Congress for running a racist FBI frame-up against an African American political leader, who was trying to stop Nashville police from destroying the community by allowing unhindered narcotics trafficking and prostitution.

Years later, during Sen. Al Gore's abortive 1988 Presidential race, a biography promoting his campaign suddenly appeared, written, strangely enough, by a former Federal Bureau of Investigation official, Hank Hillin (Al Gore, Jr.: Born To Lead, reissued in 1992, as Al Gore, Jr., His Life and Career. Until 1999, the FBI man's book was the only published account of Gore's life. Hank Hillin told this reporter that he has known Gore and his family since Gore was four years old, and he described how Gore was brought in to work in the Tennessee arm of the FBI's terror campaign against black elected officials.

The pattern of hundreds of FBI/Department of Justice operations, beginning in the late 1950s, in which minority officials were illegally targeted, fell under the FBI internal designation, "Operation Fr├╝hmenschen" (German for "early" or "primitive men"). This racist doctrine, guiding FBI prosecutions of minorities, was first publicly identified by Rep. Mervyn Dymally (D-Calif.). On Jan. 27, 1988, Dymally, then the chairman of the Black Congressional Caucus, put into the Congressional Record a sworn affidavit from former FBI special agent Hirsch Friedman, originally filed in Federal court in Atlanta; it stated:

"The purpose of this policy was the routine investigation without probable cause of prominent elected and appointed black officials in major metropolitan areas throughout the United States. I learned from my conversations with special agents of the FBI that the basis for this policy was the assumption by the FBI that black officials were intellectually and socially incapable of governing major governmental organizations and institutions."

John Seigenthaler, publisher of the Nashville Tennessean, hired the 23-year-old Gore in 1971, as a reporter, on the police beat. Seigenthaler, like FBI official Hillin, had earlier worked in the U.S. Justice Department with the anti-labor dirty operations around Justice Department official Walter Sheridan, a leader of the faction covering up the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Gore, the Police Agent
Al Gore first became famous in 1974, when he and his boss Seigenthaler cooked up a sting against Morris Haddox, a black City Council member and a thorn in the side of the Nashville establishment. Less than two months before the Gore covert attack, Haddox had declared that it was the practice of the police to allow dope dealing and prostitution to run completely unchecked in the black community, and he vowed to block consideration of other legislative matters until the City Council took up a reform of this criminal malfeasance.[1]

Though nominally only a reporter with a private newspaper, Gore personally arranged with Hillin's partners in the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) to set up a radio transmitter on the person of a stooge, who was furnished with money to ensnare Councilman Haddox. The bribery indictment of Morris Haddox was announced in a Tennessean article on Feb. 7, 1974, under the byline of Albert Gore, Jr. The article included a photo of that sideburned reporter and undercover police spy, exultant, and accompanied by three photographers.

Rallies supporting Councilman Haddox were held in black churches. A statewide black political convention unanimously condemned Gore and Seigenthaler for the frame-up. The Tennessean of Feb. 11 quoted African American college teacher James Mock, denouncing those "playwrights who set up their scenario in the black community and had Mr. Haddox play it out .... attacking the whole political structure of our black community."

A Feb. 12 Tennessean article by Al Gore, headlined "FBI, IRS, Alerted in Council Probe," explained that the FBI—the Hillin task force—was taking an official role in the legal attack on the Nashville Metro Council.

Although Haddox was later acquitted by a jury, Gore's printed smears drove Haddox out of political life. Two decades later, Haddox came back into the Nashville council, Gore's attack having faded from public memory.

In 1987, during his campaign for the 1988 Presidential nomination, Gore boasted to the Des Moines Register that his reporting "got a bunch of people indicted and sent to jail." Newspapers around the country picked up and exposed this falsehood, and the embarrassment contributed to Gore's 1988 defeat.[2]

Publisher-spook John Seigenthaler arranged for his employee Al Gore to run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives that opened up in 1976; Gore would be sponsored by the banker-faction behind Walter Sheridan. Gore left the newspaper after winning the election, to take his seat in Congress—which had earlier been occupied by his father, Albert Gore, Sr.

Gore's FBI-stooge job, and his resultant elevation to Congress, was in line with his imperial racist family background. He had grown up mostly in Washington, D.C., attending private school as the insufferably arrogant son of a rich, white, Southern politician. His father was in the orbit of Cordell Hull, the aristocratic Tennessean who became Secretary of State under President Franklin Roosevelt and bitterly opposed FDR's endeavors on behalf of the colonial peoples challenging British imperial racism.

In 1964, Gore Sr., then a Senator, sold out President Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Civil Rights movement by voting against the landmark Civil Rights Act (July 2, 1964), which dealt a death-blow to Jim Crow by outlawing racial segregation throughout the nation. Gore, Sr., also tried unsuccessfully to cripple the bill with an amendment stopping the cutoff of Federal funds to states that would defy the law, and perpetuate racial discrimination.

At the time of his son's frame-up of Morris Haddox, Gore Sr., by then out of politics, was vice president of Armand Hammer's Occidental Petroleum Company, and chairman of Hammer's Island Creek Coal Co. The Gore family was then making its fortune in the oil industry, from Hammer's intrigues on behalf of British strategic operations. The senior Gore was also at the time on the faculty of Nashville's Vanderbilt University, the national center for the "respectable" revival of the 19th-Century Ku Klux Klan.

While working for Seigenthaler and the FBI anti-black strike force, Al Gore, Jr. was attending Vanderbilt University's Divinity School! This was the home base of the "Fugitives" and the "Nashville Agrarians," the gnostic cultists who revived the Southern Confederacy's "Lost Cause" as a neo-feudal attack on minorities, labor, and modern industrial civilization.

With this point of view, Gore, Jr. made his way to power, having joined his father's British employers in their war against the Democratic Party tradition of Franklin Roosevelt, and against populations of color all over the world.


[1] Two local newspaper articles, both printed Nov. 12, 1973, make clear the fascist motivation for the sting: The Nashville Banner, under the headline, "Councilman Haddox Calls for Showdown With Police," says Haddox declared he would block legislative bills affecting his district of Nashville, until the police department was reformed. He spoke of the case of a black female drug addict, who was reportedly sodomized by 25 police officers, at the same time that the police were not enforcing the drug or prostitution laws in the black community. The Tennessean, headlined "Haddox Puts Policing Ahead of Legislation, by Wayne Whitt, has a photograph of Morris Haddox, with caption quote: "People deserve better." The article describes Haddox's threat to stop legislation unless the police department was made to enforce the law, and stop allowing unhindered prostitution and the sale of dangerous drugs in the black community.

[2] Following the Haddox frame-up, the Hillin-Seigenthaler gestapo went into action against Democrat Ray Blanton, who was elected Tennessee's governor in 1974. Blanton opposed their racism and police-state schemes, and attempted to launch an inquiry into the frame-up of James Earl Ray in the 1968 murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.—which is still unsolved. Hillin told this reporter, "I was assigned to bring Blanton down." The resultant four-year witch-hunt and imprisonment of the innocent Blanton (conviction later overturned) are recorded in the pages of Hillin's first book FBI Codename TENNPAR, which made Hillin famous, and paved the way for his Gore biography two years later. A star player on the Hillin-Seigenthaler team, as celebrated in TENNPAR, was the KKK-style Memphis Federal prosecutor Hickman Ewing. Soon after wrapping up the Blanton case, Ewing began a smear and prosecution campaign against Memphis's black Congressman Harold Ford, that lasted ten years; Rep. Ford was acquitted. Ewing went on to serve as an operative in Kenneth Starr's assault against President Bill Clinton.


I'm not surprised.

But this should focus even more attention on how six Iranian boats were able to surprise the 15.

It's looking more and more like a provocation. When they were arrested Blair appeared on global TV claiming the 15 were arrested in Iraqi waters while operating under a UN mandate. We now know the Cornwall was spying on Iran, the maritime borders between Iran and Iraq are not well defined, and Iran had been making public statements it would arrest sailors, and the 15 were left on their own without air or naval support. Hmmm.

As with 9/11, heads should roll. But will they?

Thursday, April 05, 2007



It's time for NWOers to rush for the lifeboats.

HMS Illuminati is sinking,..., and fast.

I think there is a need to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Committee. First up, the Federal Reserve families.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007


I still can't believe the Iranians fell for the deliberate provocation from Bliar. I still believe Bliar will stall and stall and then stall some more and won't back down from his claim that the naval personnel were never in Iranian waters, even though it is now becoming widely known that there si very little binding maritime border between Iraq and Iran. Whoever drove Blair into immediately claiming that the naval personnel were definitely NOT in Iranian waters needs to be examined VERY closely, for he/she is a complete idiot, or has links to the NWO who want war on Iran. Maybe Blair just thought of his £20k per month mortgages and knew and went along with it.

Actually, who were these people who placed the Cornwall there and changed its operating procedure? And who did advise Blair on the legal maritime borders?

The following article also looks at the Israeli situation and that is beginning to turn out as I expected, that the debacle of the contrived Lebanon war last year will be used to oust Olmert with the war-hungry Netanyahu replacing him to attack Iran.



This article appears in the April 6, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Brits Drive World War III Provocations in Gulf
by Jeffrey Steinberg

A growing number of American, Russian, Arab, and Israeli specialists are convinced that the world has moved ominously closer to a global confrontation, to be triggered by an American or Israeli/American attack on Iran, that could come in the immediate days or weeks ahead, and almost certainly by the end of the year.

The view that the world is "a sneeze" away from a strategic showdown in the Persian Gulf gained significant strength on March 23, when 15 sailors and Marines from the British Navy ship HMS Cornwall were arrested by the Iranian Navy, after they sailed into contested waters in the Gulf while conducting a search operation on an Iranian merchant ship.

Perfidious Albion
The role of the British in the fueling of a global showdown inside the Persian Gulf cannot be ignored or underestimated, except at grave risk. American military strategists interviewed by EIR expressed astonishment at the way that the British Navy had apparently bungled the search incident and the engagement with the Iranian Navy. But given Britain's century-long presence as a colonial power in the greater Southwest Asian region, its still meticulous intelligence mapping of factions and clans in every corner of the Arab and Persian world, and its tradition of naval power projection, it is hard to easily conceive of the incident as merely the foolish blunder of a "declining power"—as opposed to a calculated move to turn up the heat, and then leave it to the Americans to directly confront Tehran.

The incident gravely escalated the level of tensions between Iran and the Western powers, at the very moment that the U.S. Navy was conducting live manuevers in the Persian Gulf waters, just outside Iranian territory, involving two carrier groups; and the United Nations Security Council was unanimously passing a new series of admittedly weak sanctions against Iran over its alleged nuclear "weaponization" program.

Did the British intentionally "blunder" into an incident that had the potential to be the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident setting off a chain-reaction of events leading to general war?

While no definitive answer can be given to that question at this time, several U.S. analysts took careful note of an article that appeared in the March 17, 2007 edition of The Economist in a special report celebrating the 50th anniversary of the European Union. The article revealed the state of mind of a significant faction within the City of London-centered Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, for which The Economist speaks. Under the title "The European Union at 100—Is the Best Yet To Come?," the anonymous author engaged in a game of futurology about the global strategic alignment in 2057, the year that the EU turns 100:

"The EU is celebrating its 100th birthday with quiet satisfaction. Predictions when it turned 50 that it was doomed to irrelevance in a world dominated by America, China and India, proved wide of the mark. A turning point was the bursting of America's housing bubble and the collapse of the dollar early in the presidency of Barack Obama in 2010." The spin-meister author went on to report a massive expansion of the EU, including Israel, Palestine, and Russia, and the ultimate success of the euro as a leading global currency. At the end of the day, Europe had re-emerged as the leading global power, with the United States a crumbling and isolated basket case.

Putin Is Furious
American intelligence sources report that Russian President Vladimir Putin is furious at the Iranian government, for failing to appreciate the full strategic scope of the confrontation unfolding in the Gulf, targetted principally against Tehran. According to the sources, the Russian leader views the unfolding showdown in the Gulf as a step towards a much larger global confrontation, targeting Russia, China, and India.

Putin, according to the sources, wishes to see the situation in the Persian Gulf cooled out to avoid the military showdown that leading hawks in the Bush Administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, are out to provoke. Last November, Cheney's unscheduled trip to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia aimed to draw the Kingdom into a long-term showdown between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, exploiting King Abdullah's and other Arab leaders' anxiety over Iran's re-emergence as a singular regional power, in the aftermath of the United States' disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.

For Putin, the old judo master, the best strategy is to "run out the clock," avoiding giving Cheney and Bush any pretext for confrontation before they leave office—particularly a confrontation on Russia's southern border. Thus, his frustration with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has a penchant for reacting to every Anglo-American provocation with a predictable counter-provocation.

It is in this context that the British Cornwall incident must be judged.

Russian Warnings of Imminent Attack
Putin's own concerns about an imminent war have been echoed, repeatedly, in the Russian media over the past several weeks. One sensational article by military commentator Andrei Uglanov, published in the tabloid newspaper Argumenty Nedeli, headlined that an attack would be launched on Iran at precisely 4 a.m. on April 6. The date is significant because it is Good Friday in both the Orthodox and Western churches this year. The story played up Vice President Dick Cheney's recent AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) speech, promising that "all options are on the table" against Iran. Uglanov claimed that the air campaign against Iran was code-named "Operation Bite."

On March 21, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, former head of the Russian Defense Ministry's foreign relations department, gave an interview to RIIA Novosti, in which he gave credence to Uglanov's warnings of an imminent strike against Iran, stating his own conviction that an American air attack on Iran is a done deal. RIIA Novosti reported that, "Ivashov did not exclude that the Pentagon may use tactical nuclear weapons." Ivashov cited the recent withdrawal of an amendment to the supplemental Iraq War budget in the U.S. House of Representatives, that would have mandated that President Bush come to the Congress before any military agression of any kind against Iran, as alarming further evidence of a war consensus in Washington.

And again on March 27, Novosti cited an unnamed Russian military intelligence source, stating that, "the latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran." The intelligence official said that the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf was back to levels that were reached on the eve of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Indeed, on April 2, the USS Nimitz-led carrier group was scheduled to leave San Diego, bound for the Persian Gulf, ostensibly to replace the USS Eisenhower. By early May, the Nimitz is expected to arrive in the Persian Gulf, thus creating the possibility of the United States having three carrier groups in the region. The Pentagon insists that the Eisenhower is scheduled to leave the Gulf waters prior to the arrival of the Nimitz, but any kind of crisis could lead to the orders being rescinded or delayed.

Furthermore, according to a well-placed Israeli source, the Russians are not merely talking up the war danger, but are quietly airlifting modern military equipment into Syria, in anticipation of a possible renewed Israeli military offensive against Hezbollah positions inside Lebanon, that would also include attacks against Syria.

The Re-Balkanization of the Balkans?
Russian President Putin's concerns over a possible global showdown in the Persian Gulf have also been fueled by saber-rattling from London and Washington over the Kosovo situation, along with the Bush Administration's announced plans to place ABM equipment in Central Europe in the future.

A report to the UN Secretary General on Kosovo's future was recently completed by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, calling for de jure independence. Russia has said it will veto such a proposal if it is presented at the Security Council.

In response, former U.S. Balkan envoy Richard Holbrooke penned a provocative op-ed in the March 13 Washington Post, threatening that if there is "a Russian veto in the Security Council, or an effort to water down or delay Ahtisaari's plan, the fragile peace in Kosovo will evaporate within days, and a new wave of violence—possibly even another war—will erupt. Accusing Russia of "defying" the United States, Holbrooke, who makes no secret of the fact that he covets the post of Secretary of State if the Democrats win back the White House in November 2008, demanded that President Bush "weigh in strongly with Putin," warning that "if Russia blocks the Ahtisaari plan, the chaos that follows will be Moscow's responsibility and will affect other aspects of Russia's relationship with the West."

Soon after the Holbrooke fit, The Economist chimed in with an editorial, in its March 24 edition, saying "Kosovo is heading for independence, whatever the Russians say or do."

Former Russian Prime Minster Yevgeni Primakov, now a top foreign-policy advisor to President Putin, penned his own reply to Holbrooke and the Brits in the Moscow News of March 23, under the headline "Opening Pandora's Box in Kosovo?" Primakov, just back from a trip to Belgrade, Serbia, made direct reference to Holbrooke's op-ed, writing, "While I was in Belgrade, Richard Holbrooke made a statement, predicting that delay in resolving the Kosovo issue would lead to more bloodshed. 'This is not an analysis, but a scenario,' a senior Serb government official said." Primakov went on to warn of a Kosovo conflict triggering a renewed Balkan war, spreading to Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia—what Lyndon LaRouche called the "re-Balkanization of the Balkans."

Bibi's Latest Moves
Well-placed Israeli sources within the Kadima ruling coalition party have also warned EIR that former Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is making serious political moves to return to power, and that he has assured Vice President Cheney that, if he takes over again, he will be prepared to launch military strikes against both Iran and Syria—in full coordination with Washington.

The sources warned that within weeks, the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is likely to fall. Sometime in the second half of April, the Winograd Commission, appointed last September by Olmert to probe the disastrous July 2006 war in Lebanon, will issue an interim report. The report will focus on the roles of Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and former Chief of Staff Gen. Dan Halutz in the military fiasco. The Winograd Commission is widely expected to call for Peretz's resignation as Defense Minister, and to trigger such a deep crisis that Olmert will be forced out.

According to an April 1 Jewish Telegraph Agency wire, Likud chief Netanyahu is already negotiating with Kadima Knesset members to back his move to stage a no-confidence vote. With 61 votes, Netanyahu would claim the Premiership, or call for early elections.

The Israeli source reports about renewed Netanyahu-Cheney collusion are unquestionably true. On March 12, Netanyahu was in Washington for the annual convention of AIPAC. He used the occasion to hold a private behind-closed-doors meeting with the Vice President, the content of which, according to the Israeli sources, was a deal to hit Iran.

In his brief speech at AIPAC, Netanyahu resumed the theme of his 2006 speech: It is 1938, and Iran is Germany. Netanyahu railed that the entire world is "imperiled" by Iran's quest for a nuclear bomb. "Ahmadinejad is going for genocide, and we have to stop genocide," Bibi screamed, to roaring applause from the crowd. And in a not-so-veiled threat of Israeli attacks against Iranian sites, Netanyahu continued, "no one will protect the Jews if the Jews don't protect themselves."

LaRouche Skeptical About Arab Peace Initiative
In an apparent counterpoint to the rising war danger in the Persian Gulf, the Arab League convened in Riyadh, on March 28-29, and offered a public olive branch to Israel. In his opening speech to the gathering, Saudi King Abdullah called for regional solutions to the manifold crises hitting the Middle East, declaring that "the winds of hope will blow on the [Arab] nation, and then, we will not allow forces from outside the region to determine the future." Denouncing the U.S. presence in Iraq as "illegitimate foreign occupation," where "ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," the King demanded justice for the Palestinian people. The conference as a whole endorsed the 2002 Abdullah Plan, which offered a framework for peace with Israel.

The summit meeting was attended by a number of observers, including Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who met with 14 heads of state and other senior officials, including the Saudi King, Syrian President Bashar Assad, and Pakistani President Musharraf.

While the presence of Mottaki and the overall push for regional peace and stability, on the surface, cut against the British drive to foment a permanent Sunni versus Shi'ite conflict, LaRouche cautioned that the prominent role of Saudi National Security Advisor Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, the long-time Saudi Ambassador in Washington and an ally of Cheney, led him to view the summit outcome with great reservation. Given the forces consciously driving for war, in both London and Washington, the actions at the summit were hardly a check on the war drive. And with Prince Bandar in the middle of the effort, LaRouche warned, "something stinks."

Muriel Mirak-Weissbach and Rachel Douglas contributed substantially to this article.

Monday, April 02, 2007


I watched the moon rise and shine at dusk yesterday, and it made me remember one or two things.


Taking 9/11 and/or 7/7 on their own is not the approach to take to solve the mystery of “whodunit?”

The events of those days have been claimed by some to be false-flag acts of terror. There are examples of this throughout history, and I will briefly describe some later. But these same events also fit into a general pattern of violent events in modern history, e.g. world wars and revolutions, which have ultimately benefited a small group of people. These can all be traced back to a group of people we know as The New World Order.

How is it that such a small group of people could cause so much mayhem for the majority of people and gain so much power?

Modern history, and by that I mean the last 300 or so years, has been dominated by this self-appointed elite called The New World Order. They can cause global chaos and war because they have the power to create virtually unlimited amounts of money for themselves and their cronies via a banking system known as fractional reserve banking which can be used to finance certain industries and extremist political parties that incite violence against particular sections of society and the globe. With this knowledge we can then begin to “follow the money”, and we will find that all trails lead back to one bank in particular, The Federal Reserve.

The biggest financial fraud ever foisted upon mankind is The Federal Reserve of the USA. It is not a part of the US Government, as its name may suggest, but is in fact a privately owned bank, or to be more accurate, a cartel such as NatWest and HSBC could form, but with the appearance of being part of the Government and with the monopoly on creating the currency for the nation. The same trick was used for creating The Bank of England, which until 1946 was also privately owned and not part of the British Government as its name would suggest.

Major events need major sources of finance. The general public of the UK can raise approximately £20 million for Red Nose Day, a once a year event for charity. This is peanuts when compared to the sums that the international bankers can raise. So one has to ask where did the money come from for dictators such as Hitler and Stalin? There was no “Hitler Day” in Germany for Germans to raise funds for Hitler and the Nazi Party. There was no “Stalin Day” in Soviet Russia for a similar purpose. These people and the political movements they represent got their money from somewhere.

But where?

I will not name them by name here but some readers should know of whom I speak.

One particular family controls a bank which is a major stockholder in The Federal Reserve. It has such a huge advantage over most banks in the USA because it has so much financial clout. Although all the banks in the USA can create money the bank this family controls can create a far greater sum of money than most of the other banks could ever dream of due to its position in The Federal Reserve system. This bank can create money for corporations which would never be able to raise the money for a particular enterprise or nation, due to perhaps moral reasons of other banks, or simply that the initial capital for the planned enterprise or nation would be beyond the means of most banks.

The current banking system is simply a way in which the banks actually create money for themselves, but use the public to give it back over a number of years, through loans for example, AND with interest! For example a bank with $1000 in its vault could create $9,000 in loans and then receive that money back over several years, so that after several years the bank has effectively created money for itself and has $10,000 plus interest. Hopefully you can see that after the $9,000 has been paid back the bank can then loan out $90,00, and when that is all paid back the bank can then loan out $900,000 etc etc etc. The bank doesn’t have to loan, but does so because in a few years time it gets the money back it simply created “with a flick of the pen”, as stated by former Director of the Bank of England, Josiah Stamp.

Recently there have been reports that oil and banking corporations have enjoyed record profits…AGAIN!

This family of whom I speak controls at least one bank in the Federal Reserve cartel. They also control at least one of the major US oil corporations who have recently announced record profits.

So with all this profit, from banking and oil, what could you do with it?

Cancer Research? Charity? Write off Third World debt?

Hmm. Look around you. There’s not much of that going on.

But war needs money.

And the Politicians who take us into war need money. Their election campaigns need money. Their offices need money. Their assistants need money.

War is the greatest catalyst for a change in society.

If you can create money you can control who becomes our leading politicians, who then decide if we go to war.

This is what happens at meetings of Bilderberg and the Council on Foreign Relations, both created with the assistance of this family and their partners-in-crime, where informal interviews take place and attendees are encouraged to speak their minds and be honest about their intentions and beliefs so that the organisers can check certain boxes on their checklist for each attendee. If the attendee has all his or her boxes checked then he or she will go on to power, and ultimately war.

If you have the power to create money you can simply create a bit of "the green stuff" to buy a newspaper or ten to support one politician while destroying another politician.

See? It’s dead easy!

And when you can control the politicians in power you can control who they appoint.

You can suggest/dictate who becomes a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director for Homeland Security, the Director of Central Intelligence, Secretaries of State, etc, etc, etc.

And when you control the Pentagon and the CIA you can then influence which clandestine projects go live or are killed. Surveillance and black ops can be run in the name of “national security”, so that what is believed to be a system of intelligence and military for the benefit of the nation is in fact a private intelligence and military operation, with certain people given access to prime intelligence, while we, i.e. the general public, get the lies we are encouraged to believe by the media which is owned by the same group of elite people. Assassinations, and even invasions, in the name of “national security”, following months of propaganda in the newspapers you own, can be beneficial to private individuals.

And with such profits comes the ability to create think tanks to influence the opinion and policy of governments, besides the general public, who can also be influenced by the propaganda in the newspapers and TV which you own.

It really is that simple.

This family of whom I speak, who part control the Federal Reserve and control major oil corporations, have created several such think tanks. As have their banker/industrialist pals. One project this family funded was that of Alfred Kinsey, who published research claiming that the average US citizen was really a sexually depraved animal. It was later discovered that his research was largely based on interviews with criminals and convicted sex offenders. This is just one example of how pubic opinion can be influenced. We are now seeing the sexualisation of children, and sex on TV, particularly Channel 4, more frequently, although the BBC chipped in with a series about lesbians which contained one scene depicting oral sex between two lesbians, which was shown shortly after 9pm. The aim of such programmes is to destroy love, to kill it, annihilate it, utterly and completely.

Look around you! Our “Labour” government has just proposed a cut in real-terms in the wages of nurses. Yet there seems to be no problem in financing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why?

I can state this with confidence because the people who have this power to create virtually unlimited amounts of money do not use it for the benefit of mankind, but instead use it to create monsters such as Hitler and Stalin and have them fight in world wars. Sure, they create charitable funds which due to the total sum of the funds which are donated give the appearance that the charity is enormous and the donors are nice. But what may appear to be a huge amount of money in one sum to us, when distributed in much smaller sums to projects all over the world, is actually very little, and may well just about sustain the recipients until the following year, when the same handout is begged for and possibly donated again, or not. But little mention is made of the system which was implemented by the same “charitable” donors which has reduced national economies around the globe to one of debt slavery from which they cannot escape.

The pieces of the jigsaw are gradually being put into place.

An expanded NATO, extending its sphere of influence so it now bombs kids in Afghanistan to death.

An expanded EU, now considering including Israel, as is NATO. Israel is in the Middle East, but Article V of the NATO treaty could be used for a third world war.

A North American Union between Mexico, the USA and Canada is in the pipeline, with the new currency the Amero being discussed openly, and a new superhighway to transport goods between Mexico and Canade via certain states in the USA now being built.

Global problems such as drugs, terrorism and climate change are highlighted in the media which we are told all require global solutions.

Real power is becoming more and more centralised.

Control and surveillance of society in general are about to take major leap into civil rights with RFID chips on ID cards, and ultimately the human-implantable microchip for all of us (well, all except the agents of the NWO).

We are undoubtedly advancing towards a powerful world government with centralised control. Some would argue we have one already; the UN. I would argue that the UN is a world-government-in-waiting. It has some powers over national sovereignty, but does not yet have total control.

But where did this organization, the UN, come from?

And what could make it even more powerful?

As I have stated before here is what can be proved beyond doubt.

World War 1 was planned by the British Monarchy. Prince Edward, before he became King Edward VII, was Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), and while occupying this position he spent years isolating Germany in preparation for a war on the European mainland. This was recognised by European newspapers before WW1. Archduke Ferdinand knew that Freemasonry wanted him dead. Many of the assassins of Ferdinand were Freemasons, and at their trial they testified to the encouragement and assistance they received from Freemasonry. They were members of a revolutionary terrorist organization, Young Europe, created by a 33rd Degree Freemason and British Agent, Giuseppe Mazzini. Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote after the war in his memoirs that a distinguished German Freemason had told him that Freemasonry wanted to destroy Germany and Austro-Hungary in preparation for a European Superstate. In 1916 the British and French were on the verge of defeat, but due mainly to the highly suspicious sinking of The Lusitania which eventually dragged the USA into the war, the USA was able to legally loan the Allies billions of dollars and send its military to France which guaranteed the defeat of Germany.

And who benefited from this? The people controlling the privately-owned cartel, The Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve system allows the Federal Reserve Families to create the money for the US government, and from the government bonds to then create much more money for their private operations, leading to astronomical profits which was used to fund think tanks, buy newspapers, buy politicians etc etc etc. So with large government bonds in their vaults the Federal Reserve Families were rolling in money and blood.

After WW1 the powers met at Versailles, Paris, France, to discuss the organization of the post-war world. The representatives of the Allies were dominated by the Rothschilds, who are the prime power in the Federal Reserve. Germany was blackmailed into signing the Treaty of Versailles, in which Germany accepted the blame for starting the war and was thus bound to pay reparations. Germany’s military was also severely restricted by the Treaty. There was also an attempt at world government, The League of Nations. The Rockefellers donated land for the HQ of the League in Geneva. However, the United States voted against signing up to The League, despite Wilson almost killing himself through exhaustion from a national speaking tour (paid for by whom?) to convince America that it needed to cede sovereignty to a world government, The League of Nations.

So Hitler was brought to power. At first Hitler, and then Hitler’s Reich, received substantial financial, industrial and ideological support from Wall Street, and The City of London. IG Farben was created by Wall Street, had strong links to Wall Street and The Federal Reserve via its board members, and was given the technology to manufacture oil and rubber by Wall Street to prosecute a long war on the European mainland because Germany had no access to major reliable sources of either.

Hitler’s stated enemy was “The Jews”, and he directed this hatred against Communist Russia. The Bolshevik Revolution was itself a product of Wall Street and City of London manipulation. Jacob Schiff took personal credit for financing the revolutions that eventually brought down the Romanovs. Trotsky and many of his friends were detained by Canadian authorities and were found to be travelling with substantial quantities of money and some very-well connected friends with friendships leading straight to the White House! Trotsky was given an American Passport by Wilson. Trotsky was released from detention at the request of the British Admiralty and continued his journey to Russia for the “re-revolution” (this was after Freemason Kerensky had taken power). Lenin was sent into Russia as part of a German Intelligence operation sanctioned by Bethmann-Hollweg, the Freemason cousin of the Rothschilds, who had urged Austria to declare war instead of following diplomacy. Following their coup d’etat Lenin and Trotsky were supervised by British Agent Bruce Lockhart and American Raymond Robbins. British Agent Captain George Hill created the Cheka, which helped the Bolsheviks retain control in the following civil war. In return for giving the Bolsheviks such support Wall Street was awarded the bulk of the contracts to build Soviet Russia, as testified to by Stalin himself.

Thus in World War 2 the two antagonists, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, were created by Wall Street with a little help from The City of London and its agents. And how could this be? Because The Federal Reserve is a money-creating machine, and its controllers had the power to create such opposites and wanted to create those two opposites to fight each other in a war larger than World War 1. The purpose of that was to drag the USA into yet another major world war, but this one would need to be longer and bloodier than the first so that after such a long and bloody war the USA would vote for a world governing body to stop the wars the Federal Reserve Families were fomenting and financing in the first place! Yet by late 1941, two years of war between the USSR/UK and the Nazis was still not enough to coax the USA to join the war. So FDR, at the suggestion of Winston Churchill, provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbour. FDR and his inner circle knew the Japanese fleet was sailing full steam ahead to Pearl Harbour because the super-secret Japanese codes had been broken, but FDR did not tell Pearl Harbour. And so on that day of infamy the USA was dragged into World War 2. FDR was a very good friend of Wall Street.

Towards the end of the war Freemasons FDR, Stalin and Churchill met at Yalta to discuss how to divide the world up between them.

And after nearly six years of world war, with millions dead and with two atomic bombs unnecessarily dropped on Japan, the war finally ended and post-war construction began.

Due to the much larger number of deaths of US military than in WW1 the USA willingly signed up to a world governing body, The United Nations. And once again the Rockefellers, one of the Federal Reserve Families, donated land for the HQ of this world-government-in-waiting in New York, despite financing the USA war effort through the Federal Reserve.

Also created were the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These institutions have since helped to create the Third World and to keep it in debt slavery to the Federal Reserve Families. In fact it is not just the Third World, but most of the world.

The holocaust of World War 2 enabled the Zionists to muster some support for their Zionist claim to Israel, but not enough. Middle Eastern nations declared that they would wage war on any Zionist state in Palestine. So Israel was created by the Zionists terrorizing Palestinians off their land, declaring Eretz Israel and being recognised by the USA and the USSR. But where did the Zionists get the finance for their military training and arms? Who can create money?

Since then the ultra-rich have gotten very much richer, power has been taken from the people and centralised, and a war between Zionism and Islam is threatening and has been threateneing, a war more terrible than World War 2, no doubt resulting in frequent use of WMD of all sorts against millions of not billions of innocent civilians

But all this is not accident.

This was planned, at the very latest by the end of the 19th Century, when Zionists began to settle in Palestine and the Zionist movement began to receive substantial financial assistance.

But who could finance such a movement? It’s simple really. People who can create virtually unlimited amounts of money.

Once you understand that there are people who
1. can create virtually unlimited amounts of money, and then
2. use that power for their own desire for world governance,
modern history makes so much more sense, doesn’t it?

World War 1 was all about taking control of Palestine from the Ottomans and pass control to Great Britain, under the control of the Rothschilds, who would then flood Palestine with Jews. The Ottomans and Germany knew what would happen if mass Jewsish immigration into Palestine was permitted and opposed it, as did most Jews. Germany and Austria offered some resistance to the plans for a European superstate and world governance so they had to be destroyed to get the idea of a world government established.

World War 2 was all about creating Israel and the reason to support its existence (the holocaust) once it was created, as well as establishing mechanisms for some national sovereignty to be ceded to international organizations, e.g. UN, and for a financial stranglehold over the world status quo in the post-war world so that no serious threat to “the great plan” could arise.

With some international organizations created for finance and law it will be easier and quicker for a world government to be created.

But what could speed up the process of world governance? Another world war!

We have seen that WW1 and WW2 were all about creating the international organizations we now have for world dominance, not total control, and to create the friction which would be used to foment WW3. That friction is to be manufactured between Zionism and Islam.

The Jewish immigration into Palestine angered Islam. Germany and the Ottomans and most Jewry opposed it. But because the Zionists had the backing of the people who can create virtually unlimited amounts of money the Zionists were able to gain financial and political support for their plan, and when they couldn’t get what they wanted then the Zionists just stole what they wanted.

World War 3 will be about destroying all national sovereignty, love and religion. Israel was created specifically for the purpose of starting World War 3, with its very aggressive desire for expansion, which creates huge anger within the Islamic world, particularly in the near-Middle East, as Israel treats Palestinians not much better than the Nazis treated the Jews.

And who supported this Zionist movement in its infancy, continues to support it, and at several times in the last century was its leaders? The Rothschilds.

And who are the major powers in The Federal Reserve? The Rothschilds.

What does that give them? The power to create virtually unlimited quantities of money.

And did they agree to pay Hitler’s ransom to save Jews? No.

One has to ask, why?

They could finance World Wars and Zionism through the Federal Reserve, but not pay the ransom demanded by Hitler to save tens of thousands of Jews? Hmm.

There’s something not right about that, is there?

In order to expand the Israel/Palestinian conflict beyond the Middle East, the Zionists have been allowed to dominate the administration of the USA. Thus the USA sustains Israel with money from…The Federal Reserve. Yes, it’s there again, that bottomless pit that the Federal Reserve Families can dip into whenever they need any money for anything whatsoever, except for making the world a better, safer place to live in.

So with Israel and its main supporter the USA (and to some degree the UK) on one side, and Islam on the other, what would it take to spark a major war between them?

Hmm. Maybe something like…9/11?

A bloody event, a “new Pearl Harbor”, that would give the Anglo-American Establishment a reason to send significant sections of its military into the Middle East with the support of most of the Anglo-American people. In certain media it could also be portrayed as a crusade.

Before 9/11, in the mid-1990’s, a report was published entitled, “A Clean Break”, composed by among others David and Meyrav Wurmser, Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, and aimed at the then Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. It basically called for all-out war by Israel on some of Israel’s neighbours.

A similar document published a few years later by the Project for a New American Century entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” basically called for the USA to prosecute multiple, simultaneous wars across the globe, particularly in the Middle East (where Israel and oil are).

There are very significant links between the authors of “A Clean Break” and the authors of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. In fact Cheney, a co-founder of PNAC, employed Douglas Feith, co-author of “A Clean Break”, to produce cherry-picked, unsubstantiated and unverified intelligence via The Office of Special Plans to support a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq following 9/11so that Iraq could be invaded.

And on 9/11 Netanyahu was asked what the events of that day meant to Israel. He replied that 9/11 would be very good for Israel, and that it would generate immediate sympathy for Israel.

And we now see why, over 5 years after 9/11, Netanyahu said 9/11 would be very good for Israel.

The targets for Israeli aggression named in “A Clean Break” were Iraq and Lebanon, along with Syria and Iran.

Lebanon has been bombed back to the stone age in a ridiculous over-reaction to a contrived kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, and Iraq has been invaded and Iraq’s oil is going to…c’mon. Take a guess.

And now the USA is threatening primarily Iran, but also Syria.

On 9/11 the Bush Administration was dominated by Israel-firsters and supporters, many of whom were members of or linked to The Project for a New American Century.

The Project for a New American Century was co-founded by, among others, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. On 9/11 Cheney was Vice-President, Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and Wolfowitz was Rumsfeld’s Deputy. Perle was also in the Pentagon.

On 9/11 either Rumsfeld or Cheney had the power to order a shoot down. No such order came, despite there being fighters on permanent stand-by based at Andrews Air Force Base just 10 miles from The Pentagon. There is some doubt about the location of Cheney and Rumsfeld between 9am and 10am on the morning of 9/11 because conflicting testimony was given to the 9/11 Commission.

There is also some doubt about the location of the United Stated Air Force on the morning of 9/11!

Where was it?

There were a number of terrorist drills that morning, all run by Dick Cheney. So wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that Cheney’s location that morning should be well-known, or at least verifiable? And that he should know the locations of parts of the USAF?

Certain persons had the motive, the opportunity and stood to benefit greatly from 9/11. Indeed, PNAC had called for “a New Pearl Harbor” to justify the aggression they so desired for multiple, simultaneous wars of aggression. Such persons are usually prime suspects in criminal investigations.

This is not so with 9/11. Why?

We now know that Pearl Harbour 1941 was (a) provoked, and (b) allowed to happen. It allowed FDR to declare war on the Axis powers with the consent of the American people, something he had been trying to do without success for a long time.

Is it possible that 9/11 was “a new Pearl Harbor”?

Is Pearl Harbour 1941 the only example of an act of terror committed by a government against its own people?

Here are a few, including Pearl Harbour;

JFK and the Gulf of Tonkin - led to the Vietnam War. JFK (who didn't want war) was shot by a lone gunman (or three in a triangulation of crossfire) and replaced by Johnson (who wanted war). Shortly after this the Gulf of Tonkin event occured, or didn't as has now been proved. 60,000 US soldiers died, and hundreds of billions of dollars was spent on a 10 year long war. These are two events which people believed the official version of at the time, but which have now been debunked. Now the vast majority of Americans now believe JFK was assassinated in an act of conspiraloonacy.

Operation Northwoods - a plan signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to create false-flag acts of terror to be blamed on Cuba. Producers of the BBC jokeumentary on 9/11 did not allow Northwoods to be even mentioned in passing let alone seriously discussed. Why?

Operaton Gladio - a NATO cold-war operation which went out of control and led to acts of terror being allowed to happen or encouraged if the outcome was beneficial i.e. troublesome politicians assassinated, bombings committed by controlled left-wing extremists to throw public opinion to the right etc

USS Liberty – an attack by the Israeli Air Force on a US spy ship which was to be blamed on Egypt in order to drag the USA into the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 (and probably a failed forerunner and first attempt to expand the Zionism v Islam conflict beyond the Middle East. 9/11 cucceeded.)

Pearl Harbour (1941) - it is now known FDR gradually placed Japan in a corner to provoke a Japanese attack (at the request of Winston Churchill) and FDR and his inner circle knew about the Japanese sailing directly to Pearl Harbour, but they did not tell the commanding officers at Pearl Harbor despite their suspicions and requests for intel. In fact FDR ordered that all ships at Pearl Harbour should not leave the dock despite the Fleet Commander’s suspicions! After the attack the USA gladly signed upto WW2 and rushed into war without a thorough investigation of the Pearl Harbour attack. Sound familiar?

All these were allowed to happen, or in the case of Northwoods planned to happen, so that military action would occur and/or the police state would grow.

To me there are enough doubts about the official 9/11 story to place 9/11, PNAC’s new Pearl Harbor, among the above as an act of false-flag terrorism.

My doubts include;
no fighters scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base until it was too late
the hole in the Pentagon is too small for a 757 (check the windows either side of the small hole. They say the wings folded into the plane and evaporated!)
Cheney’s location on 9/11 is unverified, despite him running a number of terrorist drills that day (one of which mimicked a similar operation to that which occurred)
the suspicious collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7
the investigation into “the high fivers” arrested on 9/11 was quickly stopped
the FBI was ordered to drop investigations into suspected arab terrorists in the summer of 2001

This is only a fraction of my doubts. Others have more.

Just ask, cui bono?

Who is going to get all that lovely, profitable Iraqi oil, despite claims it was all going to go to the Iraqis.

Who was running all those terrorist drills on 9/11, a fact that was ignored by the commission?

Whose “A Clean Break” strategy for dealing with its neighbours and “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” strategy is being fulfilled, causing further anger in the Islamic world?

And who has “form” for this kind of thing?

If it looks like a trap, and smells like a trap, then it probably is a trap. A trap set over a century ago when the Zionists began to lay claim to Eretz Israel against the wishes of most people, including most Jewry, because most people knew what would follow. Only people of a certain type would support such a movement. They must have at least suspected that violent reactions to the aggressive actions of the Zionists would occur, and if it was suspected then the violent reactions could have been planned and/or planned for i.e. provoked.

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed in his “The War on Truth” shows that time after time after time, the so-called Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists were manipulated by the Anglo-American Establishment for geopolitical reasons. Indeed London was given the nickname “Londonistan” due to its friendliness to such people, and the CIA/Mujahideen friendship is by now legendary. When it suits them the Anglo-American Establishment can be friends with anyone for any purpose. And if so required provocations can be made, and violent reactions to the provocation allowed to occur.

Now, with all this in mind, when people express doubt about the official version of 9/11 and 7/7, is it conspiraloonacy?

9/11, and 7/7, put the citizens of the victim nations in a mood for war and curtailment of civil rights. More violence. More centralized control.

We ask, who benefits?

Is that conspiraloonacy?

Or conspiracy?