Friday, September 28, 2007


CFR Gary Hart has apparently exposed part of the whole scam in an open letter posted on a well-respected internet site, The Huffington Post.

In that letter Hart refers to several events which were engineered to drag the USA into war. He even hints, but does not explicitly state, that Pearl Harbour also belongs to this set of events.

Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II.

Maybe Hart is breaking ranks and is trying to raise the alarm of yet another engineered event.

Maybe he just lost it.

Let's see what happens to Hart now. He is on the fringe of the circles of power. He is on the advisory board of the Partnership for a Secure America, with such illuminaries as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Holbrooke, as well as the 9/11 gatekeepers Kean and Hamilton, although Kean and Hamilton are now expressing doubts about the official 9/11 myth.

I dunno. Maybe there is a something going on at the PSA? Didn't Brzezinski recently also issue a warning of a false flag attack too?


Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran

Posted September 26, 2007 | 03:22 PM (EST)
Read More: Gulf of Tonkin, iran, provoking Iran, Breaking Politics News

Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.

Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.

Given all this, you would probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces, as far away from the Iraqi border as you can. You might even consider bringing in some neighbors to verify that you are not shipping arms next door. Tone down the rhetoric on Zionism. You've established your credentials with those in your world who thrive on that.

If it makes you feel powerful to hurl accusations at the American eagle, have at it. Sticks and stones, etc. But, for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.

For the vast majority of Americans who seek no wider war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, don't tempt fate. Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country. That is unless you happen to like having bombs fall on your head.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007


The Dirty List of investors in Burma lists Chevron.


Since its 2005 takeover of Unocal, US oil giant Chevron has been one of the joint venture partners developing the Yadana offshore gas field in Burma, which earns the military regime millions of dollars. Chevron also owns Texaco.

David J. O'Reilly
Chairman and CEO
6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd.
San Ramon
CA 94583


Unocal was the company who wanted to get involved in transporting Caspian Basin energy through Afghanistan, but the Taliban were asking for too much money.

Chevron was part of the Rockefeller Standard Oil cartel. Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney have serious links to Chevron.


Even in Burma, however, Bush’s support for human rights yields to his fondness for the oil and gas industry. Burma has large natural gas reserves, and multinational oil corporations want to cash in. Chevron Corporation is currently the largest U.S. investor in Burma, with a partnership stake in the multi-billion-dollar Yadana gas pipeline project. The Yadana project was originally developed by Unocal, another American oil company, which was acquired by Chevron last year. (Although new investment in Burma is prohibited, the pipeline is grandfathered in under an exception, pushed by Unocal, for preexisting projects.)

The Yadana pipeline has been repeatedly condemned by human rights and environmental advocates as one of the most destructive “development” projects in the world. The Burmese military government is a direct partner in the project, and Burmese soldiers providing security and other services to the pipeline project have conscripted villagers for forced labor on a vast scale, as well as committing murder, rape and torture. These abuses have been widely acknowledged; before Bush took office, the U.S. Department of Labor concluded that “refugee accounts of forced labor” on the project “appear to be credible.”

The Bush administration has close ties to Chevron. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a member of the Chevron Board of Directors for 10 years before Bush was elected, and even had a Chevron oil tanker named for her until it was quietly renamed after Bush took office. And Halliburton, the oilfield services giant formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has numerous ties to Chevron, signing several multimillion-dollar contracts during Cheney’s tenure. And yet there is no evidence that the Bush administration has used its connections to convince Chevron to divest its Burmese holdings, despite the evidence of abuses committed on the Yadana project and Bush’s public position on promoting human rights and democracy.

Indeed, even before Chevron acquired Unocal and the Yadana project, Bush’s government actively took steps to thwart accountability for the Yadana project. When refugees who had suffered rape, torture, enslavement, and murder at the hands of soldiers protecting the Yadana pipeline sued Unocal in U.S. court, the Bush administration intervened to try to convince the courts that the lawsuit should not proceed. The administration essentially argued that, even if the case would not actually interfere with U.S. relations with Burma, holding Unocal liable would create a precedent that could conflict with U.S. foreign policy in other parts of the world. (The lawsuit, Doe v. Unocal Corp., was ultimately resolved before the courts considered the administration's position, with Unocal compensating the victims in a historic settlement—see


And then there's the opium/heroin link. According to the CIA factbook Burma is the world's second largest producer of opium.

Until the coalition of the killing invaded Afghanistan the Taliban had virtually eradicated opium production. But now Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of the stuff.


[Burma] remains world's second largest producer of illicit opium with an estimated production in 2005 of 380 metric tons, up 13% from 2004 and cultivation in 2005 was 40,000 hectares, a 10% increase from 2004; the decline in opium production in the United Wa State Army's areas of greatest control was more than offset by increases in south and east Shan state; lack of government will to take on major narcotrafficking groups and lack of serious commitment against money laundering continues to hinder the overall antidrug effort; major source of methamphetamine and heroin for regional consumption; currently under Financial Action Task Force countermeasures due to continued failure to address its inadequate money-laundering controls (2005)


Certain New World Order families were and probably still are the major dealers in heroin and other narcotics.

So it would appear that the Burmese "evil and wicked Military Junta", as I heard a British government official refer to the Burmese dictatorship, is serving the New World Order well enough; it is co-operating with Chevron to develop the large Burmese natural gas fields, and it is not doing that much to eradicate the opium and heroin production.

Contrast that with what the Taliban did; despite being wooed to the USA they wanted much more money than Unocal would have liked, and they also destroyed the opium industry. In 2001 no evidence was provided that Afghanistan was involved in 9/11, and in 2002 was invaded and the Taliban were overthrown.

Sunday, September 23, 2007


Why would Kissinger tell the truth (if he indeed he is)? And why now?

I would like to offer another reason as to why Kissinger, and Greenspan, claim that oil is the reason for invading Iraq, and soon Iran. The real reason for the turmoil in the Middle East is beginning to be realised by a large number of powerful Americans: Pike's WW3, in which possibly billions will die, but it is guaranteed the USA will no longer exist in the form we know today. These patriotic men and women, getting cold feet for more war, need a little encouragement, a little persuading, to carry on the good fight. So why not feed 'em the peak oil/America needs oil line?

The oil grab is a profitable sideline for certain people, and is probably what drives Cheney. But even Cheney does not know what others higher up in the food chain plan and discuss behind closed doors. Perhaps he doesn't care. He sees big $'s dripping in oil.

Major world events do not occur for one reason only. On September 11th 2001 nearly 3000 people died. It was on a scale comparable to Pearl Harbour. That led the USA into 3 1/2 years of bloody war ending with the unnecessary dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.

Are we to believe that the NWO executed 9/11 simply for oil? I don't.



Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who live in the reality-based world: the Iraq War was largely about oil.

Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.

These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Friday, September 21, 2007


To most people, war is a terrible thing.
But to some, it makes their evil hearts sing,
as the cash registers ring, kerching, kerching.
But to most people, war is a terrible thing.

It’s time to make money when blood runs in the street,
and the sheeple continue to fight and bleat,
and follow their orders, turn humans to dead meat,
humans they would otherwise befriend and greet.

Chickenhawk leaders send others to fight
their engineered wars after engineered fright,
and bury the dead at the dead of night,
but more are beginning to see the light.

An engineered war is a terrible thing.
It wreaks of corruption and an unworthy king,
installed by deception and vote rigging,
while the cash registers ring, kerching, kerching.

(All rights reserved 2007)

Thursday, September 20, 2007


Shortly after the coalition of the killing invaded Iraq, killing a million innocent civilians and creating the ideal conditions for a civil war to be blamed on the next target for invasion, a story was promoted that Iraq's WMD had been secreted to Syria.

There were allegations that a caravan of vehicles had been photographed transporting the WMD.

Whatever happened to that allegation?

In 1996 "A Clean Break" was published by an Israeli think tank, calling for expansion and inevitable war on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. The authors later obtained influential positions in the Bush administration.

Lebanon was attacked last year, with DU and cluster bombs.

Iraq was invaded by the USA and its gimps.

Now Bush is blaming Syria and Iran for the bomb in Lebanon which killed the anti-Syrian MP Antoine Ghanem.

EVERYTHING in the Middle East is about "A Clean Break".

EVERYTHING about "A Clean Break" is about bringing about Albert Pike's WW3 by creating friction between Islam and Judeo-Christianity.



US President George W. Bush condemned the murder of pro-Lebanese government lawmaker, Antoine Ghanem, who was killed in an explosion in Beirut on Wednesday.

Bush hinted that Syria and Iran were responsible for the attack, promising that the US would continue to stand behind Lebanon and support its opposition to Syrian and Iranian efforts to destabilize the country.

The powerful bomb killed Ghanem and six others Wednesday in a Christian neighborhood of Beirut, threatening to derail Parliament's already deeply divided effort to elect Lebanon's next president in voting due to start in days.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007


Non-lethal weapons are very sinister. They are being introduced into society as a way of saving lives. But they are also ideal for harrasment and torture, for they leave no trace of use on a victim.

A copper armed with a gun cannot shoot you if he/she doesn't like you, because there will be blood and a bullet hole.

But with a ray gun they can zap you, cause you great pain, and then walk away.

Taser guns were introduced as a non-lethal alternative to guns. They are now being used on people asking awkward questions to senators.

How long will it take before ray guns are used in similar and less threatening circumstances?



Its makers [Raytheon] claim this infernal machine is the modern face of warfare. It has a nice, friendly sounding name, Silent Guardian.

I am told not to call it a ray-gun, though that is precisely what it is (the term "pain gun" is maybe better, but I suppose they would like that even less).

And, to be fair, the machine is not designed to vaporise, shred, atomise, dismember or otherwise cause permanent harm.

But it is a horrible device nonetheless, and you are forced to wonder what the world has come to when human ingenuity is pressed into service to make a thing like this.

Silent Guardian is making waves in defence circles. Built by the U.S. firm Raytheon, it is part of its "Directed Energy Solutions" programme.

Saturday, September 15, 2007


The FSA has a webpage on scams and swindles.


We are aware of a several bogus communications – claiming to be from various employees of the FSA – which ask the recipient for personal information and/or money.

These communications are often in the form of emails or letters and they sometimes use the name of a current or former FSA employee. They are likely to be linked to organised fraud and we strongly advise that you do not respond to them in any way.

Here are some recent examples:

* Bogus letter from John Tiner
* Email 1
* Email 2
* Letter 1
* Letter 2

For details of many other types of fraud visit our scams and swindles page of information for consumers.

Should you have any doubt about the authenticity of an ‘FSA communication’, please contact the relevant telephone number below:

Authorised firms
From UK: 0845 606 9966 (call rates may vary)

From UK: 0845 606 1234 (call rates may vary)

Overseas callers
+44 20 7066 1000


Wot? No mention of the British Banking system?

Oh, yeah. The FSA is financed by the British Banking system.


The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is an independent non-governmental body, given statutory powers by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We are a company limited by guarantee and financed by the financial services industry. The Treasury appoints the FSA Board, which currently consists of a Chairman, a Chief Executive Officer, three Managing Directors, and 9 non-executive directors (including a lead non-executive member, the Deputy Chairman). This Board sets our overall policy, but day-to-day decisions and management of the staff are the responsibility of the Executive.


Apparently, one of the statutory objectives of the FSA is;

public awareness: promoting public understanding of the financial system

A big, red F for that one.




World of Sport.

Actors acting at Wrestling.

22 men or women kicking a piece of leather around a field (and swearing and spitting alot too).

An unknown teenage girl balancing and spinning on a beam in a far-off and strange country.

Some men and women running around and around and around an athletics track.

It's all so, so sad.

All that time and energy spent preparing to beat someone else. Not physically beat them (though that is the case in boxing, martial arts etc.), just be in that "I'm going to beat you" frame of mind.

Is sport good or bad?

Sport can keep you physically fit, emotionally happier.
But it can also dominate your life so much you lose any sense of reality, and instead focus on chasing a ball about, or jumping further or higher than anyone else, etc.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men, women and children will be driving up and down the country today to participate in or watch, some form of sport. For what? What is it? Is it the adrenalin rush from either playing or watching? Is adrenalin the most addictive chemical?

I used to be one of them. I loved playing football as a kid. I was good too. But lying in the bath after I used to ask myself, what is it all about? Parents of schoolchildren screaming at their kids to knobble another kid on the opposing team. I mean, what can all that be about? Except creating a destructive, violent and aggressive energy.

Sport could be very good for the human race, to keep it fit and active and relatively sober. But in our current situation, should sport be relegated?

Wednesday, September 12, 2007


They're going to the Iranian border instead!!

Amid all the bugle calls and cries of retreat, several hundred British troops are actually going to the Iranian border start WW3.

I have zero trust, at best, in our top military and politicians, particularly after the debacle earlier this year when some sailors were captured somewhere off the coast of Iran, or was it Iraq? They're all corrupt.

Corrupt leaders feasting off a bankrupt system looking for a way to throw all of us into the shithole they've dug for us, while they stand at the side pissing all over us, and laughing their heads off at how gullible and stupid the human race is.

And if the British-troops-getting-killed-on-the-Iranian-border trick doesn't work there's always the Israelis retaliating against Syria, who retaliated against Israel for Israel violating Syrian airspace and dropping bombs on Syria a week ago.

Saturday, September 08, 2007



September 8, 2007 (LPAC) - At the International Ambrosetti Workshop in Cernobbio, Italy, international bankers and economists discussed how much the international financial system has already disintegrated, and which large bank will announce bankruptcy first, the Italian daily Corriere della Sera reports today.

According to Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, at least 1.3 trillion dollars have evaporated. At least one large bank will go bust, Rogoff says, adding that Moody's could go bankrupt too: "They make 45% of their profits with ratings on high-risk assets." But nobody knows where the largest holes are. "Not even the banks know that," says Alessandro Mitrovich of the Royal Bank of Scotland. "Even if we sat around a table, we would not get a picture of the situation."


Just as serious questions about government foreknowledge of 7/7 were being asked in mainstream media, a young girl on holiday in Portugal went missing and became front page news for weeks.

And just as the survivors and relatives of victims of 7/7 receive their predictable denial of an inquiry into 7/7, the mother and father of the missing girl are named as suspects in her disappearance.

Any link?

I watched BBC 6 O Clock news last night. Nearly the first half of it was on the McCanns. The next item lasted 2 minutes on the report on the FMD outbreak at Pirbright.

Friday, September 07, 2007


So Israel violates Syrian airspace and drops bombs on Syrian territory and little is said about it.

Russian planes fly in international airspace in exercises announced well in advance and they are "escorted" by NATO planes and the incident is headline news reported as naked Russian aggression.

Who wants war?

Some people do.


Because the financial system cannot hold together much longer. It wasn't designed to. It was designed to last just long enough to give certain psychos enough power to finance international wars and institutions to centralize control before "the big one", the final war to end all wars for the final power grab.

All this posturing and the provocations are in preparation for it.

Most people don't want war. However, some do.

I am not sure our government is wise enough to see the traps.

Monday, September 03, 2007



Post-war planning was spot-on, to embroil Iraq in a civil war for at least two purposes;
1. while Iraqis are at each others throats they won't protest against the Anglo-American oil corporations stealing Iraqi oil.
2. the civil war can be blamed on Iran, giving a pretext for war on another member of "the axis of evil".

Saturday, September 01, 2007


At the memorial for Diana yesterday the Bishop of London said, "Let it end here".

Whether this was a request to cease the exploitation of Diana, or to cease the conspiracy-mongering, I am unsure. Maybe it was both.

On Thursday night, on the eve of the memorial, Newsnight did not run its own dedication to Diana. Instead it questioned why a mainstream newspaper ran so many Diana conspiracy headlines.

But if the Bishop of London's remarks were regarding the conspiracy-mongering, may I remind you the memorial yesterday was for a woman who died TEN YEARS AGO.

Not only that, she was mother to two Princes, and could have been a Queen.

How is it that after ten years there has been no inquest into the death of Diana?

There has been a series of whitewash after whitewash inquiries into her death, the most recent offered by Lord Stevens, whose report was published "coincidentally" on the same day that Blair was questioned by Police. The Stevens Report cannot be believed because he stated no ring had been bought by Fayed in Paris when the purchase is on film and the vendor and Fayed still have the receipts!

I will state again; the Albert Pike Third World War involves driving a massive wedge between Islam and Judeo-Christianity. If Diana was either married or engaged to a Muslim, and possibly have had another child from that relationship then it would have been much more difficult to create that necessary friction.

I am not sure Phillip ordered it.
I am not sure Charles ordered it.
I am not sure she was bred for an ultimate sacrifice in the Pont D'Alma.

But Diana was becoming a loose and powerful cannon, and Diana's romantic relationships with Muslims were threatening the agenda of certain "dark forces" intent on a world war between Islam and the West. In their eyes, in a world in which they believe they can do anything whatsoever, she had to go.

Who has the power to stall an inquest into the death of a much-loved member of the Royal family for TEN YEARS?
Who has the power to control Lord Stevens so that his multi-million report can be rubbished within seconds of reading?

The answer? DARK FORCES.