Monday, October 29, 2007


I could not agree more.



Berserker Cheney Escalates Push for World War III

by Jeffrey Steinberg

October 27, 2007 (LPAC) -- The Bush Administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, has again escalated its drive for senseless military action against Iran, through a combination of new unilateral sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and a new hyperventilating propaganda push, led personally by the Vice President and President, aimed at provoking Tehran into providing a pretext for war. At the same time, anti-war forces around the globe--including Russian President Vladimir Putin, and some factions within the Bush Administration itself--have taken some extraordinary actions, aimed at averting an attack on Iran, that would almost certainly escalate out of control to general global war.

One of the most stunning denunciations of the Cheney war schemes was delivered in Washington on October 17 by Wesley Clark, a retired five-star general and former candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Speaking before several hundred American and Arab policy-makers at the 16th annual conference of the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations (NCUSAR), Clark urged a vigorous public debate on the Iran situation, leading to a new diplomatic dialogue with Tehran, and pointedly denounced the Bush Administration's war policies as part of a continuing “political coup d'etat” that was carried out, from the White House, after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Clark charged that, following 9-11, a small group inside the Bush Administration imposed a new strategy, without debate, without Congressional authorization, and without consultation with America's allies. Clark recounted a May 1991 private conversation he had with then-Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Clark recounted Wolfowitz's berating of then-President George H.W. Bush, for failing to conclude Operation Desert Storm with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Wolfowitz told Clark that, within “the next 5-10 years,” the United States must overthrow a string of “former Soviet client-states,” including Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Wolfowitz told the flabbergasted general that the United States would have that window of opportunity to “use military force with impunity” before a new, as-yet unknown “superpower” emerged to challenge American global military hegemony.

General Clark recounted that when then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, along with Wolfowitz and Libby, took their “Roman Empire” scheme to National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and President Bush, they were forcefully rebuked. After 9-11, Clark charged, Cheney and Wolfowitz resurrected the scheme, but never informed the American people or the Congress, because “they would have been laughed off the stage,” and denounced for “flights of fantasy.” Nevertheless, Clark reported, a written plan was circulated in the Rumsfeld Pentagon right after 9-11, listing seven regimes to be overthrown in the next five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. Now, Clark concluded, “we are living with the consequences,” including the $800 billion spent to date on Iraq and Afghanistan. “The U.S. is weaker, our adversaries are stronger.”

In response to a question from EIR, Clark urged diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. “Find common interests, avert war, and help our friends in the region,” he demanded, asking “Aren't we big enough to do this?” The alternative, he warned, is a two-three-week bombing campaign, that will render Iran “a failed state,” but with the most dire consequences for the United States and the world.

Putin Leads War-Avoidance

The message delivered by General Clark resonated throughout the two-day policy-makers conference, and also reflected in an escalation of war-avoidance initiatives by leading international players, including President Putin.

The Russian leader has engaged in a whirlwind of diplomacy, beginning with his two-day summit in Moscow earlier this month with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy came into the Moscow meeting, having joined the Cheney chorus, threatening that Iran's alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon could lead to World War III. But in the meeting with Putin, Sarkozy, according to informed U.S. intelligence sources, tilted into the war-avoidance camp, under the weight of simultaneous pressure from the Russians and from circles within his own French military/intelligence institutions.

Putin next hosted U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for several days of talks with their Russian counterparts. Putin invited the Pentagon chief to address a Russian military academy, and privately signaled that the American proposal for settling the dispute over the planned deployment of U.S. anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, was a positive, albeit insufficient step. According to Washington sources, Gates proposed that Russian military observers could be stationed at the Eastern European missile defense sites, as well as at U.S. command installations.

Gates, in turn, told reporters during a stop over in Europe for a NATO-Russian conference, that the United States could possibly delay activation of the ABM sites, pending firm evidence that Iran possessed missiles capable of striking Europe. As Gates was delivering these hopeful remarks, Bush was issued the message that the U.S. was hell-bent on deploying the ABM system on Russia's border.

During Putin's historic trip to Tehran, to attend a Caspian Sea heads of state meeting, he clearly signaled that Russia would strongly oppose any U.S. military action against Iran, while, at the same time, pressing the Iranian government to avoid any provocation that could give Cheney the pretext to attack. Reportedly, in his private meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Putin minced no words, in warning that the Bush-Cheney Administration would launch a devastating bombing campaign against Iran, if given the pretext. Russia clearly does not want another American war on its border.

According to U.S. intelligence sources, a huge political brawl is taking place behind the scenes in Tehran, over how to respond to the U.S. provocations and the Putin intervention. The latest Cheney provocation was announced on Oct. 25 by Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: Economic sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

World War III Rhetoric

In response to the wildly provocative speech by Vice President Cheney at the annual conference of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) on October 21, pushing for military strikes against Iran, Putin delivered an equally hard-line retort, drawing a parallel to the U.S. planned deployment of ABM systems in Eastern Europe, to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

In his WINEP speech, Cheney had warned Iran of “serious consequences” if it did not abandon its nuclear enrichment program, and its intervention into Iraq.

Practically daring Iran to respond, Cheney ranted, “Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region--including the direct involvement in the killing of Americans--our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions. The Iranian regime needs to know,” Cheney concluded, “that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences.”

In a clear warning to the Bush-Cheney Administration, Putin told reporters in Lisbon, Portugal, during a European-Russian annual summit, that the U.S. ABM deployment was “technologically similar” to the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s. “Let me recall how relations shaped up in a similar situation in the mid-1960s,” Putin told reporters. “Similar actions by the Soviet Union, when it deployed missiles in Cuba, provoked the Caribbean crisis. For us, technologically, the situation is very similar.” However, Putin concluded that there was no danger of the situation escalating out of control, because Russia and the United States are “not enemies anymore,” and President Bush is his “personal friend.”

Just days earlier, Bush had babbled to reporters that Iran's pursuit of the “knowledge” of how to build a nuclear bomb could trigger World War III. “I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” the President threatened.

Putin's Israel Play

Days after his Tehran excursion, Putin hosted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Moscow, for talks also aimed at cooling down the hyper-rhetoric for World War III.

Immediately after their talks, Putin dispatched a high-level Russian delegation for a week of talks in Israel. The delegation, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov and special Middle East peace envoy Sergei Yakovlev, assured the Israelis that Russia is equally adamant about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, but cautioned, according to Ha'aretz, “The difference between us and you, is that you're basing yourselves on estimates, whereas we're basing ourselves on precise information. When we see that the situation is sufficiently dangerous, we'll know how to stop the Iranians, and if we want to, we can do this without difficulty.”

At no point in recent history, has there been so much high-level diplomacy aimed at averting world war. But by the same token, the 911 “political coup d'etat” at the White House, led by Cheney's team of berserkers has not been defeated, and then, the danger of global conflagration cannot be underestimated for a moment.

Saturday, October 27, 2007


Shortly after 7/7 I wrote to the ISC and warned them that Israel was preparing for a full-scale invasion of Gaza.



There is an enormous gap between the reasons Israel is giving for the decision to impose significant sanctions against Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip, and the real intentions behind them. Defense Minister Ehud Barak authorized Thursday a plan for
disrupting electricity supply to the Gaza Strip, as well as significantly shrinking fuel shipments. This is supposed to reduce the number of Qassam rocket attacks against Sderot and the other border communities. In practice, defense officials believe that the Palestinian militants will intensify their attacks in response to the sanctions.

As such, the real aim of this effort is twofold: to attempt a new form of "escalation" as a response to aggression from Gaza, before Israel embarks on a major military operation there; and to prepare the ground for a more clear-cut isolation of the Gaza Strip - limiting to an absolute minimum Israel's obligation toward the Palestinians there.

Several weeks ago, Barak said Israel "is getting closer" to a major operation in the strip. Like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Barak is not excited about this possibility. He knows that it will not be easy, and there are no guarantees for positive results. Many soldiers will be killed and so will many innocent Palestinians, because the IDF will employ a massive artillery bombardment before it sends infantry into the crowded built-up areas. This will be a "dirty war," very aggressive, that will have scenes of destruction similar to southern Lebanon in 2006. The sole exception: unlike in Lebanon, the population there has nowhere to run.

Moreover, Ashkenazi has told the cabinet that he will only support an offensive operation if it is long-lasting. If after several weeks of fighting, the IDF is allowed time to carry out arrests and gather intelligence, then the chief of staff sees a point for the operation.

Defense sources say the sanctions will lead the militants to intensify their attacks to show that they do not succumb to Israeli pressure. And because the sanctions will not be severe - so as not to create a humanitarian crisis - they will not be effective. It is actually expected that the gasoline shortage will have a greater effect than the disruptions in the electricity supply - which normally happens because of equipment breakdowns.

The decision on sanctions is also an attempt to give expression to the inclination to completely disengage from Gaza. In this way Israel is sending a message to the Palestinian leadership in the strip that it must seek alternatives, however minor, to goods and services coming from Israel. This touches on the day after the Annapolis summit. Failure at the summit may lead Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas into the arms of Hamas. In such a case, Israel is raising a big stop sign at the exit from Ramallah: Passage to Gaza is closed.


I am not surprised at this. I believe one of his jobs was disinformation.

But who confirmed it? And why now? What effect does the claim have?

I think it confirms Lugovoy's claims more.

But if Litvinenko was MI6 does this increase the possibility that Berezovsky is also MI6?



The former Russian spy poisoned in a London hotel was an MI6 agent, the Daily Mail can reveal.

Alexander Litvinenko was receiving a retainer of around £2,000 a month from the British security services at the time he was murdered.

The disclosure, by diplomatic and intelligence sources, is the latest twist in the Litvinenko affair, which has plunged relations between London and Moscow to their lowest point since the Cold War.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007


The Times is reporting that Russia's investigation into the photogenic death of Alexander Litvinenko is being blocked by Great Britain.

Surely Great Britain wants to get at the truth of this death, to show the world how right it is in making its accusations, and to show that Russia is a ruthless tyranny prepared to commit radioactive murder on British streets.

Well, that's what any normal person would think.

Why would our honourable, truthful government be blocking such an investigation?

Our government is constantly saying to us, regarding the increasing police state and surveillance, ID Cards and the ubiquitous CCTV (which is not working), "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".

Well, let's see what's being hidden. Let Russia investigate.

I want to know what happened. Millions, if not billions, do too.

ps It is obvious that Putin is trying very hard to stop the Albert Pike WW3. The longer this smear over Litvinenko hangs over Russia, as well as all the others e.g. Politkovskaya, the harder it will be for him to find consensus and peaceful compromise. I suggest this is why there is this reluctance to allow Russia to investigate.

The City of London and Wall Street are where the real criminals are.



The Kremlin sought to turn the tables on Britain yesterday over the killing of Alexander Litvinenko, the dissident former security officer.

The Prosecutor-General’s Office accused the Crown Prosecution Service of blocking a Russian inquiry into the death by repeatedly ignoring urgent requests for information.

It complained to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, that her officials had done nothing to resolve the dispute despite Russian pleas to intervene with the CPS. Details of the complaint were released as Russia said that it had received a fresh request from the CPS for help with the case.

The CPS has accused Andrei Lugovoy, a former KGB officer, of murdering Litvinenko with radioactive polonium210 in London. President Putin has dismissed the British case as “stupid” and refused to extradite Mr Lugovoy, citing a constitutional ban. The controversy has plunged relations between London and Moscow to their worst level since the Cold War. Britain expelled four Russian diplomats in July, prompting Moscow to order four British envoys to leave.

The Prosecutor-General’s Office said in a statement that it had written to the Home Secretary acknowledging Britain’s latest request for assistance. It added that Russia had been waiting ten months for Britain to answer its requests for information concerning Litvinenko.

“Russia notified that the requests are urgent. The Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office has many times asked the Home Office to accelerate the execution of the requests,” it said. “Nevertheless, the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office has received no information from relevant British agencies on these requests.”

Russia complained that its investigators had been unable to interview doctors who had treated Litvinenko at Barnet Hospital and University College Hospital, where he died on November 23. It had not received copies of autopsy reports or the results of any forensic examination. “These conditions deprive Russia of a bulk of information, which could be helpful in solving the crime, and of an opportunity to fully verify existing theories,” it said.

Monday, October 22, 2007


I am reading Norman Baker's hypothesis in The Daily Mail on the death of Dr David Kelly, and find it much more credible than the findings of the Freemasonic Hutton Inquiry.

However, Baker's conclusion is interesting; that British Intelligence knew of a plot by angry opponents of Saddam to kill Kelly, but were just too late, and decided to cover it up but at risk of implicating themselves.

As on 9/11, the USAF arrived at the WTC just too late, and the fighters based at Andrews AFB were scrambled just too late.

The unexplained Operation Mason is very damning evedience that someone knew something was about to happen.

Baker has received this information regarding the opponents of Saddam from a well-placed source, apparently. But Baker goes on to speculate that Kelly was killed with great expertise and professionalism, even proposing that blood was sucked out of his body to kill him. If a gang of angry opponents of Saddam did kill Kelly then where did they get that expertise? Did they use methods developed by the CIA?

There is a possibility that this "murderous gang of opponents of Saddam" is bogus and a red herring to deflect criticism and investigation into Kelly's murder. If such a gang did execute the murder then they did so with the aid of factions within British and American Intelligence, through either logistics or finance or even method of execution, maybe all three.

One thing is for sure. I will support Norman Baker in his quest. His one man investigation is making much more sense.

Thursday, October 18, 2007


The inquest into the murder of Diana was today shown the receipt indicating that Dodi had bought Diana an engagement ring.

Yesterday it was revealed that several newspapers had been told to expect an announcement from Diana and Dodi.

Hmm. I wonder what that could have been?

But instead, we heard the screech of tyres, and saw the blinding bright flash in the tunnel, resulting in the death of love.

What a different world it would be today if Diana had not been murdered because she was about to marry a Muslim. In the eyes of some she had to go.

(NB the questioning with the use of quotation marks, as in "engagement ring")


The Princess Diana inquest jury has been shown a copy of a receipt for a £11,600 "engagement ring" bought by Dodi Al Fayed hours before they died.

Dated 30 August 1997, the receipt from the Paris branch of jewellery store Alberto Repossi contained the words "bague fiancaille" or engagement ring.

The High Court heard the ring was from the "Dis-moi oui" range, which means "Tell me yes".


Tuesday, October 16, 2007


They now say they KNEW he was not a terrorist suspect, and all they wanted to do was ask him a few questions.

But they still used dum-dum bullets on an innocent man pinned to the floor.

I know mediums and psychics are occasionally used in investgations, but to kill an innocent man who is alive before using a medium to contact him "from beyond the grave" to ask him a few questions is a ridiculous waste of precious resources.

Blair has to go.


A high speed chase down a stretch of Parisian road with no functional CCTV.

The hunted chased into a thin tunnel by two adjacent cars, bumped from behind to destabilise the car and its driver.

At the same time, a motorcycle overtakes the hunted car, and directs a blinding bright flash towards the driver of the hunted car, out of sight from the public view.

The driver loses control, and in the tunnel crashes into a pillar, killing several occupants instantly.

The motorcycle passenger checks the result, and signals the job is done. The motorcycle speeds off into the Parisian night, never to be found.

A slow ambulance drive towards a distant hospital finishes off the remaining surviving occupants.

The driver of the hunted Mercedes is subsequently blamed, through doctored blood samples indicating he should have been legless when there is no video evidence to question never mind prove his drunkenness.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the world we live in.

Monday, October 15, 2007


Francois Levistre told the inquest into the death of Diana that he saw a "major white flash" directed at the Mercedes she was in moments before the crash. And that before this the Mercedes had been overtaken by a high speed motorcycle. The "major white flash" was directed at the Mercedes. The Mercedes then veered from side to side and then crashed. The motorcycle stopped, and the passenger on the motorcycle then got off, moved towards the crashed Mercedes and then climbed back onto the motorcycle which then sped off.

Richard Tomlinson has maintained that this is straight out of a plan of MI6 to murder a Balkan politician; a high speed chase and a bright flash to blind the driver.

1. Henri Paul does not appear drunk, yet alcohol levels in his blood samples are ridiculously high
2. Diana was aware of plots to kill her
3. an engagement ring had been bought
4. high speed chase with motorcycle overtaking Diana's car, a major bright flash in the tunnel, with motorcycle passenger checking the aftermath and driving off.

Now imagine why the CCTV watching that stretch of road was off that night.

It's gotta be at least "Open Verdict", with great cause for concern in some Establishment circles.

I believe there is more to come.

Question: are paparazzi told by police not to use high power flash photography in tunnels? How powerful are the flash that paparazzi use?



Diana crash witness tells of 'white flash'

James Orr and agencies
Monday October 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

A motorist who witnessed the crash that killed Diana, Princess of Wales, today told how he had seen a "major white flash" moments before the tragedy.

Francois Levistre was driving in front of the Mercedes carrying the princess when the fatal collision happened in the Alma underpass in Paris.

Speaking by video link at the inquest into the deaths of Diana and her lover, Dodi Fayed, Mr Levistre described how a motorbike had overtaken the princess's car in the tunnel.

...He saw the motorcycle passenger get off the motorbike, approach the car, and then gesture to the bike's driver before climbing back on and driving off. Mr Levistre told the jury, sitting at the high court in London, that the bike's occupants looked at him before passing his car and leaving the underpass.


Israel attacked Syria last month, alleging a joint nuclear missile operation between Syria and North Korea. Justin Raimondo at AntiWar comments on that attack.



The Dair El Zor Hoax
Why are the Israelis lying about striking a "nuclear facility" in Syria?
by Justin Raimondo

The great "mystery" arising out of the recent Israeli strike at Syria – purportedly targeting a nuclear-related site near the town of Dair El Zor in the northern part of the country – has been the subject of much speculation, but its real purposes have been hidden behind the veil of obfuscation deliberately thrown over the affair by the Israelis and their media amen corner. The gale winds of another Israeli propaganda campaign are blowing at full force across the American media landscape, perpetrating a hoax of outrageous proportions: namely, that the Israelis knocked out a nascent nuclear facility. In a replay of the disastrous Judith Miller fabrications, the Times makes it look like the Syrians, with North Korean assistance, had constructed a nuke plant that was just about to go online:

"The attack on the reactor project has echoes of an Israeli raid more than a quarter century ago, in 1981, when Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq shortly before it was to have begun operating. That attack was officially condemned by the Reagan administration, though Israelis consider it among their military's finest moments. In the weeks before the Iraq war, Bush administration officials said they believed that the attack set back Iraq's nuclear ambitions by many years."

What a lot of nonsense. The Iraqis had completed a nuclear facility that was fully operational and could have produced weapons-grade materials. The Syrian project has been going nowhere for 40 years, as Joseph Cirincione, author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons and a senior fellow and director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress, informs us:

"It is a basic research program built around a tiny 30 kilowatt reactor that produced a few isotopes and neutrons. It is nowhere near a program for nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel."

Who cares about facts when you've got a perfectly good excuse to run a sensational headline? In any case, "many details remain unclear," as the Times piece puts it, which gives the editors an out. However, I'd trust Laura Rozen before I'd trust the Times, and she relays the following far more plausible account from Intelligence Online:

"In attacking Dair El Zor in Syria on Sept. 6, the Israeli air force wasn't targeting a nuclear site but rather one of the main arms depots in the country.

"Dair El Zor houses a huge underground base where the Syrian army stores the long and medium-range missiles it mostly buys from Iran and North Korea. The attack by the Israeli air force coincided with the arrival of a stock of parts for Syria's 200 Scud B and 60 Scud C weapons."

The moment this story hit the headlines, the alarm on my bullsh*t meter started clanging pretty loudly. But what, one wondered, was the purpose of this elaborate deception?

First, it was meant as a warning to Iran, a clear demonstration that the Israelis can and will act if Tehran fails to curb its ambition to join Israel as a full-fledged member of the nuclear club. Furthermore, it was meant to show Washington's solidarity with Tel Aviv in this matter: in spite of doubts arising from the Rice-Gates faction within the administration, the Americans gave the Israelis the green light. It also, I believe, prefigures, on a much smaller scale, the sequence of events likely to trigger war with Iran: an Israeli strike, Iranian retaliation via Hezbollah, followed by American intervention, which would be practically inevitable.

Second, the Syrian hoax aims at derailing the recent U.S. agreement with North Korea to dismantle its nuclear apparatus. If North Korea is "proliferating," it's already in violation of the accord, and the neoconservatives in the administration and its periphery are already howling that the deal is off.

Third, and, in my view, most important in the long run, this whole propaganda campaign is designed to make an ideological point. As Joshua Muravchik put it in the Los Angeles Times Sunday morning:

"Law is largely a matter of practice and custom, and it is gradually changing to accommodate new realms of self-defense. Had American forces found nuclear weapons in Iraq, or a nuclear program nearly ready to produce weapons, the international assessment of our decision to invade would be very different today. That we made an appalling mistake about Iraqi WMD shows the risks of the new doctrine that Bush proposes – but it does not diminish the issue that gave rise to that doctrine.

"The evolution of our thinking about these issues will be at the forefront of the debate as Washington moves closer to a preemptive (or 'preventive') strike against Iran's nuclear program."

Yes, "the evolution of our thinking" will be helped along by the Israelis, who, as we know, are always in the vanguard when it comes to pushing the boundaries of prudence, not to mention morality and basic human decency. From "Israel has the right to defend itself," a phrase we've heard with metronomic regularity over the years, the progression to "Israel has the right to preemptively attack whomever and whatever it pleases" – based on "secret" intelligence – is a cognitive leap made easier by Israeli boldness. What it's all leading up to is an assault on Iran that may well be sparked by an Israeli provocation.

It's fitting that the whole propaganda campaign is based on a gigantic lie, one that surpasses their previous record in its brazenness and sheer scope. This is the War Party's signature style. In spite of reports that Israeli commandos landed on Syrian soil and made off with "nuclear materials" – a highly unlikely made-for-TV-movie scenario – one imagines that if this were true, they would have displayed the evidence by now. And what about the IAEA? Surely their scientists would have detected the nuclear emissions from such a bombing raid: yet we have seen no evidence, no announcement, no nothing. What's up with that? It's all verrrrrry suspicious.

As Joe Cirincione put it to the BBC:

"This appears to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted 'intelligence' to key reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda. If this sounds like the run-up to the war with Iraq, then it should."

It's the same gang, with the same agenda, only this time their lies are on a bigger scale – and the stakes are much higher. What's amazing, to me, is that, even with this kind of record, these guys appear to be getting away with it. Once again, the major news media outlets are acting as conduits for war propaganda – and instead of displaying the least bit of skepticism, they're more gullible than ever.


Yesterday morning I posted the following comment to an article from Simon Jenkins,
"The biggest threat to the West lies within itself, not with Islam" at


"In both Washington and London are leaders who have so little confidence in democracy as to regard it as vulnerable to a few madmen, and who have so little respect for democracy’s freedoms as to suspend them at the bang of a bomb."

Who do you think is planting the bombs then?

Operation Gladio was a NATO-run state-sanctioned terrorist operation to blame Communists.
Pearl Harbour was provoked and allowed.
The lies of 9/11 are crumbling faster than the WTC towers in a controlled demolition.
And still there has been no inquiry into London 7/7 despite MI5 lying that the alleged bombers were 'clean skins' when they were under surveillance.

Terror is a political tool. No doubt there are genuine attacks by people disillusioned by corrupt political processes. But this also creates opportunities for the state to give these people bombs and capitalise on the shock and horror of the aftermath.

The current global turmoil stems from 9/11.

9/11 was an inside job!

9/11 was an inside job!


As of 0651 this morning the comment has not been posted, despite 28 others being posted.

Again, who is censoring?

This is not a post in defence of Russia's sovereignty, but a post about state-sponsored terrorism.

Saturday, October 13, 2007


At last, an investigation into wireless broadband is to be undertaken.

But what exactly will the investigation look at?

Will it look at wireless broadband exclusively, or will it also look at the effect of the whole sea of digital communication that we can't see but is undoubtedly affecting us because we know it can cause cancer. There is no way that something like wireless broadband, digital TV etc would be introduced into mainstream society if TPTB didn't know the general effect it has; that is to interfere with, and perhaps control, our natural vibrations.

It affects me, certainly. After a few hours of sitting in an environment with strong wireless broadband I begin to feel not right, and need to leave the area for a while.



The government has ordered a wide-ranging investigation into wireless computer networks amid concerns over the potential health risks they pose for millions of schoolchildren and office workers.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) will spend two years conducting lab tests and monitoring exposure levels to the wireless signals in classrooms, homes and offices, before compiling a health risk report on the technology.

Fears over the potential risks of wireless networks have led some school governors to order their withdrawal from classrooms.

Friday, October 12, 2007


The Times is more anti-Russian than most British newspapers, and repeatedly prints articles that mock Russian democracy and attack the freedom, or lack thereof, of the press in Russia. Unsurprisingly, no mention is made by The Times of Bilderberg and its sponsors and controllers who select our leaders at their clandestine meetings. And they repeatedly do not print my comments on articles they publish on their website.

The Times is not the only one to enforce such censorship of my comments.

Why? What am I saying that deserves such censorship? But perhaps more importantly, who is deciding which comments are posted?

For example, yesterday morning I submitted the following comment to their article about the chief of the FSB alleging British intent in destabilising and dismantling the Russian empire, at


Kasparov's "The Other Russia" is seriously financed and controlled by Anglo-Americans, including the corrupt and greedy National Endowment for Democracy, and lists the British Ambassador to Russia as a member!

The Eurasia Foundation, recipient of alleged MI6 cash via Marc Doe, is even more controlled by the Anglo-American Establishment that thinks all the world’s natural resources and people belong to it and are at their disposal.

To think that MI6 would not attempt to recruit Berezovsky and thus his contacts network in Russia is naive. Why is he here? His recruitment was probably part of the deal.

There is no doubt the UK and USA are interfering in internal Russian politics. The question is, should we?


As of 0725 this morning that comment has not been published.

This censorship of my comments in British online media is occuring more and more frequently, the same British press that attacks freedom of the press in Russia.

Can anyone smell the putrid stench of corrupt hypocrisy?

Thursday, October 11, 2007



It was the USA v Communism in Vietnam.

It was Israel v Arabs in the six-day war. Israel also tried to drag the USA into its wars by attacking the USS Liberty, intending to sink it and blame Egypt.

I struggle to find a reason for the Vietnam war. It was such a long war. It dragged the USA through the mud, made some hate America, turned some to Communism, and made a few people substantially financially wealthier.

But I look back now and I see a war between Israel and its neighbours, and a war between the USA and Communism, and an attempt to drag the USA into a Middle East war, all concurrently. It sounds more similar to the description of WW3 as proposed by Pike than today, in which Russia and China are no longer Communist and are embracing capitalism in their own unique ways.

These military events of 1967, plus the '67, hint to me that 1967 was the first attempt to create the Pike WW3.

That failed, so the Zionists had to take overt control of the USA and execute a highly risky false-flag terror attack on US soil in order to send US troops into the Middle East en masse, fulfilling the "A Clean Break" document calling for Israeli aggression against its neighbours. It happened on 9/11 because that's what it was; an emergency, that the plan is seriously in danger of failing.

Well, it certainly is failing.


Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is full of untruths, the High Court has ruled, and must be attached with a warning that other theories on climate change exist.

Yeah, like the Sun is getting stronger and the whole Solar System is showing signs of warming up.



Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment

Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.


FDR was a four term President who had won the war (although he played a highly significant part in dragging the USA into the war in the first place). This gave him licence from the public to do anything he wanted.

So what did he want?

1. he was against the establishment of Israel, a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
2. he was against dropping the bomb on Japan.
3. he planned for dismantling British control over its empire and creating sovereign nation states.

If "the plan" was to continue, it was crucial that Israel be created to cause the anger and friction in the Middle East we see today (6m jews had been murdered for that purpose during WW2), the bomb had to be dropped on Japan to terrify the world into ceding sovereignty to the UN, and the British Empire had to remain intact.

If FDR had lived long enough then the plan could have been stalled significantly, or even stopped.

So what evidence is there that FDR was murdered?

From "The Strange Death of Franklin D Roosevelt" by Emmanuel Josephson

"Admiral McIntyre, FDR's physician is reported to have said that Roosevelt's
body was not embalmed; that in less than four hours after death, it had
turned black, a reaction that occurs among other cases, in event of arsenic

On his return from Yalta, Roosevelt was obviously acutely ill. He was weak
and haggard and had lost a lot of weight. His face was so drawn that it
looked like a death mask. It reminded one of the case of cholera or acute
poisoning. For a time he was thought to be approaching the end and frantic
consultations were held. He responded to treatment and made a measure of
recovery. But pathetically he carried on and fronted for his masters. In
connection with Roosevelt's entertainment at Yalta, Paul Mallon reports that
once again there was extended to him the extraordinary courtesy of service by
a skilled physician as a waiter. Mallon's report ascribes to the physician
the task of sizing up Roosevelt's health for Stalin. "Pa" Watson, Roosevelt's
military aid, suddenly became ill, and died on the return trip."

FDR's corpse was quickly placed in a sealed casket and buried without an autopsy. Despite numerous requests the casket has not been dug up and opened for an autopsy to occur.

Hmm. It sounds awfully suspicious to me.

Truman succeeded FDR and agreed to create Israel, agreed to drop the bomb on Japan, and did not dismantle the British Empire. Truman became a 33rd Degree Freemason shortly after dropping the bomb.

Not that I am championing FDR. I recently read "Franklin Delano Roosevelt ; My exploited Father-in-Law" by Curtis Dall, which was a very interesting read. The chapters on interviews with Admiral Husband Kimmel and Commander George Earle show that FDR was quite a ruthless warmonger who provoked and allowed Pearl Harbour and declined a negotiated peace with anti-Hitler German forces allied with Admiral Canaris, decisions that Dall could not believe or conceive FDR making.

But then again if he had not, would we all be wearing Swastikas?

My conclusion on FDR? He had grown too powerful from winning the war and had ideas that did not agree with "the plan". Hence, murder by arsenic at Yalta (and after?)

Tuesday, October 09, 2007


If mobile phone use, which uses microwaves, causes a risk, what about all the wireless broadband and digital TV transmission?

How can anyone say this microwave telecommunication is safe? The fact is it is not safe. If it is causing cancer then in some people it is affecting DNA strongly enough to mutate it, and if that is the case then in most of us it is affecting DNA vibration in some way, generally clouding thought and emotions.



Mobile phone cancer risk 'higher for children'

By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:31am BST 09/10/2007

Children should not be given mobile phones because using them for more than 10 years increases the risk of brain cancer, a leading scientist has said.


I agree with this analysis from Jeffrey Steinberg.

Withdrawing British troops from Basra betrays the "it's all about the oil" argument, and leaves the USA virtually stranded pissing in the Iraqi wind, caught between the Sunni and Shi'ites.

But to then send some British troops to the Iraq-Iran border is criminal and asking for trouble, particularly as the "Iranian nuke" argument for war on Iran has been demolished and certain people are looking for another argument for war on Iran e.g. a few dead British soldiers allegedly murdered in cold blood by Iranian Revolutionary Guards smuggling IEDs into Iraq.

ps on FDR, I am now coming around to the theory that he did plan for a post-WW2 dismantling of the British Empire, and for this I think he was arguably murdered with arsenic after Yalta, but after wittingly or unwittingly fulfilling certain parts of "the plan", i.e. he was exploited, as we all are in numerous ways.

And it is for similar reasons that Putin is demonised with allegations of murdering Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, etc and for sending Russian bombers to fly directly to London, etc. to stop any American-Russian partnership. I find it interesting that there were no reports of the USA intercepting Russian bombers during recent Russian exercises near the USA.



This article appears in the October 12, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Britain's 'Managed Chaos' Drives the World Toward War

by Jeffrey Steinberg

By all accounts, U.S. military commanders in Iraq, along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are furious at the British government not only for pulling the vast majority of its troops out of Iraq, but for turning over the keys to the vital oil region of the south to competing Shi'ite militias. Great Britain's military departure from Iraq is not the consequence of anti-war ferment inside the United Kingdom. It is a key feature of a British oligarchical "Great Game" strategy of fomenting "managed chaos" throughout the vital Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean areas—and sticking the United States with the legacy of crushing failure and the hatred of much of the Arab and Islamic world.

Senior U.S. intelligence sources have shared with EIR this assessment of Britain's strategic manuevers against a United States, already saddled with a Dick Cheney-led Executive branch, hell-bent on bringing down the United States before the Bush Administration leaves office. In effect, Vice President Cheney is the greatest British asset in official Washington since an earlier Vice President, Aaron Burr, fled to London, following the murder of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, and schemed for the rest of his life, against the continued existence of the American Republic.

The problem, on which these senior U.S. intelligence officials agree with EIR, is not limited to the British geopolitical machinations against the United States—at a moment of perhaps the greatest U.S. official leadership crisis ever. That very real problem is vastly compounded by the fact that many well-meaning and patriotic Americans, including many within the top echelons of the military, the intelligence community, and the diplomatic corps, lack the depth of historical insight to fathom the British agenda. The British have positioned themselves to exploit this American vulnerability. For some within the British oligarchy, the remaining months of the Bush-Cheney Administration represent the greatest opportunity in over 200 years, to avenge the American Revolution, and crush the republican ideals that spread around the globe as the result of the events of 1775-87.

The following ongoing British manuevers are exemplary of the larger problem.
The Iraq Gambit

While the assumption of most Americans, including the majority of members of the 110th Congress, is that the Bush Administration manipulated and cajoled Tony Blair's Britain into joining the United States in the Iraq disaster, nothing could be further from the truth. From the outset, the British were 100% in on the Iraq War scam, fabricating much of the original disinformation that sold the war to an all-too-gullible U.S. Congress and American public; and housing the Ahmed Chalabi-led Iraqi National Congress which fed the dezinformatsiya stovepipe into the White House.

When the "hot phase" of the Iraq invasion ended in April 2003, the British, with more than a century of experience as would-be imperial overlords of the world's petroleum patch, took control of the oil-rich southern region, around the port of Basra, whence all of Iraq's oil is shipped to the world market. Despite the overall chaos and lack of infrastructure reconstruction, Iraq manages to pump 1.2-1.5 million barrels of oil a day for export, a fraction of its earlier capacity, but a factor in world oil flows, nonetheless. When the Brits announced plans for further troop withdrawals, oil prices on the spot market shot up, as speculators bet that oil flows from Basra were in jeopardy. They are almost certainly right.

While U.S. forces concentrated on the no-man's land of Anbar Province and the increasingly ethnically cleansed capital city of Baghdad, British forces manned the southern Iraqi energy choke-point, and are now leaving it, over the next six months or so, in the hands of local battling Shi'ite militias—not the central government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. U.S. military and intelligence sources estimate that it would take upwards of 70,000 U.S. troops to bring some stability to southern Iraq once the Brits leave—troops that do not exist.
Al-Yamamah Revisited

While setting up a situation of semi-permanent instability in southern Iraq, the British are also playing a Sunni fundamentalist card, through their Saudi Arabian partners, particularly the Saudi monarch's national security advisor and former Ambassador in Washington, D.C., Prince Bandar bin-Sultan.

In late September, the Saudi government announced the signing of yet-another major arms deal with Great Britain's leading arms manufacturer, BAE Systems. The deal, worth an estimated $8 billion, involves the sale of 72 Euro-jet fighter planes, along with a range of support services, air defense infrastructure, etc. The deal is an extension of the long-standing "Al-Yamamah" contract, involving the Saudi purchase of billions of dollars in British arms, in return for crude oil—which the British sold on the spot market for massive profits—estimated at well over $100 billion.

While the Al-Yamamah project created perhaps the largest unregulated slush fund for covert operations ever assembled, it also exposed the pivotal role of Prince Bandar, as a key British agent, operating not only within the inner circle of power in the Kingdom, but also inside the Bush family/right-wing-Republican orbit.

The U.S. Department of Justice is probing Prince Bandar's role in the Al-Yamamah program, because of a reported $2 billion in kickbacks he received, via the Bank of England and Washington, D.C. Saudi Embassy accounts at the now-defunct Riggs Bank. U.S. intelligence sources have emphasized that, if the DOJ probe goes beyond the issue of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, to the charge of money laundering, it could unearth massive Saudi government funding of Muslim Brotherhood penetration operations all over the United States—at a time when U.S. law enforcement and intelligence services are alarmed about the dangers of another major terrorist attack.

The Saudi government is pouring millions of dollars into Sunni tribes in Iraq, to buy their temporary loyalty to the U.S. occupation forces. On a deeper level, and in sync with the British "managed chaos" schemes, the "neo-con" faction of the Saudi monarchy, led by Bandar, is building up a fundamentalist Sunni "buffer state" in Anbar Province and other Iraqi border areas, in anticipation of a long Sunni versus Shi'ite war.

Every American expert on the Persian Gulf interviewed by EIR confirmed the assessment that the United States has bought a degree of near-term stability in Anbar and other Sunni areas of Iraq, but in the long term, Saudi factions and their British partners—committed to the spreading of Salafi Sunni fundamentalism—are going to have their way.
Watch Out for Tony Blair

The historically challenged U.S. President George W. Bush is the perfect fool, to be exploited by London's Great Gamesters. Bush angered Russia and the European Union, when he unilaterally anointed former British Prime Minister Blair as chief "peace emissary" for the Quartet (the U.S., Russia, UN, and EU), assigned to get an Israeli-Palestinian accord.

Some U.S. intelligence sources have alerted EIR that Blair's appointment further advanced Britain's "controlled chaos" schemes. It was Blair, in his final hours in office, who secured the latest Saudi-British arms deal. Late in 2006, he quashed Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) probe of the Al-Yamamah scheme, claiming that British national security would be jeopardized by any further inquest.

Now, these sources warn, Blair is intent on eking out some small progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, while avoiding any kind of final settlement that might bring genuine stability to the conflict zone. At all costs, Blair will ally with Cheney and others in the war party in Washington, who oppose any kind of peace deal between Israel and Syria—despite the fact that final agreements over the Golan Heights, the division of the waters of Lake Tiberius, and all other stumbling block issues, have already been settled, and Israeli President Shimon Peres, with the full endorsement of Lyndon LaRouche, has signalled that now is the moment for Israel and Syria to make peace.

Genuine peace is not the British aim; however, a small step forward on the Israel-Palestine track, some senior U.S. souces warn, could warm London to the idea of a U.S.-Iran confrontation before Bush and Cheney leave office. Right now, these sources report, with the Palestinian issue still a burning passion for a vast majority on the Arab and Muslim street, any direct U.S.-Iranian confrontation would likely trigger uncontrolled chaos—which is more than London cares to bargain for—at least for the moment.

What drives the Gordon Brown government is the City of London's knowledge that the post-Bretton Woods, London-run global financial system is about to blow. At moments like this, the greatest fear, from the Anglo-Dutch oligarchical standpoint, is a U.S.A. returning to the American System outlook and policies last expressed, within government, in the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Any glimmer of the FDR impulse, now so actively being promoted by LaRouche; and any suggestion of a U.S.-Russian strategic partnership—already placed on the table by Russian President Vladimir Putin—to put this fragile world back together again, would spell doom for the Anglo-Dutch system.

For now, London's major weapon against such developments, is "managed chaos." To understand the unfolding events in Southwest Asia, this concept must be grasped. Ignore it at a very high price.


Alberto Repossi has again alleged he provided documentary evidence proving that the ring Dodi Fayed bought from him was an engagement ring for Diana, but he was then pressured into stating that it was not an engagement ring. Repossi also alleges one of the tapes (the one with his allegation?) which recorded his interview with the Operation Paget team was erased.




“I had given Scotland Yard the actual copy of the receipt given to Dodi's secretary on which was clearly written 'engagement ring',” Mr Repossi told La Stampa.

“I am probably the only witness to the fact that Dodi and Princess Diana were going to get engaged.” [TTS: factions within NSA, MI5 and MI6 know too]


She was a critic of Putin and his Russia.

She was shot outside her appartment.

It was on Putin's birthday, so people alleged Putin had put out a hit order on her as a birthday present. Alexander Litvinenko was one who joined the chorus.

Not so, says Dmitry A. Muratov, the Editor-in-Chief of the paper Novaya Gazeta, who has been working closely with the investigation into her murder.

This brings back into question as to why, with yet another false allegation he made along with the "Russia runs al-Qaeda" and "Russia was behind 9/11" and all the other incredible allegations Litvinenko made, Putin would put out a hit order on Litvinenko and have him killed on British soil in such a photogenic manner that his enemies could splash images of a melting Litvinenko pointing his accusing finger at Putin all over the world's media?

Let's face it, they are scared of Putin's Russia. Russia was under British control since 1917. During that time Russia was sent to death camps and killed in the millions by Rothschild employee Stalin, and later economically raped via capitalist gangsters connected to the Rothschilds who have since relocated to London or Israel.

It's going to take time to sort Russia out, to dismantle criminal networks, corruption etc.

Just like it will here, the USA etc.



Mr. Muratov said that Mr. Putin’s rule had allowed a climate in which journalists have been killed with impunity but that he did not believe that Mr. Putin had put out Ms. Politkovskaya’s murder for hire, as some Kremlin detractors have suggested.

“The power has created a climate in which journalists are enemies, democracy is not an efficient way of management or rule, and the special services are a new ruling class, a ruling elite, to which everything is permitted,” he said.


What is Putin doing that gives him 80% ratings with Russians, while in the British, American press he is portrayed as a demon?

Yes, Saddam had 100% rating. But Saddam had a brutal police state (supported with a little help from the West), with terrible torture prisons, mass executions, spies under every speck of dust listening in on the briefest of conversations ready to arrest at the smallest hint of dissent.

What we have to grasp is the FACT that Russia is fighting enemies with virtually unlimited quantities of money from The Federal Reserve, The European Central Bank, drugs, human trafficking etc, you know, the satanic scum of the earth. I don't think Russia can be opened up immediately. There is some realpolitik going on in Russia (I hope). Nearly a century of British control cannot be undone overnight.


Because the inquest into Diana is not going so well for the criminals who murdered her, they made it headline news recently that Wills and Kate feared for their lives due to harassment from paparazzi.

I wonder if those paparazzi really were paparazzi, as on 31/8/97.

Or if they were, was the order put out to them to harass Wills and Kate into making such an allegation.

Friday, October 05, 2007


"A Clean Break", intended for Benjamin Netanyahu, was published by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies following consultation with Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and DAVID WURMSER, among others.

It called for Israel to expand and increase military conflict with its neighbours.

In particular it named Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran as targets for aggression.

Ain't it funny how since 9/11 the plan for "A Clean Break" has been followed, almost as if some were waiting for a 9/11-type event to execute "A Clean Break".

Conspiraloons, or factions within, would argue that 9/11 was executed for this reason, citing highly significant links between the authors of "A Clean Break" and members of the Bush Administration circa 2001.

I would extend that argument and say the whole point of Israel's existence is to sew the seeds of chaos in the Middle East as part of a much longer-term conspiracy.

Regarding Syria, here is what was said in "A Clean Break";
"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper. "

Only a few weeks ago Israel attacked a site in Syria (for whatever reason). Hmm.

And now in The Daily Wargraph David Wurmser (War-mser?) continues to spew his warmongering rants while he is safely thousands of miles away. Someone give Dave a gun and send him to the front line asap.


US 'must break Iran and Syria regimes'

America should seize every opportunity to force regime change in Syria and Iran, a former senior adviser to the White House has urged.

"We need to do everything possible to destabilise the Syrian regime and exploit every single moment they strategically overstep," said David Wurmser, who recently resigned after four years as Vice President Dick Cheney's Middle East adviser.

"That would include the willingness to escalate as far as we need to go to topple the regime if necessary." He said that an end to Baathist rule in Damascus could trigger a domino effect that would then bring down the Teheran regime.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the first since he left government, he argued that the United States had to be prepared to attack both Syria and Iran to prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East that could result in a much wider war.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007


I will vote for any person or party who:
1. promises to abolish our fraudulent monetary system that gives ridiculous power to warmongering megalomaniacs.
2. promises to establish a public, fully independent inquiry into ALL the events of 7th July 2005 and other terrorist events on the British mainland associated with Islamic Fundamentalism, including "The Covenant of Security", and also including discovering who knew what and when.
3. promises to establish a public, fully independent inquiry into how the unmerited power that stems from 1. above has been used to engineer, finance, and profit greatly from the major military conflicts and revolutions of the 20th Century.

They're all the same old same old. Taxing us to death to repay money that doesn't exist and to pay the military to fight wars that benefit a few.


The Times has repeatedly refused to post my online comments to articles on their online version.


The Daily Telegraph has the same policy.


I tried to post something last Sunday on The Times website as a reply to an article about the Israelis allegedly managing to smuggle some material out of Syria in a daring commando raid. But that was not posted.

The latest article I tried to comment on was published by Michael Binyon yesterday, entitled "And for my next trick, I will turn into a prime minister", about Putin's decision to run for PM.

I shall now post that comment of mine that has not been posted (although 17 others have).


You mock Russian democracy, but did you know that ALL our Prime Ministers are selected at Bilderberg meetings (except Major who is a Trilateral)? Bilderberg is run by the same families who financed BOTH Hitler and Stalin, who between them murdered many, many millions of people.

The EU was born in Bilderberg.
Blair and Brown are Bilderberg.

All that Russia via Putin is doing is standing upto the warmongering thugs based in Washington DC, New York and London, and taking back what is Russian and using it for the benefit of Russia. This is giving Russia an increasing amount of power. If Russia is not on board with the plans of our warmongering leaders then this stalls their plans. This then increases the chances that we all learn the horrible crimes against humanity committed by our "leaders" in engineering, financing and profiting greatly from WW1 and WW2 in order to create centralised global governing institutions eg the UN, EU. Hence, Putin is demonised as a tyrant and a thug.

Monday, October 01, 2007


A Swiss study into the very unusual amount of options traded immediately before 9/11 has implicated some well known names in insider trading.



The conjunction of the data between volumes and profitability, the two authors conclude "the probability that there were offences of initiates (insider trading) is strong for American Airlines, United Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup and JP Morgan.


AA and UA allegedly had their planes hijacked (and by whom is yet to be clarified)

Citigroup = Rockefeller

JP Morgan = Rothschild

Bank of America = Director, Tommy Franks, Retired General, United States Army(!?) and the guy who took the USA into Iraq.

Merrill Lynch, I am not sure about yet, but it is one of those big Wall Street investment banks with connections to the Federal Reserve, which is controlled by Rothschild, Rockefeller, etc, and has a link to Carlyle via Charles Rossotti, then a senior adviser to Carlyle and former Chief at the IRS, and since 2004 a Director of Merrill Lynch. But more interesting is William J McDonough, who in 2001 was the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York(!), and has been vice chairman and a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which formulates U.S. monetary policy, and also served on the board of directors of the Bank for International Settlements and chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. A definite maybe with him. He ticks all the boxes for hearing something on the grapevine. McDonough is now Vice-Chairman and Special Adviser to the Chairman of Merrill Lynch.


Very interesting.

Very, very interesting indeed.


Walking my dog yesterday afternoon I came across five lads, all aged about 14 years old. They were throwing stones at trees, and each other. But then they hit the jackpot! On the side of the path was one of those red bins reserved for dog shit. These five lads, all products of Blair's Britain, began to reach into this bin full of bags of dog shit, and throw the bags of dog shit at each other, chasing each other down the path carrying these bags of dog shit, running through families with young kids on bikes to throw the bags of dog shit at each other.

They were later shouting their heads off on a kiddie park with swings, slides, etc swearing at each other, calling each other bastards etc.

This was on a pleasant Sunday afternoon in a pleasant suburb of a North English city.

Thanks Tony.