Wednesday, November 26, 2008


The law.

It's one of those things we're supposed to be terrified of.

We're not supposed to understand it, simply obey it.

It is supposed to protect us, we are told time and time again, but we know it doesn't. It does the opposite.

The law is taught at universities across the kingdom, but it costs a lot of money, particularly to become a barrister. As a consequence very few working class people have a career in law, while most lawyers are middle or upper class and have little interest in applying the law in a way which is different to that they were taught. After all, they have aspirations of becoming a judge, or retiring early, or they have a growing family and mortgage. They don't want to rock the boat.

But deep down they know it's all bullshit.

As Paul Weller wrote in The Whole Point Of No Return, "The laws made for and by the rich".

To discourage us, the ordinary man and woman scraping out a meagre living, from looking at the law and questioning it, the law is portayed as dull, dry, grey, hard to understand, and beyond our ken.

But it's not.

All you need is a cup of tea and a few hobnobs, some common sense, and a little bit of knowledge of real history, and the law suddenly becomes fascinating. It also becomes obvious that we live in a fantasy land of murder and fraud.

We are supposed to live by the law.

But so too are they.

Learning how to use the law against them is crucial.

And it's dead easy. Honest.

Lawyers are taught how to think within the law. The law has put us all in a box, and all too frequently in a coffin, as in times of engineered war. We need to think outside that box/coffin. Twist the law against them. Use what is not common knowledge in applying the law.

And it can be done.

Lawyers are not clued up on history, only on how to apply the law as they are taught. And that is generally without any critical thought and consideration of real history.

Find laws that have a relevant title. Most of them are listed on the parliament website. Look for laws that have "banking" or "fraud" or "financial" or similar in the title.

And then sit down with an open mind and read them.

Try to use what you know about Bilderberg, the money scam and engineering world wars, and I guarantee you will not be disappointed.

They are not perfect. Therefore their laws are not perfect.

You will find a way to twist the law, as they twist it like a legal knife to bleed us dry.

It's dead easy. Honest.


(or how to get Bilderberg in the dock).

Section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 states;

1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in
subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are—
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
10 years or to a fine (or to both).

Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, as referred to in Section 1 subsection 2 (c) above, states;

4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.



1. are the banks in a position in which they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, or persons, i.e. the general public? Yes. Our wages are paid directly into accounts we hold with them, so they effectively have control over our wages because in order to use our wages for food, shelter, etc the banks must give consent that our money can leave our account. Once our wages are in their evil clutches they can use it as a base to create more and more money for themselves, which they have since abused (see below). They are entrusted with the power to create money while nobody else can, but in order to create that money they require other people's money, or a request such as for a loan, to act as the base on which the inverted credit pyramid can be built. The question is, who is supposed to benefit from that created money? Us, by the banks financing industry, trade and commerce to keep the economy stable and growing, or the banks by providing them with very large amounts of money to gamble away in the full knowledege that we depend on them too much so that if the gambling fails then the government will bail them out with our tax that we paid for schools, hospitals, nurses, teachers, etc.

2. have the banks dishonestly abused that position? Of course. Hell, yeah! They created a housing bubble by making credit very easily available to jobless no hopers and gambled the resulting debt instruments away as derivatives, and have then managed to get the government to bail them out, but the Bilderberg link can be dragged into court to explain that one. Oh, how Brown could sing like a bird as he recalls his happy time at Bilderberg 1991. Why did Bilderberg Brown arrange a bail out of £5 billion for Bilderberg McKillop of RBS?

Tuesday, November 25, 2008




They are wide open to many violations of this act!

Terms used are; honesty, false representation, failing to disclose information (see my argument regarding FSMA 2000).

And how about this one; ABUSE OF POSITION!

Section 4: Fraud by abuse of position

20. Section 4 makes it an offence to commit a fraud by dishonestly abusing one's position. It applies in situations where the defendant has been put in a privileged position, and by virtue of this position is expected to safeguard another's financial interests or not act against those interests.

So if the banks have abused their priviliged position by creating a housing bubble in order to gamble the resulting debt instruments in derivatives AND THEN GAIN BY BAILOUTS, what is that?

Is that fraud?

I'm going to have a goooood think about that one.


Start a rumour somewhere that you're short of cash.

Help that rumour to spread a little, pass it around.

See your share price plunge.

Then scream, "Hey, we're one of the biggest banks in the world. You can't let us go down!"

Then get your mates in the Federal Reserve to give you $20 billion.

It's dead easy.

That's what Citigroup did.

Citigroup does not become one of the biggest banks in the world without the say so of certain people based in Wall Street and The City of London.

That's why Robert E Rubin, who is currently traitor No. 5 at the CFR, is a director of Citigroup, after he and Greenspan argued successfully for deregulation of derivatives.

That's why the Chairman of Citigroup is a knight of the realm, Sir Winfried Bischoff, after he increased the power of Henry J Schroder of London, one the greater powers in the Federal Reserve and although of German origin is a loyal British bank, after Bischoff arranged for Schroder to be deeply involved in the Thatcher privatisations.


This was the way James Pinkerton, a Fellow of the New America Foundation, described the appointment of Timothy Geithner as the Secretary to the Treasury on the BBC this morning.

Not change, but continuity.

Geithner, as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has been at the centre of the credit crunch and the subsequent sickening bail outs of his members.


According to the official Children in Need website, , nearly £21 million pounds has so far been raised by men, women and children across the UK devoting their time and energy to charity.

Every one be happy.

Come on.

Blow your blowout.

Clap your hands.

It's time to part-ee!

Until the same time next year...when we will still have not just children in need, but children in very desperate need; in need of clothing, clean water, food. You know, the basics in life, while greedy gambling bastard bankers, after their £500 BILLION bail out, drive around the City of London in their porchses having their cocks sucked by very young eastern european whores smuggled in by human traffickers.

There is something seriously, seriously wrong with this world.

Monday, November 24, 2008


I was very, very disturbed by the opening sequence for the new BBC drama series Survivors that started last night.

The sequence shows shots of streets in a busy city centre, I think Manchester, but the shots are speeded up and show the number of people in the streets increasing quite quickly as the morning goes on. This may not seem much, but these shots are broken up by shots of bacteria or germs quickly multiplying, just like the humans in the street.

The suggestion is obvious; humans are a virus on the planet.

This is of no great surprise when you understand the conspiracy. It was hinted at in the United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment, but Prince Philip stated it so eloquently when he said,
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

The plan is to reduce human population by approximately 80%. In Survivors the virus (and it looks like a virus which has been deliberately released from a laboratory) kills 90% of the human population.

And "a deadly virus" would do it.

But it would also be assisted by famine and drought brought on by the food and water supply chain being under the control of a few people, and the delivery of such governed by a collapsing globalized infrastructure in which country X grows food for country Y (on the other side of the world) and vice versa. One solution to this is to build much more local food supply chains.

And there is always a lovely world war, if we are ever so bloody stupid to have one again, knowing what we now know.

Sunday, November 23, 2008


Or simple harmonic motion?

Or momentum and collision in vector form?

There is no law.

I refer to these mathematical concepts taught in A Level Mathematics because in A Level Economics the Credit Creation Multiplier is referred to which shows how a bank can and does create money out of nothing. But this is not described in any great detail, and is mentioned merely in passing as a very minor subsection of a section. I had a look at a A Level course book, and the book of over 300 pages devoted one half page to this extremely important mechanism for giving a handful of warmongring, Moloch-worshipping megalomaniacs ridiculous power. The consequences in terms of power are not specified as part of the syllabus.

This is not part of the GCSE Economics syllabus.

However, the FSMA 2000 states that such a financial operation should be told us by the FSA BY LAW.

There are plenty of A levels and there is no law that states that we must all know everything taught at A level.

But it's there in black and white in the FSMA 2000, Section 4, Section 1
4 Public awareness
(1) The public awareness objective [of the FSA] is: promoting public understanding of the financial system.

And the banks collude with the FSA in suppressing the knowledge legally due to us thus giving them unfair advantage contrary to law.

How much do we, the muggins general public who have just been screwed for £500 billion, know of the financial system? NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH!

The FSA is a complete corrupt failure.


Sir Tom McKillop tried to say sorry this week. McKillop is Chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland.

The RBS logo is of great significance. It is the all-seeing eye on a pyramid. Most people haven't the faintest idea that the all-seeing eye on a pyramid exists as a symbol, and so will not look for it. But the RBS logo is that symbol.

What would an all-seeing eye on a pyramid look like from directly above? A square with diagonal lines between opposite corners but with a circle in the middle obscuring the point where those diagonal lines cross?

Such an image has been slightly embellished in the RBS logo by
(a) removing the square outline,
(b) inserting lines that would be perpendicular to those missing lines running to the eye
(c) keeping the diagonal lines but duplicating them to form four arrows pointing to the eye, as if to say to us, "look, we're watching you, always".

A logo says alot about a business. It is supposed to say who you are and what you stand for. Why would a major bank employ such a logo? Why would a knight run that bank, one who attends Bilderberg and also runs one of the biggest petroleum corporations in the world?

As for the logo of HSBC, that also is a pyramid, but without the eye. Imagine looking at a red pyramid from directly above, and imagine 'opening' that pyramid like it was a present by pulling the left triangle down to the left and the right triangle down to the right, as if they were on hinges on their bases, to reveal a white interior. You could 'close' the pyramid by lifting the right and left triangles up until they formed the full, closed red pyramid.

Yet another British bank with a pyramid in its logo is the Halifax Bank of Scotland, using the X from Halifax.

These banks are considered the biggest British banks. Lloyds TSB uses a black horse. As the horse was a symbol of the sun, Lloyds TSB effectively has a black sun for a logo. The Nazis revered the black sun.

We are run by a right bunch of weirdos, aren't we?

Saturday, November 22, 2008


The statistics counter I have indicates a growing interest in the principle of unjust enrichment.

My suggestion is this;

if a bank customer is not fully aware that when a bank issues a loan to that customer and the loan is issued through fractional reserve banking, i.e. the 'money' for that loan is not transferred to the customer but 'credit' is issued to the customer instead while the base 'money' for that loan remains under the control of the bank, and that customer is unaware that such a system is in operation and that his or her loan was issued via such a system, then is the bank voilating the principle of unjust enrichment if that customer repays that loan?

I would argue undoubtedly yes.

I think it could be argued that such a system is not 100% pure fraud, but it is probably around 90% pure fraud. It is definitely unfair, as Lord Stamp so eloquently described the power such a system hands to private individials.

But it is definitely unjust.

And it is definitely enrichment.

Most queries are coming from New York and London.


If it is true that Tim Geithner is to be Obama's Treasury Secretary then we will get that change Obama sold us; but it will be change you will not want.

Geithner, who attended Bilderberg this year, believes in a unified global banking network. This is exactly what the warmnongering, Moloch-worshipping megalomaniacs want. It is exactly the solution the warmnongering, Moloch-worshipping megalomaniacs sought by blowing all the credit they could create on gambling instead of financing and investing in the development of industry and commerce to the benefit of the people in general. Look who else attended Bilderberg this year;
Ben Bernanke - Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Henry Paulson - current U.S. Treasury Secretary.
Jean-Claude Trichet - President of the European Central Bank.
Robert Zoellick - President of the World Bank

As for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? She voted for the wars after 9/11, and loves Israel. More change you will not want.



Obama Picks New York Fed Chief to Lead Treasury
Geithner Has Helped Engineer U.S. Response to Financial Crisis

By David Cho, Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 22, 2008; Page A01

President-elect Barack Obama has selected New York Federal Reserve Bank President Timothy F. Geithner as Treasury secretary, handing the post to a primary architect of the Bush administration's response to the financial crisis, according to Democratic and industry officials yesterday.

Friday, November 21, 2008


The lead comment in The Bilderberg Washington Post today is from two former National Security Advisors, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They suggest that NATO go into Palestine and sort the situation out.

This is an interesting proposal, but one that like the war caused by Georgia this summer, is simply expansion of NATO.

NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the key words being North Atlantic. The words Middle East or Caucasian do not appear.

NATO has slowly evolved into a world police force.

The United Nations has slowly evolved into a world government, with 'local' branches such as the European Union, African Union etc.

This is what David Icke stated would happen.

That was the purpose of WW2, to get a potential world government created in the form of a debating society called the UN (funded by Rockefeller), and NATO, proposed as a bulwark against communist aggression in Europe (but without any mention as to who financed and armed communism; Rothschild, Rockefeller and FDR).

NB in the following proposal Palestine would be nonmilitarized, i.e. defenceless against further Israeli occupation and aggression.



...The major elements of an agreement are well known. A key element in any new initiative would be for the U.S. president to declare publicly what, in the view of this country, the basic parameters of a fair and enduring peace ought to be. These should contain four principal elements: 1967 borders, with minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon modifications; compensation in lieu of the right of return for Palestinian refugees; Jerusalem as real home to two capitals; and a nonmilitarized Palestinian state.

Something more might be needed to deal with Israeli security concerns about turning over territory to a Palestinian government incapable of securing Israel against terrorist activity. That could be dealt with by deploying an international peacekeeping force, such as one from NATO, which could not only replace Israeli security but train Palestinian troops to become effective.

Thursday, November 20, 2008


Gordon "traitor to the human race" Brown was suddenly able to provide £500 billion to bail out the greedy, gambling banks.

In a different system, in which the people's government would create money for what the people needed, what would £500 billion provide for the people?

What have the banks of today done to deserve a £500 billion overdraft facility with our government, i.e. us?

We have so far had no investigation, or promise of an investigation, into why such colossal amounts of money can suddenly be found to bail out the warmongering, Moloch-worshipping megolmaniacs.

The banks created a housing bubble in order to gamble the resulting credit bubble in mortgage-backed securities away on the derivatives market. It appears that particular profit-driven action has not worked, and I suspect it was not supposed to, and I also suspect it has been a deliberate attempt to instigate global financial chaos as a prelude to a third and final world war to prepare the introduction of a despotic world government.

Such financial speculation would never, never, never happen under a system controlled by the people, for the people and of the people.

We are controlled by fascists.

However we are also controlled by communists.

We saw both of these political systems in the mid-20th Century, both despotic, tyrannical systems.

And that's what THEY want; one tryant ruling over the rest, because the rest were tricked into accepting a genocidal system as a result of an engineered problem.

We live through the same today.

Beware of all politicians and political leaders in these times of chaos.

Do not accept anything that looks or smells like fascism or communism, for they are ultimately controlled by one, who in modern history has ultimately been shown to have been controlled by murdering bastards with aims opposite to that of the people.


Because he is not that sorry.

He still gets his millions.

And all his piss-taking mates and masters keep their multi-billions.

McKillop was at Bilderberg this year.

McKillop is associated not just with RBS but BP (bilderberg petroleum).

The only way I would accept McKillop's apology is if McKillop told us all in a sworn affidavit what was said at Bilderberg this year.

Otherwise, bring forth the guillotine. He is still a minor traitor to the human race. Minor, but still a traitor to the human race.



Watch this 7 minute film about money and credit.

I totally agree with the basic idea; that money should be created by government only, and there should be no limit as to the amount of money the government creates.

But hang on, you say, aren’t you against creating money out of nothing?

Yes and no.

I am against private individuals, via ownership of a bank for example, being able to create money, for this as Lord Stamp states give those few individuals astronomical power which will be and has been used to create a world government that those people control.

On the other hand, I am not against the government doing this because the government is us, or it should be but is currently not precisely because we have allowed private individuals to create money and they have then abused that power to finance tyrants and corrupt politicians, the classic being Tony “Faustus” Blair.

If the government alone creates money and is allowed to create as much as we the people require then the following will occur;
1. the money will be used as we the people want it to be used, for example to build as many schools and train as many teachers as we want, not to finance foreign wars and tyrants.
2. we will not be concerned about owing any bank any amount of money because we, through the government, can create it.

Yes, the money created by the government will not exist physically, and I am beginning to suspect this is why the film “Money as Debt” was made, to make the idea of non-existent money repulsive.

But by restricting ourselves to using pure hard currency such as gold or silver coin we run the risk of restricting our development as a species. Money is energy. The more we have the more we can do.

The danger lies in who creates that non-existent money, or credit.

For the last few hundred years we have allowed ourselves to be governed by tyrants, who first taxed us to death to pay for wars of conquest, and upon the creation of the Bank of England then created money out of nothing AND taxed us to death to finance wars of empire and conquest.

But the vast majority of people don’t want war. They just want a happy, peaceful, fruitful life to pass on to their children and grandchildren. Our parents and grandparents did not have that opportunity because the people they allowed to create money out of nothing created Hitler and Stalin and both world wars of last century.

Such tyrants and death and destruction would never have occurred if we had a government of the people, for the people and by the people creating money for the people and their general welfare. The purpose and destination of all credit would be thoroughly planned and traced and used for the good of the people, not for a handful of warmongering, Moloch-worshipping megalomaniacs.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008


Last night Niall Ferguson talked about Shylock and a pound of flesh. The reason why Shylock wanted his pound of flesh for non-payment of a loan was because Shylock advanced real, hard, physical specie for that loan. In comparison, today a bank loans out nothing for its loans.

How does this work?

Ferguson did not address this point last night toward the end of the programme when he was driving around Memphis with a car repo man. The questions Ferguson did not ask were why banks have been so keen to issue loans and where the money for those loans came from.

The answer to both those questions is that the money, if we can call it that, does not exist. A bank can issue many loans because it is not really lending anything out. If you or I loaned a friend a tenner then we would be down a tenner and the friend up a tenner. There is conservation of money; one loses and the other gains.

But if a bank lends you a tenner then there is not conservation of money; you would be up a tenner but the bank would keep the tenner, and you would be expected to return that tenner while the bank kept the original tenner, so the bank would be up a tenner.

That's why the banks are not out for their pounds of flesh. Deep down they know they're taking the piss with the banking scam.

It's all as clear as custard, when by law it should be crystal clear.


Dire warnings of a deep recession are all over the news.

The Bank of England recently slashed interest rates.

The FSA says it did not know about the scale of the derivatives market or the way the banks were abusing their power to create credit.

The BoE and FSA should regulate our financial system to provide stability and fairness.

They have failed. Miserably.

How did they not see this coming?

Monday, November 17, 2008


Niall Ferguson was unsurprisingly disappointing tonight in The Ascent of Money on C4.

I say unsurprisingly because he didn't say much and what he did he confused. For example he frequently used the terms "money" and "credit".

Is there a difference? Yes. Money exists. Credit does not.

For example, Ferguson referred to the Spanish using slave labour to mine gold and silver from North Peru. If the Spanish required credit, why did they use slave labour to mine gold and silver from North Peru? Because in the medieval age money was money; real, hard money.

Somewhere along the way credit started.

Credit is what you would think it to be; credit.

It's not quite lending, for in lending transfer of real, physical products takes place, such as silver coin mined from the mountains of North Peru.

Credit is different; very, very different.


Because credit does not exist. It is simply that; credit.

Credit is simply created out of nothing, and does not exist.

A banker can issue credit because it is very easy to make, and make someone believe it exists, by, using a unit of measurement that does exist, e.g. pound sterling.

So a banker can issue several billions of credit because that banker knows it does not exist, but he or she knows that another banker elsewhere can issue another several billions of credit. The game for the bankers is that a fraction of those billions will be unrecoverable. But the rest, by financing industry or commerce will be, thus making the banker who recovers most very rich, by making money out of nothing...and all by sitting on their arses while we, the muggins human race, does all the work!

That's how it works!

How else can you explain why bank buildings are the biggest in town?

And war, in which people (not bankers) actually die horrible, gruesome deaths, is the biggest debt-generator and profit-maker of them all, world wars in particular!

Ferguson did not elaborate on this point, and I do not expect him to.

That is why he is Professor.

That is why he was permitted (limited) access to the Rothschild archives; because the Rothschilds know Ferguson has his head up his arse.

Ferguson, as excitable and naive as he is, just does not get it.

That is why he is who he is; Professor of Shite!

Even Spooks tonight is peddling some bollocks conspiracy theory that the recent banking collapse was a result of a financial terrorist attack (probably Russian, knowing Spooks).

If they wanted you to know they would tell you.

If they wanted you to know why the banking system collapsed there would be an inquiry. We have inquiries into all sorts of, in comparison, very minor events, but not in to why £500 billion is suddenly being made available to bail out greedy, gambling banks while we are supposed to be happy and cheer at raising a paltry in comparison £30 million for Children in need...AGAIN!

It's that simple; if they wanted you to know how the banking system worked they would tell you.

But they don't tell you.

Because they don't want you to know.

Hence the naive but likeable Ferguson appears to talk to you, to explain to you from the bottom of his unsuspecting heart, when he actually knows SWEET FUCK ALL!!!!

Saturday, November 15, 2008


I'm watching The Fallen on BBC2.

It's about the British soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both wars started after 9/11.

Tattooed mothers from shithole inner city estates crying as they talk to the camera about their dead sons.

No mention of Rockefeller.

No mention of Exxon.

No mention of Royal Dutch Shell.

No Mention of BP.

No mention of J P Morgan Chase.

A few references to grieving parents swearing an oath of loyalty (to a Queen who is quietly signing her sovereignty over The United Kingdom to an unelected European government).

But oceans of painful tears.

I've had enough of this bollocks. Haven't you?

Time for some re-history.

Friday, November 14, 2008


Why do we still have children in need?

When I see the amount of money being created out of nothing to bail out the greedy gambling banks, which has quietly increased from $700 billion to several trillions of dollars and the original purpose of that money has changed, then I get a little confused.

Where has all that money suddenly come from?

Why is it being used to bail out greedy gambling banks and give them more power?

Who is deciding where that money is going?

But then I remember Bilderberg.

Paulson. Bernanke. Rockefeller. Brown. All Bilderberg scumbags.

There will never be a Bilderbergers-in-need day. Why? Because they control the creation of money, and how that money, in this case trillions of dollars, is used; to bail out greedy gambling banks (which in some cases they worked for and may well own).

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

ISN'T WAR A ...?

If we hate war so much, why do we go to war so easily?

When I saw that ass David Miliband at the cenotaph last Sunday, I was nearly sick. That mouthy little *&$!^ was prepared to take us into war with Russia over that tie-munching little *&$!^ Saakashvili murdering South Ossetian villagers in their beds.

It is because of little *&$!^s like Miliband that we go to war.

Mouthy, gobby little *&$!^s who are nowhere near the front line when it's time to go over the top.

Our leaders are either vain, incompetent, incapable of clear thought, or corrupt; possibly all four.

They could also be blackmailed, or coerced in some way.

Or blinded by promised riches.


They don't serve us. They serve themselves and their satanist masters.

There was only group of people who won in WW1. And it wasn't the British people. It was the British oligarchy and their tools in Wall Street and Washington DC following the creation of the Federal Reserve.

But many US politicians saw through the League-of-Nations-as-world-government scam, and voted out.

So during the 1920's when people were occupied by the good times, and 1930's when people were occupied by the bad times, both fascism and communism were created, and a longer, more bloodier world war was created, with the USA dragged into it for longer so it would experience more death and destruction than it did in WW1.

And hey presto! After WW2 the USA joined and even housed The United Nations, and a whole host of global governing and controlling organizations were created along with it.

So now we, the British people, who allegedly won both WW1 and WW2, are subservient to a non-elected European government, which in turn is governed by a non-elected United Nations!

That's why war is such a bastard.

The wars weren't about doing the right thing and killing the nun-raping, baby-eating enemy. It was about the megalomania of a cabal of families centred in London, Paris and Wall Street, to get a form of world government created, and sowing the seed of a third and final world war by creating Israel in a land where it would without a shadow of a doubt create a universe of hatred and terrorism that could be easily manipulated into at least a global police state and probably a world war.

Cue The Last Post (for the human race) ...


The Bilderberg Washington Post has in its Op-Ed column today requested that Al Gore and Richard Holbrooke be given posts in Obama's administration; Gore as Secretary of State, and Holbrooke as Secretary of toilet cleaning.

Gore is a gofer for Prince Philip and the green agenda that would gladly see off 80% of the human population to 'save the planet', i.e. save the planet as a playground for the super-rich while the remaining 1 billion or so people are herded into mega-cities and or mega-farms to produce all that the super-rich require for a luxurious life.

Holbrooke cleans toilets with his tongue.


If there is a single appointment Barack Obama could make to signal how dramatically things will change in Washington, it would be to name Albert Gore Jr. -- former House member, former senator, former vice president, former presidential nominee and current Custodian of the Planet -- as secretary of state. For all the other aspirants to the job, sorry -- this is an inconvenient truth.

...This is merely my short list. I have not mentioned some truly outstanding people -- Richard Holbrooke, for instance -- nor, for that matter, am I all that confident that Gore would leave Nashville for Foggy Bottom. He's rich now and reports to no one.

Saturday, November 08, 2008


During August this year, the likes of President-elect Obama (see his official website), Richard Holbrooke (see The Washington Post) and our beloved David Miliband (see The Times) all instantly mouthed off that Russia either invaded South Ossetia and Georgia reacted to this alleged invasion, or Russia provoked Georgia into invading South Ossetia by supporting separatists massively shelling Georgian military positions and villages.

Both these claims have now been proved false.

The New York Times yesterday ran a lead front page article on official reports from monitors from the OSCE.

1. Georgia started it without any obvious provocation, starting the military build up by 3pm on 7th August at the earliest (though as RIA Novosti reported plans for such an attack were known of on the 6th) and calling a ceasefire so that inhabitants of South Ossetia would be in their beds when the Georgian shelling began at 2335 on the 7th August.
2. Georgia subsequently lied to everyone about the war (though I suspect some in Washington and London at least suggested the attack if not directly ordered it.)

The observations are supported by two experienced British military personnel, British Army captain Ryan Grist and Wing Commander Stephen Young. Grist resigned under unclear circumstances soon after debriefing diplomats from the EU and giving his conclusions. You may recall that Russia's Foreign Minister was accused of very frequently using the F word in a phone call to Miliband, but it was later reported that Lavrov used the F word only once and used it in a verbatim quote from an EU diplomat regarding Saakashvili. Are the two related?

My conclusions:
1. Russia acted swiftly and with cause to stop a slaughter started by Saakashvili (and unknown but suspected personnel in London and Washington)
2. Saakashvili must go (as must Miliband and Malloch-Brown; Miliband for being such an ass, and Malloch-Brown for installing Saakashvili in the first place!)


Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.

Georgia moved forces toward the border of the breakaway region of South Ossetia on Aug. 7, at the start of what it called a defensive war with separatists there and with Russian forces.

Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.

...“The Georgians have been quite clear that they were shelling targets — the mayor’s office, police headquarters — that had been used for military purposes,” said Matthew J. Bryza, a deputy assistant secretary of state and one of Mr. Saakashvili’s vocal supporters in Washington.

Those claims have not been independently verified, and Georgia’s account was disputed by Ryan Grist, a former British Army captain who was the senior O.S.C.E. representative in Georgia when the war broke out. Mr. Grist said that he was in constant contact that night with all sides, with the office in Tskhinvali and with Wing Commander Stephen Young, the retired British military officer who leads the monitoring team.

“It was clear to me that the attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” Mr. Grist said. “The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town.”

Mr. Grist has served as a military officer or diplomat in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kosovo and Yugoslavia. In August, after the Georgian foreign minister, Eka Tkeshelashvili, who has no military experience, assured diplomats in Tbilisi that the attack was measured and discriminate, Mr. Grist gave a briefing to diplomats from the European Union that drew from the monitors’ observations and included his assessments. He then soon resigned under unclear circumstances.

A second briefing was led by Commander Young in October for military attach├ęs visiting Georgia. At the meeting, according to a person in attendance, Commander Young stood by the monitors’ assessment that Georgian villages had not been extensively shelled on the evening or night of Aug. 7. “If there had been heavy shelling in areas that Georgia claimed were shelled, then our people would have heard it, and they didn’t,” Commander Young said, according to the person who attended. “They heard only occasional small-arms fire.”

...Neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary, as Mr. Saakashvili insists.

...With a paucity of reliable and unbiased information available, the O.S.C.E. observations put the United States in a potentially difficult position. The United States, Mr. Saakashvili’s principal source of international support, has for years accepted the organization’s conclusions and praised its professionalism. Mr. Bryza refrained from passing judgment on the conflicting accounts.

“I wasn’t there,” he said, referring to the battle. “We didn’t have people there. But the O.S.C.E. really has been our benchmark on many things over the years.”

The O.S.C.E. itself, while refusing to discuss its internal findings, stood by the accuracy of its work but urged caution in interpreting it too broadly. “We are confident that all O.S.C.E. observations are expert, accurate and unbiased,” Martha Freeman, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail message.

Thursday, November 06, 2008


Mr Obama

There are no doubt many people, who some people consider wise while others consider foolish, are suggesting that you do this, that and the other. For example Madeleine Albright and John Bolton were curiously able to publish their open letters in The Daily Telegraph yesterday. Albright was happy to allow half a million Iraqi children die during her stint under Bill Clinton, and as for Bolton, we all know the rotten piece of neocon wood underneath which he lives.

But I ask you to take this one suggestion from an ordinary member of the human race, from one man to another; whatever you do, you must not, repeat not, appoint Richard Holbrooke to any position in your administration, not even to clean the toilets. If you do, you can expect military, probably nuclear, confrontations with Russia.

Mr Medvedev, Mr Putin and Mr Lavrov of the Russian Government have openly expressed their desire to work with the new administration of the USA to, for example, sort out the financial crisis, which we know was deliberately caused by the faction in the USA to which Holbrooke is allied, which is centred on the Bilderberg Group.

There is some question over your attendance at this year's Bilderberg meeting which was held in Chantilly, VA. Did you? Didn't you?

The fact is that Bilderberg, along with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), to which your wife belongs, represents all that is wrong with this world.

Mr Obama, if you want to change not just the USA but the whole world, you must stay away from members of the CFR and Bilderberg. If you have been seduced by them already then it will come as no surprise to a large minority. But if you have not, then study them. Why were they created? Who financed them?

Richard Holbrooke is one of them; a willing servant of the cabal who have raped the planet, who engineered and profited from the trans-atlantic slave trade, who engineered and profited from the two world wars of last century, and have engineered the chaos in the Middle East that threatens the third and final world war to bring in a tyrannical fascist world government

We know his face. We know who he is. There are others who we suspect exist but at the moment they have no face for us to recognise them.

But Holbrooke we know.

He is one of them.


ps if you want to sort out the financial chaos I suggest you listen very carefully to Lyndon Larouche.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008


Less than 24 hours after being made President-elect and Obama shows his loyalty.

Obama is appointing Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.

Rahm's father Benjamin was a member of the Irgun terrorist organization that murdered Palestinians and British soldiers to create Israel.

It's such a farce!


David Rockefeller gave $15,000 to the Republican National Committee, and $4600 directly to John McCain.

Other Rockefellers, including David's son David Jr, gave smaller sums to the Democratic Party.

This kind of money sounds like quite a lot to ‘normal’ people like us.

But how much did George Soros give to the Democratic party?

Well George himself gave over $60,000 in late June 2007.

But other members of his direct family also gave substantial personal sums to the Democratic Party;
Jennifer, daughter-in-law, $21,750
Jonathan, son and wife of Jennifer, $21,750
Melissa Schiff-Soros, daughter-in-law, $21,500
Robert, son and wife of Melissa, $21,500
Andrea, daughter, $21,250

These and employees of George also gave direct to Democrat senators, including Obama.

WHO DID WALL STREET FINANCE? reports campaign finance contributions. The following statistics can be found at their website .

Goldman Sachs (normally Democrat)
Democrat : $3.4 million
Republican : $1.3 million

Democrat : $2.2 million (variable)
Republican $1.5 million

JP Morgan Chase
Democrat : $2.2 million (variable)
Republican $1.5 million

Bank of America (normally Republican)
Democrat : $1.1 million
Republican : $0.9 million

Morgan Stanley (normally Republican)
Democrat : $1.8 million
Republican : $1.3 million

Merrill Lynch (normally Republican)
Democrat : $1.1 million
Republican : $1.2 million

Regarding Merrill Lynch, they normally finance Republicans much more than Democrats, so the fact they financed Republicans $100,000 more than Democrats is of significance.

Regarding Morgan Stanley, it usually finances the Republicans much more than it does the Democrats, but decided to finance the Democrats much more this year.

Those banks who normally fund the Republicans much more than the Democrats also reduced the difference between their contributions to the two parties, thus reducing the financial power of the Republicans.

The largest contributor over recent years has been the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, which in the 2000 election contributed $8.8 million and in the 2002 elections $9.4 million, but this year managed a contribution of only $1.9 million to the Democrats, and approximately the same for 2004 and 2006, which is less than the contribution to the Democrats of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase (which employs bloodbath Blair).

So it would appear that Wall Street wanted the Democrats to win.

Looking at Obama’s contributors, 91% came from individual donations. Obama’s top individual contributors contain
2nd largest Goldman Sachs ($874,207)
6th largest JP Morgan Chase ($581,460)
7th largest Citigroup ($581,216)
14th largest UBS AG ($454,795)
17th largest Morgan Stanley ($425,102)

McCain’s top five individual contributors were
Merrill Lynch ($359,070)
Citigroup ($296,151)
Morgan Stanley ($262,777)
Goldman Sachs ($228,695)
JPMorgan Chase ($215,042)

In other words, Goldman Sachs gave nearly 4 times as much to Obama than it did to McCain. Citigroup gave nearly twice as much to Obama as it did to McCain, as did JP Morgan Chase, as did Morgan Stanley.

These are big hitters in Wall Street. These are the banks that were bailed out on the understanding that they would begin lending, but are instead using the bailout money to buy other banks, thereby consolidating their power!


Obama was endorsed by the Bilderberg Washington Post.

One interesting point is that Obama himself is not a member of the CFR, but his wife is, and his VP Joe Biden is Mr CFR and a good friend of the murderous apartheid Zionist State of Israel.

And with Obama’s adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR, BIL, TC) mouthing off against Russia, it looks like business as usual to me.

The Federal Reserve will remain in tact, shafting not just the American people, but the whole world.

And when that ‘big event’ occurs that Biden, Powell and many others are telling us will happen very soon, the inexperienced Obama is going to have to trust the advice of some people who do not have the best interests of the human race at heart, and Brzezinski is one of them ( just read his books).

Don’t get me wrong. I’m very glad that someone of mixed race has been elected to become President of the United States of America. The great relief, hope and anticipation that change may have finally come to America is evident in the tears shed by an expectant American population (though the popular vote was curiously much closer than the college vote).

But it takes a lot of money to become President, $640 million in Obama’s case! And it appears that Wall Street financed Obama and the Democrats much more than it did McCain and the Republicans.

We have to ask why.