Saturday, April 30, 2016


In response and as support, John Mann MP has retweeted this, which appears to be from a labour party member who is a teacher of history:

At first sight, this could mean trouble for anti-Mannites.

But actually, when you read the article by the history teacher you are left with a sense of bewilderment: for this teacher of history still states that there was an agreement between the Nazis and the Zionists to transfer German Jews from Germany to Palestine:
This is why, when Ken Livingstone announces he can’t have offended anyone because he’s told “the truth” about relations between pre-war Zionism and the Nazis, or when his online supporters spam everyone with links to the Wikipedia page on the Haavara Agreement as though it is game, set and match to their hero, they are perverting the truth, even whilst they are offering facts.

Does this Labour party-supporting history teacher deny that the Nazis and the Zionists collaborated?

Does he eckers like?

The fact remains: the Zionists and the Nazis collaborated during the 1930s and had a formal national agreement and policy. I myself have pointed out that there was the peaceful coersion of finance and training in farming etc which was paid for by the Nazis, which was essentially the carrot, but then there was also the stick of Nazi violence.

The author has focused on the stick not the carrot.

If you read The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black you will be left with a numbness in that all that you had read and heard before about Israel is null and void, and you can then begin to think for yourself.

And the horrific fact, supported by Zionist leaders, is that the holocaust of Jews in WW2 was designed to provoke sympathy for the establishement of a 'Jewish' state: the number of 6 million dead was being proposed by Zionists BEFORE WW2 as the number required to convince the world that Israel should be created; they allowed the sick and old and young to be murdered as 'economic dust'.

And as for the Warburgs...


Will the Bolton Monarchy kindly venture into Mount Doom and destroy the One Ring?

Only those with evil and/or untrustworthy intentions would not throw the One Ring into the burning river inside Mount Doom, instead seeking selfish power and riches.

No thanks.

No offers of help.

No no'in'.

Only peeping tom surveillance.



But was Infowhores ever great?

I used to think so, a few years ago, when I'd tune in nearly every night, pay my dues to the club.

But after several years of investigation I have come to the conclusion that all that Infowhores is is the expression of the right, pro-Zionist wing of the American intelligence community.

Infowhores support the John Birch Society and Libertarianism, who push this myth that Andrew Jackson was a good guy because he destroyed the Second Bank of the United States (BUS2). The myth is that considerate nice guy Jackson destroyed BUS2 because BUS2 was corrupt, running the economy badly and fleecing the ordinary American. However, the troof about Jackson is that:
1. when Aaron Burr had assassinated Alexander Hamilton aftre Hamilton had exposed Burr's treason, Burr fled to Jackson's house in Tennessee. Why would he do that unless he and Jackson were already familiar. But while Burr stayed with Jackson, these two and others plotted yet more treason against the United States. They were tried and got off only because the foreman of the jury was their best mate. Burr then fled to England and stayed a few years with the chief of British Intelligence Jeremy Bentham. Upon his return to the USA, Burr began to engineer the rise of Jackson for the Presidency, which was achieved through British agent Martin van Buren who ran New York. Jackson then proceeded to destroy BUS2 because it was developing the United States into a rival to the British Empah;
2. Jackson was one of the largest slaveholders in Tennessee, at one time owning 300 slaves. He would have his runaway slaves beaten upon their capture, and one slave named Gilbert died from his beating;
3. Jackson stabbed the Cherokee in the back by forcing them and four other 'civilized' tribes to relocate from Georgia and other soon-to-be Confederate states to what is now Oklahoma. A Cherokee had earlier saved Jackson's life, which prompted Jackson to declare eternal friendship between the United States and the Cherokee. But Jackson repaid that debt through the forced removal called The Trail of Tears which killed 4000 native Americans.
4. Jackson believed in slavery that much that he organised a raid on Negro Fort in Spanish Florida in order to recpature fugitive slaves who had escaped their slavery and found sanctuary there, and return those fugitive slaves to their 'rightful owners'. Jackson offered to pay $50 dollars for each captured occupant of Negro Fort. But the General who executed the operation fired a cannonball into the fort's arsenal and blew the fort sky high, killing 300, mostly women and children;
5. a claim that Jacksonites make to show how brilliant Jackson was is that he paid off the debt. Yes, he did pay off the debt. But Nicholas Biddle had done all the hard work with good management of the BUS2;
6. when Jackson tried to withdraw federal funds from BUS2, he had to fire two Treasury Secretaries, who refused to withdraw those funds because of the legality and finanical implications, and finally appointed a fellow slaveholder Roger Taney, who withdrew the funds and placed them in 'pet banks', which were really his mates and banks loyal to Jackson. Those pet banks, flush with fresh funds, issued loans many more times than the value of the funds, which fueled speculation in land, which Jackson burst with his Specie Circular. This led to the 1837 Panic. Henry Clews in 28 Years on Wall Street states this, and mocks Jackson and van Buren for their incompetence while praising Biddle's management of BUS2.
7. another claim that Jacksonites make is that he slew the bankers. No he didn't. He transferred federal funds into banks owned and run by his mates and party loyalists who then went gambling on land. But it was Jackson who gave the Rothschilds their big break by appointing them agents for the United States in Europe;
8. and yet another claim made by Jacksonites is that he opposed big governmnent. But what sort of man opposed big government yet believed in slavery so much that he became one of the largest slaveholders in the country, allowed Texas to join the Union even though Texans were the most extreme white supremacists who had rebelled against the Mexican government in order to keep thier slaves, and invaded Spanish territory to return fugitive slaves to their slavery?
9. in destroying BUS2 Jackson and the USA in general was unable to industrialise the South which kept the South dependent on slavery. And his Indian Removal Act forced civilized native American tribes to leave their ancestral lands in states like Georgia and Tennessee so that wealthy planters could build plantations to be worked by slaves. All this led to the Confederate States of America, who went to war to defend their right to keep slaves. In this, Jackson is the Godfather of the Confederacy.

And now take this presidential campaign, in which Infowhores have pushed Donald Trump.

There is something very, very wrong about this:
1. in December last year, Donald Trump appeared on Alex Jones show and they both said that they would be talking to each other a lot afterwards. Yet just a few days ago Trump gave a foreign policy speech in which Trump restated his love for Israel and his willingness to support Saudi Arabia, even though both are complicit in the attacks on his beloved New York on 9/11. And not only that, Trump strongly believes that Iran is the mischief maker in the Middle East, even though there are several videos of General Wesley Clark stating that shortly after 9/11 he was told of a plan to attack seven nations in five years, one of those countries being Iran. Iran was also named as the major threat to US national security in PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses. But 4 months after appearing on Alex Jones show, Trump still believes in the official Neocon line: al Qaeda did 9/11, fight for Israel and destroy Iran;
2. the 'insider', Dogy Roger Stone, who allegedly left Trump and began to appear on Infowhores, is implicated in the two biggest events of last decade which have led to years of financial chaos and war: he boasts that he was the one who got Florida to go for George W Bush in 2000 which led to all the wars since because when W got in he surrounded himself with PNAC founders and members (Stone is rabidly pro-Israel); he also boasts that he was the one who scuttled the investigation into corrupt Wall Street practices by exposing Eliot Spitzer for using whores (which is ironic considering Stone is now appearing on Infowhores).
3. Trump's new campaign manager, Manafort, appears to me to be on the edge of and protecting CIA operations through PR.

Alex Jones himself needs to 'fess up asap:
1. he recently admitted that he has attended blood-drinking rituals, some of them 'bad rituals of the dark side';
2. he has claimed on a radio show other than his own that half his family are CIA;
3. he has also revealed that his ancestors were colonels and generals in the Confederate Army, which would explain why he is at the least sympathetic to neo-Confederacy, which now claims that the Confederate states seceded because of a tariff, when all primary documents and primary personnel at the time state that the prime reason for their secession and the cause of the Confederacy was to protect and retain the institution of negro slavery.

And now they have become complicit in a peeping tom operation.


I've changed my mind.

Please don't make Infowhores great again.


He thinks the US military is weak and needs beefing up.

He believes that Israel and Saudi Arabia are the good guys and Iran is the bad guy.

He wants to rip up the P5+1 treaty with Iran.

This would destabilise the Middle East.

With a stronger US military at their disposal, and Trump's love of Israel and Netanyahu, Israel will capitalise on this instability to start war on Iran to fulfill the 9/11 PNAC agenda.

Trump's policy in the Middle East is straight outta' PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses.

On NATO, he has has not suggested that it be disbanded, only:
1. that members cough up;
2. the focus should be on Islamic terrorism.

And on point 2., does this mean carpet bombing of nations who he thinks are harbouring terrorists? Like Afghanistan since 2001 after his beloved Israel did 9/11?

What if Trump can be convinced through NATO/CIA propaganda and media that Iran is harbouring Islamic State?

Or that Iran was complicit in 9/11?



Blood-drinking Confederate General Alex Jones retweeted (and reported on Infowhores):






And John Mann MP is the firestarter/arsonist.

I just read this:
David Abrahams, a Jewish donor who has given close to $1 million to Labour over the past two decades, this week ended his support for the party over anti-Semitism within its ranks, which he called “a plague that has to be stamped out.”


Jonathan Arkush is President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. He is quoted by Haaretz as saying,
"What Ken Livingstone deliberately did was to draw an equation between Nazism and Zionism. He therefore crossed a line into what certainly most people would regard as distinctly anti-Semitic...It was much more than offensive language, Ken Livingstone actually said Hitler was some sort of Zionist,"

[source : British Jewish Leader Slams Livingstone's Remarks as 'Unquestionably anti-Semitic', Haartez,, 29th April 2016]

The readers' comments on this article are overwhelmingly in support of Livingston.

A typical reply is this from 'Jan':
although I am not a fan of him, needs a bit of defense here. He never said that Hitler was a zionist. He simply said that the zionist movement in Germany signed an agreement with the Hitler government, which is patently true. We all know why Hitler did this, it was not because he loved Jews. But what is happening at this moment is hysteria because of interpretations of what people think Livingstone meant and not about what he really said. I am actually quite disgusted by this onslaught.

And it was all kicked off by that disckhead Zionist John Mann MP accusing Livingston of rewriting history!!

Mann should be history.


Next week is the local elections across the whole of the UK.

When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, John Mann immediately stabbed Corbyn in the back in an article published in the not-so-Labour Daily Mail. I covered this in SURPRISE! JOHN MANN IMMEDIATELY STABS CORBYN IN THE BACK IN THE DAILY MAIL. Mann has been issuing threats to Corbyn that failure in the elections next week will mean the sack for Corbyn.

So what does Mann do?

One week before those elections, and just days after Labour through Andy Burnham had been vindicated in their stance over Hillsborough, Mann confronts Ken Livingston live on air, accusing Livingston of "rewriting history" when Livingston was in fact 100% accurate: the Nazis and the Zionists did indeed formally collaborate to transfer German Jews to Palestine.

This gave the Tory press, for whom Mann writes, the perfect opportunity to:
1. divert anger at the Hillsborough verdict off the police and Tories and onto Labour;
2. and smear the Labour Party as anti-semitic, when all that Livingston did was tell the truth.

So well done, Mann.

Sabotaging his own party in order to oust Corbyn.

There was absolutely no need for Mann to have done what he did.

Expel Mann.

Reinstate Livingston.

Friday, April 29, 2016


Trump barely mentions that wall now. When he first began to campaign it was all about that wall.

Wall. Wall. Wall. Wall. Wall. Wall. Wall. Wall. Wall. Wall.

It was all he ever mentioned.

But now?

Now all we hear from him is he thinks the US military is weak, that it needs beefing up much more, and nations are going to pay for protection.

This sounds almost like a Mafia operation: the US intelligence apparatus could create phantom enemies for particular countries; those countries then seek protection from those enemies from the USA.

But isn't that similar to what happens now?

A bigger US military will lead to bigger temptations and bigger wars. For the ruling class in the USA will believe even more in their hegemony, their manifest destiny, and feel confident that, with the not-so-bright buffoon Trump in the White House, nobody will stand in their way as they charge around the world overthrowing legitimately elected governments and grabbing natural resources.

The one chart to explain all this is:

This is the estimation from the International Institute for Strategic Studies on the military budgets of the top five spenders on their military (values in Billions US Dollars).

So there's the poor, weak, destitute US military (1,2,3, aaawwww) with a pauper's budget of nearly $600 billion. I know. Barely enough for a bag of fish and chips, eh?

But next up is China, which spends nearly $150 billion. In other words, China, with a population of 1.3 billion spends on its military one quarter of what the US, with a population of 323 million, spends on its military.

It is of great interest that in his foreign policy speech a few days ago, Trump appeared to be more conciliatory towards Russia than China. This reflects the Asia pivot, in which the USA is seeking to dominate the Pacific Ocean and China's access to its local seas and oceans.

So if Trump gets in, will we see a US military funded by a budget of $1 trillion?

And what do you think the war party will think of that? A $1 trillion-a-year military just sat around on its arse all day when there's governments to overthrow and resources to grab?

The temptation will be irresistible!!!!

Trump has already expressed his love for Israel, stated that he would support Saudi Arabia (but for a fee, which is grotesque), and believes that Iran is the mischief maker in the Middle East, when by now, through conversations with blood-drinking Confederate General Alex Jones, he should be conviced of the complicity of both Israel and Saudi Arabia in 9/11, and that Iran is a target for war not the warmonger.

I fear for this planet if Trump gets in.

He is more concerned about deporting and stopping immigrants, and exerting US hegemony around the globe through a much more powerful US military.

Thursday, April 28, 2016


Here is the statement of Rabbi Danny Rich, the Senior Rabbi of Liberal Judaism, on Ken Livingston:

28 April 2016

As the Senior Rabbi of Liberal Judaism, and a long-term member of the Labour Party in a personal capacity, I am certainly not someone who Ken Livingstone can write off as one of his “usual critics”.

But today, like Jews and people of all faiths, I was disgusted by his comments as he toured radio and TV stations – including those that Hitler had been a Zionist “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews”.

If anyone has gone mad, it is Ken Livingstone. His comments get more offensive and unworthy every time he is interviewed.

Claiming Hitler was a Zionist is not only a huge historical perversion, but it directly equates Nazism and Zionism. It suggests they share objectives and values; it is guilt by association. It is hard to think of a more offensive linkage.

Suspending him from the Labour Party is not the end of the matter. Livingstone is a symptom, not the cause.

I am nervous that by focussing on one large personality, we are not dealing with the issues which lead him to make such a statement.

The first step is to admit you have an institutional problem and then to set out strategies to deal with that.

Anti-Semitism in British politics is quite simply unacceptable, from whatever quarter it may come.

[source : Rabbi Danny Rich’s statement on Ken Livingstone and Labour, Liberal Judaism,, 28th April 2016]

Note : Rich states,
Claiming Hitler was a Zionist is not only a huge historical perversion, but it directly equates Nazism and Zionism. It suggests they share objectives and values; it is guilt by association. It is hard to think of a more offensive linkage.

This is a bit rich of Rich!!

Read The Transfer Agreement, mate.

It was national policy in Nazi Germany to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine. The Nazis and the Zionists collaborated. They shared objectives.

And when only 10% of German Jews had taken up the offer to migrate to Palestine, Hitler killed a million or so (the Zionists inflated this to 6 million, a number being suggested before WW2), so that whereas before WW2 hardly any Jews wanted to move to Palestine, after WW2 they couldn't wait, and drove 800,000 Palestinians off their lands into the world's two largest refugee camps: The Gaza Strip; The West Bank.


Dear John

You are a dickhead.

What Ken Livingston said is true. In fact, Ken does not go far enough: the Nazis and the Zionists formally collaborated during the 1930's. There was nothing secret about it. The logic behind this was that the Nazis wanted Jews out of Germany, and the Zionists wanted those Jews in Palestine. So a Haaravah (Transfer) Agreement was reached. There was nothing secret about this, as Ken suggests. It was a national policy. The only Jewish literature and media allowed in Nazi Germany was Zionist. Such Zionism was tolerated in Nazi Germany to persuade as many German Jews to transfer/migrate to Palestine as possible. Financial inducements were also offered to persuade German Jews to transfer to Palestine, with free training on farming methods etc paid for and given by Nazis. And then there was the ultimate inducement: Nazi violence. But with all this, only 10% of German Jews took up the offer.

All this is thoroughly documented by a Jewish American called Edwin Black in his book The Haavarah (Transfer) Agreement.

In addition I also suggest that you seriously research the Jewish Zionist Warburg banking family of Germany.

It was the Jewish Zionist Warburgs who organised international opposition to the anti-Nazi movement.

It was the Jewish Zionist Warburgs who directed and invested in I G Farben.

It was the Jewish Zionist Warburgs who organised the economy of Nazi Germany while they directed the Reichsbank with Hjalmar Schacht (who was actually very good family friends with Montagu Norman of the Bank of England).

And it was the Jewish Zionist Warburgs who financially facilitated this Haavarah.

So get on it, John!

Anyone can quote Mein Kampf.

I can't wait for that moment when the penny drops and you realise just how much a Zioinist gimp you have been (but at least you wouldn't do what Donald Trump did at AIPAC).




Hitler did support Zionism.

It is true.

Hitler did support Zionism.

It seems mad but is true, and actually logical: the Nazis wanted Jews out of Germany, and the Zionists wanted Jews in Palestine.

So they collaborated.

This is documented in The Haavarah (Transfer) Agreement by Edwin Black (who is of Jewish descent!!), and other anti-Zionist literature.

The Warburgs, top mates with the Rothschilds, financially facilitated the transfer with the Anglo-Palestine Bank, i.e. the British were also complicit.

But ony 10% of Jews in Nazi Germany took up the opportunity to migrate to Palestine under this Haavarah Agreement.

So what did Hitler do?

The allegation is that he killed 6 million, but I doubt this. There is not the documentation to support this, and this figure was being suggested by Zionists would be required to create Israel BEFORE WW2!! I think 1 million murdered Jews is about thte right number (so Livingston is wrong on that).

But after WW2, with this myth that 6 million Jews had been murdered in the Holocaust, the vast majority of Jews saw Palestine as the only safe haven from a cruel and harsh world. But what these Jews were not told is that the Nazis were created by the likes of the Jewish Zionist Warburgs!!

The Warburgs organised international opposition to boycotts of the Nazis.

The Warburgs were directors of I G Farben, and were its largest stockholder.

The Warburgs ran the Reichsbank, which directed Nazi economic policy.

The job given to the Warburgs was to convince European Jewry to populate Palestine. Hitler scared a few of them into migrating to Palestine. But not enough. Hitler was manipulated into killing 1 million Jews, then after WW2 the Zionists claimed 6 million had been killed, so this drove World Jewry into a frenzy and they invaded Palestine driving 800,000 Palestinians into the two largest refugee camps in the world: the Gaza Strip; and The West Bank.

The rest is history.

Israel has received hundreds of billions of dollars in aid, the Palestinians have resorted to terrorism, and Israel did 9/11 to drag the USA into fighting Israel's wars.

And now Trump is sucking Zionist cock!!

Beam me up, Scotty!


Last night he restated several statements that prove that he cannot be trusted:
1. he whines about American jobs being stolen by trade deals beneficial to foreign nations such as China, but his family has shipped their manufacturing jobs abroad to use cheap foreign labour and then bring those products back to America to be sold in flashy boutiques;
2. he states that nobody loves Israel more than him, he would support Saudi Arabia, and he accuses Iran of gaining from the wars in the Middle East, when the truth is that Israel and Saudi Arabia were complicit in the 9/11 attack on his beloved New York, and Iran is one of seven nations targetted for war and regime change by the US/Zionist/Gulf monarchies;
3. he still claims that he was opposed to the wars in Iraq and Libya, when the truth is he supported those wars when he started and only opposed them after they had finished. Thus Trumo must carry some blame for the resulting rise of Islamic terrorism that he will defeat.

All these show that Trump can be a deluded, trigger-happy hypocrite.


Thirdly, our friends are beginning to think they can’t depend on us.

We’ve had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies.

He negotiated a disastrous deal with Iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms, even before the ink was dry.

Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and, under a Trump Administration, will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

All of this without even mentioning the humiliation of the United States with Iran’s treatment of our ten captured sailors.

In negotiation, you must be willing to walk. The Iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table. When the other side knows you’re not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win.

At the same time, your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them.

President Obama gutted our missile defense program, then abandoned our missile defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic.

He supported the ouster of a friendly regime in Egypt that had a longstanding peace treaty with Israel – and then helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in its place.

Israel, our great friend and the one true Democracy in the Middle East, has been snubbed and criticized by an Administration that lacks moral clarity. Just a few days ago, Vice President Biden again criticized Israel – a force for justice and peace – for acting as an impediment to peace in the region.

President Obama has not been a friend to Israel. He has treated Iran with tender love and care and made it a great power in the Middle East – all at the expense of Israel, our other allies in the region and, critically, the United States.

We’ve picked fights with our oldest friends, and now they’re starting to look elsewhere for help.

Here we see Trump state his love for Israel, calling Israel, "our great friend and the one true Democracy in the Middle East" and "a force for justice and peace", and his mistrust of Iran, even though Iran has no nukes, is a signatory to the NPT and did not do 9/11, while Israel has hundreds of nukes, is not a signatory to the NPT and Israel DID do 9/11.



Secondly, our allies are not paying their fair share.

Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so. They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us.

In NATO, for instance, only 4 of 28 other member countries, besides America, are spending the minimum required 2% of GDP on defense.

We have spent trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.

The whole world will be safer if our allies do their part to support our common defense and security.

A Trump Administration will lead a free world that is properly armed and funded.

Far from breaking up NATO, he will seek to strengthen NATO by forcing others to pay more. But as these nations' budgets are small compared to the USA the overall effect will be minimal.


From the transcript of Trump's speech last night:
First, Our Resources Are Overextended.

President Obama has weakened our military by weakening our economy. He’s crippled us with wasteful spending, massive debt, low growth, a huge trade deficit and open borders.

Our manufacturing trade deficit with the world is now approaching $1 trillion a year. We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own.

Ending the theft of American jobs will give us the resources we need to rebuild our military and regain our financial independence and strength.

I am the only person running for the Presidency who understands this problem and knows how to fix it.

Trump and his family have used cheap foreign labour for years. These jobs were not 'stolen'. Trump went for the cheapo option, not the patriotic option. And now he whines that jobs are being 'stolen'?

Conclusion: deceitful Don is deluded and economical with the truth.


For an alleged and self-proclaimed dealmaker, the speech that Trump gave last night on his foreign policy was high in military and low in diplomacy.

His major point is that he believes that the US military is weak. Somehow, the not-so-bright Trump believes that a nation that spends well over a half a trillion dollars per year on its military, and with bases all over the world, is weak and needs much, much more.

And what would Trump do with that much more powerful military?

He would then hire it out!!

He has bascially said that allies must pay for protection. But protection from whom and/or what?

So let's say he doubles spending on the US military, to well over $1 trillion per year, on building up the US military, who and/or what will other nations want protection from?

Well, from Trump's speech last night, he sees the 'enemy' as immigrants, Islamic terrorism, China and Iran.

So under Trump we would see a much stronger US military looking to pick a fight with Islamic terrorists, China and Iran, and being used to stop immigration.

Sound familiar?

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

How would Trump look if, after doubling spending on the US military, there is nobody to fight?

Would the US look like the bully who nobody wants to be friends with?

Or the bully everyone wants to be friends with just in case that bully attacks them, so they feel threatened into paying for protection? Wouldn't that be similar to extortion and/or blackmail by the Mafia?

Wednesday, April 27, 2016





In his latest rant, Confederate General Alex Jones, whose family is riddled with CIA, has confessed to attending blood-drinking rituals, like shooting a deer, slitting its throat with his dad and then drinking its blood. And then he mentions getting sucked into 'bad rituals of the dark side'.




Just who are the Jones family?

Generals in the Confederate Army, and Alex displaying strong whiffs of sympathies for the Confederacy, which could be due to the 'electrical connections' he claims to have with his (Confederate?) ancestors.

Half is family are CIA, or so he says.

And now attending blood-drinking rituals, including 'bad rituals of the dark side'?!




How many Confederate Generals are in your family? CIA? How many rituals of the dark side have you attended?

I am very happy to state, like I am happy to state that I am not a peeping tom, that the answer to all of the above three questions is zero.

Zero Confederate Generals (zero Confederates to be much more accurate).

Zero CIA (zero MI6, MI5, Mossad, etc too).

Zero blood-drinking rituals, and very definitely a big fat zero 'bad rituals of the dark side'.

See from -13:10 in the video below (note the - using the counter to the right):


So far, from what I have heard of his speech at Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C, Trump has:
1. restated his loyalty to Israel and America's Muslim allies, i.e. Saudi Arabia, while being highly suspicious of Iran;
2. promised the very, very quick demise of Islamic State;
3. promised to put Americans first by bringing jobs back and renegotiation of trade deals;
4. promised to try to reach a deal with Russia and China for peace but will be prepared to walk away;
5. promised to deploy military forces to defend allies but at a financial cost;
6. reiterated his lie that he was against the war on Iraq in 2003 and he now accuses Iran of gaining from that war;
7. promised consequences for companies who ship jobs abroad, blaming NAFTA;
8. promised to make America the policeman of the world which requires to America great and strong again.

Suggests that under Trump the world could be as peaceful as it has ever known.

This foreign policy is very worrying:
a) he still loves Israel, and would work with Saudi Arabia (but for a price) and hates Iran. This is just Neoconism, and could easily lead to more war in Middle East if advised by the warmongers who could feed the buffoon Trump a load of bullshit which the not-so-bright Trump could fall for given his love of Israel;
b) the very, very quick demise of Islamic State (2.) and (1.) and (5.) suggest that he would heavily bomb Syria. What would Syria and Russia have to say about this?
c) he still lies that he was against the 2003 Iraq war. He was against it when it ended but was for it when it started. Lyin' Don lies again. And to accuse Iran?
d) he would make America the policeman of the world which would require a much stronger military. Again, this sounds like it was lifted straight from PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses;
e) he and his family have shipped their jobs manufacturing jobs abroad to use chaep foreign labour, and they even shipped jobs to China, despite Trump slagging off trade deals with China!!

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

The only who would not easily, if ever, go to war is The Bern.

Trump is pumped on steroids.


Conspiracy theories still abound about the death of Prince. Veterans Today is now reporting that Prince donated $50k to a 9/11 truth event, the Nation of Islam’s Million Family March in October 2015.

But as with Infowhores, VT do not mention that in the 6 days immediately before Prince died he had been working WITHOUT SLEEP. And before that he was in hospital for an emergency shot.

But if Prince was killed because he was such a threat, having donated $50k to a 9/11 truth march, with a fortune of a few hundred million dollars, then why is Trump, who has a fortune ten times that of Prince and has strong connections to Infowhores, not dead?


These peeping toms. They have nothing but sex on their mind. All the shit going on in the world, all the help they could give, but all they think about is being peeping toms and sex.

A former US Naval officer who ran his own hotel has claimed that his peeping tom activities have led him to become the world's greatest sex researcher to have ever lived!!

Peeping toms take note: this could be a useful defence...

And Steven Spielberg might even make a movie about you!
FOR three decades, motel owner Gerald Foos crept into the attic above guests’ rooms and gazed down through fake air vents at what was going on in their beds.

Often he got sexual pleasure as he ogled. He always took detailed notes about what he was seeing.

And he could not be more proud, claiming his years leering was RESEARCH.

Gerald, now 83, told The Sun in an exclusive interview: “I am the greatest sex researcher there has ever been. I know more about sex than anybody has ever known.

“People have called me a Peeping Tom, a window peeker and a I creep. I wasn’t. I was a voyeur, I redefined the word voyeur.

“I did this for 30 years and have legal pads piled more than a foot high containing my observations.”

The “scientific project” conducted by the former naval officer at the budget Manor House Motel in Denver, Colorado, only came to light this month after a magazine published the tale, based on Gerald’s copious notes.

Steven Spielberg has now announced he will produce a movie version of the story, to be directed by Bond’s Sam Mendes.

[source : ‘People called me a Peeping Tom... I was a voyeur’: Motel owner spent 30 years spying on guests having sex, The Sun,, 27th April 2016]

PS have you peeping toms worked out who my landlady is yet?

Tuesday, April 26, 2016




Fuck The Sun.

Fuck that bitch Thatcher.

Fuck The Freemasonic Police.


When slaveholder Roger Taney withdrew federal deposits from The Second Bank of the United States, the funds were placed in 20 or so 'pet banks'.

But who were these 'pet banks'?

One of them was Union Bank of Baltimore (UBB). Its chief counsel, a director and major stockholder of UBB was none other than...ROGER B TANEY, the Secretary of the Treasury drafted in by Jackson to withdraw those federal funds!

But was this decision taken because of the UBB's financial status and business acumen?


UBB was run by Taney's close friend Thomas Ellicott.

The relationship between Taney, Ellicott and UBB is covered in great detail in Secretary Taney and the Baltimore Pets: A Study in Banking and Politics, by Frank Otto Gatell in The Business History Review, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Summer, 1965), pp. 205-227.

Talk about corruption!!

The term 'pet banks' was coined (pardon the pun) to indicate the political loyalty of the banks chosen to accept federal funds from Jackson: they were loyal to Jackson.

So how did those banks repay Jackson?

Rampant speculation, which caused the 1837 Panic.

The Pet banks responded to the government's largesse by expanding their loans, not only quickly counteracting Biddle's contraction but exacerbating the speculative boom that characterized the closing year's of Jackson's administration.

...Pet banks became an additional form of Democratic Party patronage. Their number rose from seven, to twenty two, to thirty five, and eventually to over ninety. It was impossible not to compromise standards of financial integrity in bringing so many banks in to the fold, especially when all banks on the list run by Whigs were kept off the list.

[source : Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, Page 393]


Besides asking ridiculous questions on the death of Prince, such as did chemtrails kill Prince, or was he murdered by record label CEOs, Infowhores also out did themselves on Andrew Jackson last week.

Take this:

which contains this:
In fact, the Panic of 1837 was created by the institution Jackson eliminated—the Second Bank of the United States. In the 1830s, within the period of twelve months, the federal government’s central bank expanded the money supply from forty to seventy million dollars.

The source of this claim is this:
But not to dwell upon events the recollection of which time may have begun to efface from many minds, let us but cast a glance at the manner in which the United States Bank regulated the currency in 1830, when, in the short period of a twelve-month it extended its accommodations from forty to seventy millions of dollars. This enormous expansion, entirely uncalled for by any peculiar circumstance in the business condition of the country, was followed by the invariable consequences of an inflation of the currency.

[source : William Leggett, Democratick Editorials: Essays in Jacksonian Political Economy, Part II, Separation of Bank and State, Bank of United States,

So according to Nimmo of Infowhores, the Panic of 1837 was caused by a large credit expansion in 1830?

But what Nimmo etc fail to state is that when Jackson removed federal deposits from the Second Bank of the United States, what happened to them? Did he shove those deposits under his mattress? Did they just disappear? Or were they placed in other smaller banks?

No. He placed those desposits in smaller banks run by his mates!

And what did they do with those deposits?

They used those fresh federal deposits as a base and applied fractional reserve banking to create loans for land speculation, which created a bubble which Jackson himself burst with the Specie Circular.

That was the cause of the 1837 Panic.

It was not Biddle's credit expansion in 1830 for public works and infrastructure development. It was Jackson's mates using illegaly acquired federal deposits to create a speculation bubble in land, which Jackson then burst.

The author of the article linked to be Nimmo states of Legget:
Leggett blamed artificial credit creation for the Panic of 1837:

But what the author does not mention in his article is who created that artiifical credit creation nor the withdrawal of the federal funds by Jackson.

Here are several authors praising Nicholas Biddle for his management of the Second Bank of the United States:
For nearly a decade, Biddle provided good bank management. Historian Walter A. McDougall observed that as a result of Biddle's "prudential care, Americans never knew, before or since, a sounder currency than in the very years when Jackson claimed the BUS `failed.' The charge was all the more scurrilous, given the indispensable help Biddle provided for Jackson's program to retire the national debt."22 Economic historian Bray Hammond wrote that Biddle was "a devoted, conscientious, and exceptionally able manager of the federal Bank up to the time the President and his advisers decided to do away with her and him too." 23 Andrew Burstein noted: "The Bank of the United States was perfectly well managed. It regulated the availability of credit through its practical control over the loan activities of state banks. But to Jackson, the national bank was a morally suspect institution, a symbol of secret manipulation." 24 Taking a more critical position, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., argued: "Biddle not only suppressed all internal dissent but insisted flatly that the Bank was not accountable to the government or the people." Schlesinger wrote: "In Biddle's eyes the bank independent corporation, on a level with the state, and not responsible to it except as the narrowest interpretation of the charter compelled. Biddle tried to strengthen this position by flourishing a theory that the bank was beyond political good or evil, but Alexander Hamilton had written with far more candor that `such a bank is not a mere matter of private property, but a political machine of the greatest importance to the State.' The Second Bank of the United States was, in fact, as Hamilton had intended such a bank should be, the keystone in the alliance between the government and the business community." 25 That was anathema to Jackson. The BUS represented to Jackson the power of an unaccountable elite. Nevertheless, it did more for the economy than Jackson recognized. Historian Walter A. McDougall wrote: "The BUS ran twenty-nine branches around the country, did $70 million of business per year, issued 20 percent of the banknotes in circulation, held one-third of all American deposits, and was the sole depository for the annual surpluses accumulated by the federal government. It did not, however, have a death grip on local economies. In order to maintain leverage over state banks the BUS had to hold more of their dubious bonds than they did its own trustworthy notes. Hence the BUS was a guaranteed conduit funneling capital and credit to the West and South rather than squeezing them."

[source : Andrew jackson, banks, and the Panic of 1837,]

And from the same essay, how Jackson caused the panic:
Schouler contended: "For a brief spell, in fact, the monetary situation was sound again. The National Bank had been forced in self defence to strengthen itself. State banks, too, took due precautions to qualify themselves for receiving the public funds. But the deeper mischief of the new situation developed slowly; and as commonly happens when the money market is deranged, the people slid into the climax quite unaware of it, mistaking the flush of fever for prosperity. Jackson's gold dollar could not crowd out the baser paper of the local banks, its nominal equivalent. When bills are redeemable at sight in specie, banks will hoard bullion to meet the demands at their counter; the community prefer paper meantime as their more convenient medium of traffic, since the sound currency of a nation is not gold, but the paper which is as good as gold. These precious mint drops were soon carried under the vast and rising flood of pulp money. For now sprang up in the States a mania for new banks and now paper. The twenty three pet banks with which Kendall organized the new system in 1833 were all too few to hold custody of the public moneys. Every quarter of the Union, every State, every district having party constituents to please, must run with its barrel, its pitcher, or its cup to share the Pactolian stream which spouted from the national Treasury. Great was the lobbying to procure local charters in such times; the New York legislature this spring incorporated ten new banks, besides increasing the capital of one already existing; a movement for a fifty million bank in Boston was engineered by Democratic magnates in August; and this was only the beginning of a fever which made other States soon beat the ground in frenzy. The banks already admitted to Jackson's favor closed up to keep others out; but some got into the pet circle by steady pressure, others by a flying leap, while those which were kept out altogether had very little local supervision to restrain them from being as reckless as they chose. And thus did it come about that bank loans were enormously expanded and the business of the country worked up into a fever of speculation whose crisis was reached in three years. Instead of stringency in the money market, the evil at first apprehended, Jackson's empiricism cost the country in the end a calamitous inflation.

Henry Clews in 28 Years on Wall Street also praises Biddle for his management and mocks Jackson and van Buren for wrecking the economy.

But for a much more detailed explanation as to how and why Jackson became President I would direct you to either:
1. How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States;
2. Overturning the Myth of Andrew Jackson.


In a pathetic attempt to cover his tracks in causing the trouble in the Middle East, William Hague has warned in The Daily Telegraph that we must be prepared for the long haul both there and North Africa.

Hague was Foreign Secretary for over 4 years just as The Arab Spring kicked off in Libya and Syria.

The Arab Spring was a CIA/US State Dept stunt to provide international cutthroat Jihadis with cover as 'freedom fighters'. This was done because by 2007 the initial plan for war and regime change in seven countries in five years as revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after 9/11 was moribund, Iraq and Lebanon the only two nations to experience war, and Iraq the only one to also experience regime change.

So under Hague, British Special Forces assisted these Jihadis on the ground, and NATO bombed Libya back to the stone age. What was initially a protect-civilians operation very quickly turned into a Get-Gaddafi campaign, which they eventually did when Gaddafi was murdered.

Former French foreign minister Roland Dumas said that in 2009 he was asked by British officials to organise pipelines to smuggle Jihadis into Syria. After killing Gaddafi the Jihadis were smuggled into Syria where they have helped to destroy Syria too.

All this happened under Hague.

But what does Hague now say?

A free country and democracy can take decades to build. The West will need strategic patience to assist that, rather than dropping each problem country as quickly as possible or pronouncing it a failure.

In recent years, we have helped edge Somalia in the right direction, through painstaking negotiations behind the scenes, fighting piracy in the Indian Ocean, establishing a legitimate government with UN support and with Europeans paying African armies to fight the terrorist Al-Shabab.

This effort will take many more years to succeed fully. So will the latest push in Libya, of which the training of a home-grown army will be a crucial part. This combination of long-term initiatives will increasingly be the hallmark of successful intervention.

Going back for another effort at solving problems overseas is vital. Turning our backs and thinking it’s hopeless would produce the greatest calamities of all.

[source : William Hague, We can't now turn our backs on the chaos in the Middle East, Daily Telegraph,, 26th April 2016]


As with the death of Scalia, Infowhores never let a good story go to waste.

Last week the artist formerly known as Prince died, found dead in a lift in his multi-million dollar mansion (perhaps as big as Alex Jones'?).

And as usual the rampant speculation began: was he murdered? If so who by? And why?

There has been two reports on the death of Prince on Infowhores:

The truth about the death of Prince will be this: having worked continuously for 6 consecutive days WITHOUT SLEEP, and hooked on ultra-strong painkillers so he could not feel much, he pushed himself too far and had a heart attack.

The similarities are quite striking: the families of Scalia and Prince see no foul play in theier deaths, but Infowhores did.

Now why would that be?

Never let a good story go to waste.

Monday, April 25, 2016


Germany sponsored the 1916 Easter Rising that began 100 years ago yesterday.

The aim was to cause a revolution in Ireland that would force Great Britain to choose between fighting WW1 or to protect its empire.

See from 31:20 in the video below (though watch the full documentary):

The First World War 08of10 Revolution 1917


It's all coming out now with Prince.

Infowhores ask:

The answer is...nope.

He had had no sleep in the six days before he died, and he was addicted to a strong painkiller. My guess it was a simple heart attack/exhaustion.

And he was also addicted to sex, holding bondage parties, and demanding that a teenage girl have sex with him whenever he wanted:

Sunday, April 24, 2016


Yet somehow, with a family riddled with CIA, he has become the self-proclaimed leader of 'the resistance'.

How does that work?


The TTS Word of the Day for 24th April 2016 is...





Abortion is shorthand for infanticide.

Abortion is murdering a defenceless baby.

Abortion is usually the result of lust and disregard.

Abortion is literaly murder. Murder of a defenceless baby. Mangled. Butchered. Hacked. Decapitated.


Abortion is murder.

Abortion is Satanism at its worst.

There is nothing politically liberating about abortion.

Abortion is shear murder of a defenceless child.

And Satan fucking loves it.


In 1969 an insider named Dr Richard Day gave a speech outlining the future.

He said that regarding sex it would be 'anything goes', meaning the promotion of lust, homosexuality and abortion.

Prince encouraged lust.

That was his role.

That's why he got so rich.

That's why they allowed him to become so rich.

Because he was under control and fulfilling the agenda.

Maybe in the last few years, after he became a Jehovah's Witness he began to question the world. But until then he was serving the agenda through his promotion of sex.

Here is what Day said: part 1 ; part 2.


As promised, Tarpley has begun to demolish Andrew Jackson, the slaveholding, slavery-loving, slave-beating, backstabbing traitor.

In this week's World Crisis Radio, Tarpley devotes the last 10 minutes or so to give a brief overview of Jackson.

But expect much more in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, you can download and read How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States.

Or read Overturning the Myth of Andrew Jackson.

Why is it so important that we get Jackson right? Because he is at the heart of 'conspiracy theory'. The two major conspiracy theory books, The Creature from Jekyll Island by G Edward Griffin, and Secrets from the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins, both portray Jackson as a good guy who slew the bankers. But the opposite is true!! He was a bad guy, a major slaveholder, on the edge of British operations against the United States, and arguably the Godfather of the Confederacy and the US Civil War through his destruction of the Second Bank of the United States which left the South unindustrialised and dependent on slavery, and the forced removal of the five civilised tribes from soon-to-be Confederate states so that planters could build plantations to be worked by slaves.

And not forgetting that it was Jackson who gave the Rothschilds their big break when he appointed them as agents for the United States in Europe.

We can also ask: why would a major slaveholder like Jackson believe in small government, and also think that banks were evil while slavery wasn't evil?

Saturday, April 23, 2016



Will they ever delete those reports?


Why not.

Because they are greedy and selfish and are using them for their own selfish gain.

So should I be eternally grateful for giving the Bolton Monarchy all that work for free?


Why not?

I'll let readers decide.


Prince displayed the obvious sex-thang, and got rich from it.

But how was he using that nearly $1 trillion fortune?

Well, according to AWOL Icke, Prince invited Icke to a concert!!

$800 million, and all that Icke gets is a concert ticket?



1. Prince has amassed a fortune of $800 million!! What was he doing with it? If I had $800 million I'd establish an institute for historical and political research and very likely place Webster Tarpley in charge of it with a very generous budget.

2. Prince was on drugs, not heroin but a cousin of heroin, a prescription drug called Dilaudid. His doctor dealer says he needed it to to overcome stage fright in order to perform.

If Prince was such a threat/rebel this would have been exposed somehow. But instead, this aura of sensual sexuality was allowed to be pushed.

Why do you think that was? To help break up families by encouraging adultery?


Perhaps he and his family should have brought their jobs back to America years ago instead of having those jobs 'stolen' by other countries, like Mexico, China, Indonesia and Bangladesh.


On December 7, bowing to pressure from states' right advocates, President Andrew Jackson considered measures that would allow southern postmasters the right to restrict the mailing and distribution of abolitionist tracts in the southern states. Jackson asked the Congress to consider enacting a law that would prohibit the circulation of anti-slavery literature through the mail.

On December 15, Mexican president Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna announced his intention to establish a unified constitution for Mexico. This decision would mean that the exemption granted to Texas in 1829, which allowed for the continuation of slavery in the region, would now be invalidated. American settlers in Texas who are slaveholders vowed that they would fight a war of secession from Mexico rather than surrender their right to hold slaves in Texas.

[source : P43, Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political and Historical Encyclopedia, Vol 1, Edited by Junius P Rodriguez]

The more I look at Andrew Jackson the more I see that he was simply pure human scum.

Pure slavery-loving, slave-beating, backstabbing treasonous human scum.

And Texans are not that much better. They ran a revolution against Mexico so they could retain slavery (which Mexico was about to ban), and then produced one of the most white supremacist documents in their ordinance of secession when they seceded from the Union to join the Confederate States of America.

So who were Alex Jones' Confederate ancestors, what did they do for a living, and is that Confederacy passed down from generation to generation within the Jones family?

Friday, April 22, 2016


Well, knock me darn wiv a fevver.

That Trump geezer is pissed off that his hero, the slaveholding, slavery-loving, slave-beating, backstabbing traitor Andrew Jackson, is to be replaced on the $20 bill by Harriet Tubman.

Trump calls it "political correctness", and instead suggests that Tubman should be placed on a new $2 bill!!

The only thing good that Jackson did for the USA was die.

He was a slavery-loving, slave-beating, backstabbing traitor.

Nothing more.

Nothing less (unless you put a few cusswords in there somewhere, which I won't coz this is a family show).

This again exposes Trump's;
1. racism, inherited from his KKK father;
2. lack of historical detail;
3. mysoginy in proposing that an anti-slavery woman of African descent should be shown on a new $2 while a white pro-slavery man be shown on the $20 bill.

What people like Trump, like Tarpley says, want is ultra-rich men ruling over a peasantry with no or little govermnent to protect the little man against the mega-corporations, such as minimum wage, unions, employment rights, etc.

This is why the Koch's fund Libertarianism but also fund union busters.


This is not to denigrate his artistic works (which were more sexual than anything else).

Merely to ask how he became so big, so to speak. So global.

And why was his drug addiction kept secret if not for a reason?

Why Prince?

Why so much sex and lust?

Why the name 'Prince'?

If you ask me: agenda boy.


In addition to the earlier post on Jackson today, we can also ask:

why did Jackson believe that banks were evil but slavery wasn't?

Today's Tax Wall Street Party Daily Briefing delves into the joyous decision to remove the slavery-loving Jackson from the $20 bill to be replaced by Harriet Tubman.

Tarpley goes into how it was Jackson who was personally responsible for the 1837 Panic by withdrawing federal funds from the BUS2 and placed them in the banks of his mates, who then proceeded to use that mass influx of fresh deposits as a base to which fractional reserve banking was applied, and the resulting explosion of funds from state banks led to a speculation bubble. Jackson then burst that bubble with the Specie Circular.

Henry Clews in 28 Years on Wall Street describes this in some detail and mocks the management of Jackson and van Buren, while also praising the management of BUS2 under Nicholas Biddle. One of the favourite facts that Libertarians like to cite as evidence that Jackson was great is that he paid off the debt. Yes, he did indeed pay off the last few dollars. But all the hard work had been done by Biddle, and without too much destabilisation.

But as soon as slavery-loving Jackson becomes POTUS? Inflation, speculation and panic.

why did Jackson believe that banks were evil but slavery wasn't?

Why? Because he was an evil nutter!!

Begone detested Jackson!! BEGONE!!


President Andrew Jackson.

Believer in small government.

But a major slaveholder who would have his runaway slaves beaten upon their return (and one named Gilbert actually died from his beating).

In fact, Jackson believed in slavery that much that he believed that fugitive slaves who had established a peaceful refuge on Spanish territory should be captured and returned to their 'rightful owners'. So Jackson organised a raid on that refuge, known as Negro Fort, offereing to pay $50 for each captured fugitive slave, and instructed General Gaines to invade Spanish Florida and capture as many slaves as possible. But Gaines fired a hot cannonball into the fort's arsenal and blew the fort to smithereens, killing nearly 300 occupants, many of whom were women and children.

So why would a slaveholding, slave-beating, slavery-loving man like Jackson, who owned several plantations and 300 slaves, believe in small government?

So there was less oversight of his plantations and the plantations of his buddies?

So he and they could treat their slaves with whatever treatment they saw fit, including death?

I believe so.


I can show you how if you are struggling...

You've had them now for, how long is it? Nearly 3 years?

And not one thanks or offer of help?


You're upto something with them...


Approximately 30% of the world's oil and petroleum products delievered by sea travel through the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important chokepoint with an oil flow of 17 million barrels per day in 2013, about 30% of all seaborne-traded oil.

Located between Oman and Iran, the Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil chokepoint because of its daily oil flow of 17 million barrels per day in 2013. Flows through the Strait of Hormuz in 2013 were about 30% of all seaborne-traded oil.

EIA estimates that more than 85% of the crude oil that moved through this chokepoint went to Asian markets, based on data from Lloyd's List Intelligence tanker tracking service.6 Japan, India, South Korea, and China are the largest destinations for oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz.

Qatar exported about 3.7 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) per year of liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz in 2013, according to BP's Statistical Review of World Energy 2014.7 This volume accounts for more than 30% of global LNG trade. Kuwait imports LNG volumes that travel northward through the Strait of Hormuz.

At its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz is 21 miles wide, but the width of the shipping lane in either direction is only two miles wide, separated by a two-mile buffer zone. The Strait of Hormuz is deep and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers, with about two-thirds of oil shipments carried by tankers in excess of 150,000 deadweight tons.

[source : World Oil Transit Chokepoints, EIA,, 10th November 2014]


Shortly after 9/11 General Wesley Clark was told of a plan for war and regime change in seven countries in five years: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Somalia. So by now, over 14 years later and a Plan B involving unleashing international cutthroat Jihadis onto Libya and Syria, Iran should have experienced war and regime change. But it hasn't. The plan got bogged down in Iraq and Syria. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia played crucial roles in 9/11.

So in fear of Iranian reprisals, is Saudi Arabia now trying to build a canal through the Saudi and Yemeni deserts so that Saudi oil does not have to pass through the Straits of Hormuz where it would be vulnerable to Iran?

And what would Trump think about this?

Thursday, April 21, 2016


Doesn't it go into a trust?

But what happens if he keeps his promise to bring back jobs to America, but not the jobs that are created in Mexico, China, Bangladesh and Indonesia by his fsmily's businesses?

If he brings more jobs back to America then there will be more unemployment in the countries that had those jobs, which will push wages down in those countries, and thus benefit anyone who keeps using cheap foreign labour.

Thus Trump MUST bring 'back' all those jobs created to manufacture his family's stuff.


Fascinating account of recently released documents on what Israel was telling the USA/JFK about Dimona and what the CIA knew.




In case you haven't noticed: Russia is under attack; Brazil is under attack; South Africa is under attack; China is under attack.


Powerful, happy Cowboy music.

But behind it lies the genocide of the native Americans.

Aaron Copland Rodeo Hoe Down


The new NUS President Malia Bouattia has been accused of refusing to condemn Islamic State, claiming that doing so was "Islamophobic".

PJW condemns her (I assume):

But National Convenor of The Stop The War Coalition (and rabid pro-abortionist), Lindsey German, supports her:

So what is all the fuss about?

What is the evidence that Bouattia did indeed refuse to condemn Islamic State?

Well, this motion was presented to the NUS NEC in 2014:
Iraqi/Kurdish solidarity

Proposed: Daniel Cooper
Seconded: Shreya Paudel, Clifford Fleming

NUS National Executive Committee notes:

1. The ongoing humanitarian crisis and sectarian polarisation in Iraq – which has resulted in thousands of Yazidi Kurds being massacred.

NUS NEC believes

1. That the people of Iraq have suffered for years under the sectarian and brutally repressive dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the US/UK invasion and occupation, the current sectarian regime linked to both the US and Iran, and now the barbaric repression of the “Islamic State” organisation.

2. That rape and other forms of sexual violence are being used as weapons against women in IS-occupied areas, while minorities are being ethnically cleansed.

NUS NEC resolves

1. To work with the International Students’ Campaign to support Iraqi, Syrian and other international students in the UK affected by this situation.

2. To campaign in solidarity with the Iraqi people and in particular support the hard-pressed student, workers’ and women’s organisations against all the competing nationalist and religious-right forces.

3. To support Iraqis trying to bridge the Sunni-Shia divide to fight for equality and democracy, including defence of the rights of the Christian and Yazidi-Kurd minorities.

4. To condemn the IS and support the Kurdish forces fighting against it, while expressing no confidence or trust in the US military intervention.

5. Encourage students to boycott anyone found to be funding the IS or supplying them with goods, training, travel or soldiers.

6. To make contact with Iraqi and Kurdish organisations, in Iraq and in the UK, in order to build solidarity and to support refugees.

7. To issue a statement on the above basis.

[source : NUS refuses to condemn ISIS terrorists…because it’s ‘Islamophobic’, The Tab,, Accessed: 21st April 2016]

The relevant resolutions are 4. and 5. highlighted.

Bouattia opposed the motion because she thought those resolutions relating to Islamic State implicated all Muslims.


I see nothing "Islamphobic" about these two resolutions 4. and 5. They both explicitly state Islamic State and nobody else as the target of condemnation and any boycott.

So to me, yes, she did indeed refuse to condemn Islamic State.

This is worrying, and I am not surprised that Lindsey German supports her when German will oppose wars such as the war on Syria but supports a global war on unborn children by being such a rabid pro-abortionist.


Google, that bastard creature of the NSA/CIA, has teamed up with Faustus Higgins to create this new war news outlet called Montage.

But if Higgins really wanted to stop the war in Syria, rather than make money/fame from the conflict in Syria, he would report this, the only bit of footage that Montage needs:

So why want to report war news in such gory detail when he could try to stop the wars by exposing this plan?


But then the same could be asked of Russia Today...

Which suggests to me that there might be much, much more going on...

Wednesday, April 20, 2016


Read this over at Infowhores:

Andrew Jackson, Who Fought Central Bank, Removed from $20 As “Public Concern for Liberty” Erased

What a load of stuff and nonsense.

Why did Aaron Burr assassinate Alexander Hamilton?

Because Hamilton had exposed his treason against The United States.

And where did Burr flee for safety?

First he went to Andrew Jackson (why?), plotted yet more treason with Jackson, and then fled to England where he stayed with British Intelligence chief Jeremy Bentham for a few years. Burr then returned to the US and began to engineer Jackson as a future President. The main act that Jackson is known for is destroying the BUS2, and he did so because BUS2 was financing the rapid growth of the USA into a rival against the British Empah.

And it was Jackson who first made the Rothschilds what they are!!

What a load of stuff and nonsense.

It's that Bill Still/G Edward Griffin stuff. Pure Libertarian bullshit.



Trump is unpopular, even in his home town of New York!

Infowhores should have been backing Sanders to stop Clinton.


Another monumental exhibition of shouting by PJW, this time @SaudiArabia.

I had a go at Saudi Arabia in a series of blogs in September 2014:




But note the hypocrisy at 3:10, when PJW calls Saudi princes hypocrites for executing homosexuals when those same princes allegedly go to gay orgies in London (though no proof of this is given).

But isn't this similar to someone whining about the surveillance state but then goes full peeping tom?

And what has Donald Trump said about Saudi Arabia?

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump said late Monday that the Iran nuclear deal made Tehran a global power that now threatens Saudi Arabia’s existence.

“We made a power out of Iran,” the outspoken billionaire told host Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor.”

“They are looking to go into Saudi Arabia,” Trump continued. "They want the oil, they want the money, [and] they want a lot of other things.

“That’s phase one — to go into Saudi Arabia and, frankly, the Saudis don’t survive without us. And the question is, at what point do we get involved and how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them? That’s ultimately what’s going to happen.”

Trump argued that his presidency would back Saudi Arabia in any regional conflict that emerges in the Middle East.

“Well, I would want to help Saudi Arabia,” he said. "I would want to protect Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is going to have to help us economically. They were making, before the oil went down ... they were making $1 billion a day.”

Trump additionally charged that aiding Saudi interests is essential, given the possibility Iran eventually acquires nuclear weapons.

“You know that Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon very soon,” he told O’Reilly. "The ink isn’t even dry, and they have already violated the deal and a lot of people are calling for sanctions.”

[source : Trump: 'I would want to protect Saudi Arabia', The Hill,, 5th January 2016]

Yeah, Trump thinks there is something incriminating Saudi Arabia for 9/11 in the 28 pages, which is good.

But Trump said he is prepared to defend Saudi Arabia in return for economic favours.

And did Trump make those remarks above when he knew about the 28 pages? Very likely. He has claimed that he has been an 'infowarrior' for years, and would be speaking alot to Confederate General Alex Jones after appearing on Infowhores in December last year. Trump made those remarks abut defending Saudi Arabia in January this year, i.e. AFTER appearing on Infowhores.

But what did Trump also do at AIPAC? He basically restated that Iran is the bad guy and that Israel is the good guy, and that he would renegotiate the P5+1 deal with Iran. This would obviously destabilise the region even more, and then what would Trump do? Defend Saudi Arabia and Israel against Iranian aggression?

Here is what Trump said at AIPAC:
Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen and will be a very, very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better weapons to support their puppet states. Hezbollah, Lebanon received — and I’ll tell you what, it has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons and GPS systems and rockets like very few people anywhere in the world and certainly very few countries have. Now they’re in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.

He still believes, or refuses to believe, that it is Israel and Saudi Arabia who are the aggressors in North Africa and the Middle East, not Iran.



Here's that analogy between a man and a lion that others use, like AWOL Icke (who was not a lion on 28th June 2014).

Don't you all know that lions commit infanticide?

What will Trump do or say when his best mate Netanyahu commits infanticide again in The Occupied Territories?

The Bern would stop him.

Would Trump?


Trump is a liar (he pretends that he opposed the wars on Iraq and Libya when at the time the wars started he supported them).

Trump is a hypocrite (he calls for desperately needed jobs to be brought back to America when his family have used and currently use cheap foreign labour in Mexico, China, Bangladesh and Indonesia).

But in an earlier reincarnation, Trump was a ruthless landlord (See CNN article below).

Trump will be a ruthless POTUS (which, due to sucking Zionist cock at AIPAC when he didn't need to, bodes ill).

In their 1982 lawsuits, the tenants said Trump had cut off their hot water and heat during New York's freezing winters and stopped all building repairs. One claimed he allowed "a rodent infestation of the premises." Another said he imposed burdensome new rules in an attempt to force them out.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016



"Give me liberty, or give me death!" is the quotation attributed to Patrick Henry, who like many of the Founding Fathers, was a slaveholder when he made this demand.

But this same demand was cried several times by the fugitive slaves at Negro Fort just before General Gaines, who had been ordered by Andrew Jackson to destroy the fort, laid waste to the fort in an attempt to capture those fugitive slaves and return them to their alleged rightful 'owners'.

The origin of this operation is unclear. Whether Jackson was ordered by Secretary of War William Crawford (a strong believer in slavery), or whether Jackson took it upon himself to destroy the fort, I have yet to determine.

But what is clear is that Jackson order General Gaines to destroy the fort and return any captured fugitive slaves to their 'masters', though how Jackson would determine who the rightful 'owners' were is also unclear.

But Gaines did not get the chance to return fugitive slaves to their 'masters', because a stray cannonball from Gaines hit the fort's arsenal and blew the fort to smithereens, instantly killing nearly 300 occupants of the fort, many of whom were women and children.

But the Libertarian fakes over at Infowhores love Jackson, the slaveholding, slavery-loving, backstabbing traitor.


During a speech yesterday Trump confused 9/11 with 7 Eleven.

How can you confuse the two?


If you are Donald Trump then you can easily confuse Israel and Saudi Arabia as the good guys and Iran as the bad guy.

Imagine this man with his finger on the nuclear button.

Monday, April 18, 2016

ROOM 237

I was woken to watch Room 237 last night, from 2am to 3:20. But it was fascinating. Some claims were ridiculous, but others not.

The fact that Kubrick trampled all over King's story allows the possibility for Kubrick to 'say' some things for himself rather than King.

And the moon stuff was fascinating: claims that Kubrick's wife knew that he had faked the moon landings; the kid in The Shining standing up from a floor carpeted in pentagon's, wearing an Apollo 11 jumper to minic Apollo 11.

Would recommend it if you have not seen it yet.


...Enough of Austin's original 300 families brought slaves with them that a census of his colony in 1825 showed 443 in a total population of 1,800. The independence of Mexico cast doubt on the future of the institution in Texas. From 1821 until 1836 both the national government in Mexico City and the state government of Coahuila and Texas threatened to restrict or destroy black servitude. Neither government adopted any consistent or effective policy to prevent slavery in Texas; nevertheless, their threats worried slaveholders and possibly retarded the immigration of planters from the Old South. In 1836 Texas had an estimated population of 38,470, only 5,000 of whom were slaves. The Texas Revolution assured slaveholders of the future of their institution. The Constitution of the Republic of Texas (1836) provided that slaves would remain the property of their owners, that the Texas Congress could not prohibit the immigration of slaveholders bringing their property, and that slaves could be imported from the United States (although not from Africa). Given those protections, slavery expanded rapidly during the period of the republic. By 1845, when Texas joined the United States, the state was home to at least 30,000 slaves. After statehood, in antebellum Texas, slavery grew even more rapidly. The census of 1850 reported 58,161 slaves, 27.4 percent of the 212,592 people in Texas, and the census of 1860 enumerated 182,566 slaves, 30.2 percent of the total population. Slaves were increasing faster than the population as a whole.

[source : Slavery, Texas State Historical Association,, Accessed: 18th April 2016]

I wonder what role Alex Jones' family played in all this, considering that his ancestors were colonels and generals in the Confederate Army, and that he himself is showing transparent signs of neo-Confederacy, claiming that the US Civil War was all about tariffs when all contemporary documents from the time state the primary reason was the protection of slavery in the Confederate states, and also allowing other 'Libertarian' writers to state the same. And then there is also Jones' love of the slaveholding, slavery-loving, backstabbing traitor President Andrew Jackson.

It's high time for Jones to 'fess: who were his Confederate ancestors, and has that Confederacy been passed down from generation to generation within the Jones family?