Monday, January 30, 2006
That nonsense about the version for the BAFTA's being "accidentally" damaged and unviewable? When you watch "Munich" you will see why certain people had a reason to "accidentally" damage it.
I think the film's ending is the best.
The Mossad agent and his handler are discussing their work across the other side of the Hudson from the UN building in NYC.
The handler asks his dupe (for the reason of the Munich Olympics is only an excuse, and a parallel for the holohoax) to "come home" i.e. to Israel. The Mossad agent refuses and instead asks his handler to break bread in his house in NYC where he is hiding after one of his jobs goes seriously wrong. The message is clear. The Mossad agent does not see Israel as his home. His home is where his young daughter and beautiful wife are, and that could be anywhere.
The Mossad agent has seen what he was becoming, seen through the crap and turns his back on it.
The curious part is that after this, the two part and leave in oppposite directions, to leave a shot of the WTC towers!! So when was this shot taken? Or were the towers generated by CGI?
What is the message of this last final shot of the WTC? The aim of the Mossad agent's task was to kill. He believed that by killing it would stop events such as Munich. But what happened on 9/11...?
Yes, I know here Spielberg is peddling the "Muslims did 9/11" crap, but the inference is crystal clear. You kill their leaders and more rise up to take their place, and the new batch are more evil. IT JUST DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT!! Throughout the film references are made to many more terrorist actions against Israelis in retaliation for this Mossad agents work, and reference is also made to how many Palestinian civilians were killed immediately after Munich.
And with all this terrorism somebody must be making a packet?
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Well, be ye afraid not! For the honourable BBC has the answer to Sir Ian Blair's question as to why the Soham case received such attention.
The answer is... microchipping children.
The BBC put forth the case for microchipping children in an article entitled "Would a microchip keep your child safe?" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3307471.stm
It contains the following passage:
A month after the bodies of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were found in a remote ditch, a cybernetics professor known for his headline-grabbing stunts came up with a plan to microchip children to prevent them being abducted.
Professor Kevin Warwick, of Reading University, convinced the Duval family that a microchip implanted in their 11-year-old daughter Danielle's arm would ease their fears.
The youngster was nervous about going out alone, following media coverage of the Soham case.
If she went missing with a chip installed, it would send a signal via mobile phone networks to a computer, which would pinpoint her location on an electronic map.
For good measure, the article also has an image from a CCTV camera of Jamie Bulger being led away by one of the two boys who murdered him.
The article also ends with this telling statement:
Because for all the fear about strangers who may pose a danger, just a fraction of the children murdered each year die at the hands of an unknown assailant.
Kidnaps and murders by strangers are no more common than 20 years ago, according to Home Office figures which show there are, on average, six such deaths a year.
OK, so kidnaps and murders by strangers are no more common tha 20 years ago, but the aformentioned Duvals were so traumatised by the media coverage of the Soham case that they were convinced shortly after the event that a microchip embedded into their child's body would ease their fears (and possibly damage their daughter's body irrepairably).
Since then the BBC and other articles in the mainstream media have tried to push the idea of microchipping children.
So the media coverage of Soham was nothing to do with race or class, just plain old, boring microchipping children for the 24/7 surveillance society. Hence all the CCTV cameras, tracking of car journeys etc.
Before Galloway was asked to appear the makers of CBB approached David Icke and promised him the same thing. Icke refused because he didn't believe them.
Icke, as you may know already, is very strongly anti-war and arguably the most famous anti-New World Order person on the planet , which may well be why he was asked to appear on CBB.
So did the makers of CBB have it in for the anti-war, anti-NWO movement, first trying to get Icke to appear and failing, so they settled for the next best well-known face of the anti-war movement, George Galloway?
Was Galloway naive to believe the CBB?
Was it a risk worth taking?
Galloway may well have been in error in not consulting with his Respect party before entering, because they may have known about Icke or had suspicions about the whole thing. But should Galloway be demonised for his apppearance on CBB?
Galloway will have raised approximately £150,000 for Interpal, so that displaced and dispossessed Palestinians will have shoes on their feet and fuel for their fires and food in their bellies.
Galloway is even being attacked by the World Socialist Website via an article by Chris Marsden. The current version available to read now is substantially different from the first version. I read the first version early yesterday morning and it referred to the charity nominated by Galloway to receive his fees etc, Interpal. Curiously there is now no mention whatsoever of Interpal or charity. Why? All the article does is attack Galloway for being made to look a fool via the tasks that CBB contestants MUST do.
This is the thing that is really annoying me about this.
Everything that Galloway did he did for charity. Galloway is giving his fees to Interpal and is not taking his MPs salary for the time he spent in the CBB house.
But does Marsden say this? No.
I know that Marsden and thus WSWS know about Interpal because I saw and read the first version at approximately 0700 yesterday 27th January 2005. Unfortunately I did not save it otherwise I would be reprinting it here.
But you write to Marsden and WSWS and ask why the reference to Interpal has been taken out.
I am rather suspicious of this because I sent a rather long letter to the World Socialist Website last year on the death of Terri Schindler. They never printed it in part or in full. In that letter was the timeline of events, unreported by the WSWS, that showed Terri Schindler may well have been murdered, and not allowed to die because her life was deemed to be not worth living due to brain damage etc. There is strong evidence to show that Terri may well have been brutally attacked by her husband and that ever since, while Terri was unable to speak to defend herself, her husband was trying to "allow her to die with dignity" by removing her feeding tubes etc.
I also wrote to the editorial board on a series of theirs about the Bolshevik Revolution and how glorious they were making it out to be. I asked them to make known to their readers the work of Antony Cyril Sutton who wrote a groundbreaking trilogy on how Soviet Russia was basically made in the West. Sutton also demolished the dream that Marxists etc have about the Bolshevik Revolution with his book "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" in which Sutton traces the finance for the revolution to Wall Street. It was also MI6 agent Captain George Hill who created the Cheka to destroy any counter-revolution, thus protecting the investment of the Anglo-American bankers and industrialists who wanted control of Russia's naturla resources and markets. WSWS didn't do that either. Yes, the Bolshevik Revolution was just another Anglo-American intelligence operation, the culmination of over sixty years of work by the British in destablising and taking over Russia.
But back to Galloway.
Should people like Marsden and WSWS be pointing out the charity angle and why Galloway is being so ridiculed? I think so.
Galloway is very strongly anti-war.
Galloway gave the NeoCons the two fingers.
Galloway has been accused of being an Iraqi agent with the use of obviously forged documents, leading to him winning damages in court on several occasions.
Galloway is strongly pro-Palestinian.
Galloway dressed up in a red leotard so that a Palestinian charity Interpal can recieve approx £150,000 for food, clothes etc.
Could this possibly be why he was so obviously stitched-up?
I hope readers of this will now see that Galloway was not first choice, but second choice, and that Galloway has been stitched up. If Galloway had refused it may well have been Tony Benn for 3rd choice, or somebody similar. Whoever it was was going to get stitched up. This also shows that the makers of CBB are not impartial.
We should be highlighting the charity and reasons for a stitch-up, not joining in the ridicule.
Friday, January 27, 2006
On trial on charges of terrorism Moussaoui is asking that the US government reveal what they knew before 9/11 regarding the events that took place on that day.
The judge has agreed with his request and the US Government has been asked to provide the requested documents to the defence team of Moussaoui.
She [Judge Leonie Brinkema] ordered the government to immediately turn over any threat assessments, especially those completed in the year before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Defense attorneys also will get all reports, cables, slides, talking points, memos and other documents about Moussaoui's arrest a month before the attacks and about two Sept. 11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdahar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, whose presence in the United States was known to federal officials before the attacks.
That data clearly was sought by the defense for use in the first part of the upcoming court proceeding, in which prosecutors will try to convince jurors that the FBI would have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks if Moussaoui had told federal agents what he knew about al-Qaida's desire to fly planes into U.S. buildings.
The defense will argue that agents had more information about the plot than Moussaoui could provide but still could not prevent the attacks. If the jury disagrees with prosecutors, Moussaoui will receive life in prison. If jurors agree with prosecutors, they will decide whether he should be executed.
I believe there was a Holocaust during WW2.
But I also believe it was not of the magnitude we are led to believe.
OK, you say, then why would the Jews lie about its magnitude?
I say because without the "six million died" claim there would be little support for Israel, either moral or financial.
For a truer history of Israel see my page on Israel at
There you will find out that Israel was created through the British stabbing the Arabs in the back, British and American-financed Jewish terrorism of the Arabs, and the wilful neglect of the state of European Jews by the Zionist hierarchy.
You see, the Zionist hierarchy had any number of opportunities to save many European Jews. But most of the time they refused and left their bretheren to die. At the end of WW2 the same Zionist hierarchy, who had refused to rescue hundreds of thousands of European Jews thereby condenming them to the Nazi concentration camps and firing squads, used the emotional blackmail of the homeless Jewish refugees to force the world to accept a Jewish colony in Palestine.
Memoirs of the leading politicians of WW2 e.g. Churchill, mention Nazi Germany but not 6 million Jews died. The claim of 6 million Jews died only took off after the 1967 war.
What if the number of Jews who were murdered was much less than this? Would the USA be so keen to give so much money to Israel? Is this why David Irving and Ernst Zundel are locked up on charges of holocaust denial, whatever that is?
Yes, there was a genocide of the Jews by the Nazis, but not of the magnitude we are scared into believing. And what genocide there was was committed with the agreement of the Zionist hierarchy so that Israel would rise from the ashes of the murdered Jews.
And what of the camp we are all familiar with, Auschwitz. This was a series of camps each with its own function. One of the camps was associated with the IG Farben factory down the road. This particular factory at Auschwitz was actually part of the Standard IG Corporation, a joint company formed between IG Farben and Standard Oil of New Jersey (SONY) and managed by William Stamps Farish who has some very interesting links with the Bush family. SONY was controlled by the Rockefellers, and had virtually given IG Farben the processes for manufacturing synthetic rubber and oil from coal. You see, Nazi Germany had to import most of its petroleum products. If Nazi Germany was to fight in World War 2 then it would need a cheap and reliable source of oil, as well as rubber for its vehicles. Rockefeller-controlled SONY gave Nazi Germany the technology to manufacture as much synthetic oil and rubber from the Silesian coalfields as it wanted. IG Farben documentation found after WW2 showed how grateful IG Farben was for this. And it was this plant at Auschwitz that utilised that technology churning out gallon after gallon of oil for the Nazi Wehrmacht.
So, why wasn't the factory, or indeed the Auschwitz death camp supplying the slave labour, bombed? Because without it there would have been little fuel for the Wehrmacht. So why wasn't it bombed?
The cynic in me would suggest that Auschwitz was not bombed because then the war would have been over before you could say "the war on terrorism is a load of bollocks". And if that would have happened then people like the Rockefellers would not have made the vast fortune they made out of such a short war, and there would not have been the opportunity for a Jewish holocaust either, and thus no support for Israel after the war.
So Holocaust Memorial Day should not be ignored. Something terrible happened.
But neither should we ignore any other genocide that has been committed.
I would much rather there was a World Genocide Memorial Day instead.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
MPs are not supposed to do such things as wear red leotards for charity. Oh no. They are supposed to isolate themselves in the House of Commons bar and unquestioningly believe every word that is uttered from the now-proven lying mouth of this government.
In the run up to, during and after the Iraq War Galloway warned of creating thousands of bin Ladens. Well, what happened on 7th July and 21st July 2005?
Interpal has twice been investigated by The Charity Commission over allegations of links to terrorism, and both times it was cleared. The latest smear of Interpal was made by The Board of Deputies of British Jews. The BDBJ called Interpal a "terrorist organisation". Interpal took the BDBJ to court and has accepted an out of court settlement for an undisclosed sum and a retraction of the allegation by the BDBJ.
This sounds remarkably similar to the allegations made against Galloway, in which The Daily Telegraph claimed to have found documents implicating Galloway as an Iraqi agent. The documents were allegedly found in pristine condition in a burnt out building, and were unsigned. Galloway took the Daily Telegraph to court over them and won. Yesterday The Daily Telegraph lost its appeal against the damages awarded to Galloway.
You could be forgiven for thinking MPs would be over the moon for Galloway raising so much money for charity. Thousands of people dress up in silly costumes every year to run the London Marathon, for example, to raise only a fraction of the money Galloway will have raised for Interpal. What about Red Nose Day? Same thing, people dressing up in silly costumes. But are they ridiculed? No. They are praised and cheered on.
Is there one individual who could raise £150,000 on their own on Red Nose Day or in the London Marathon?
As Galloway said last night, many displaced and impoverished Palestinians will eat tonight because of Galloway. Meanwhile over the illegal partitioning wall Israel continues to receive billions and billions of dollars in aid from the USA.
Perhaps it is this that has embarrased MPs into attacking Galloway.
The BBC Radio 5 Live debate this morning was not on the state of the health service with its projected £1 billion overdraft, not on the latest set of troops being sent to Afghanistan, not on the sham debt-based monetary system we have, but instead asked the question, "Is George Galloway's political career over?"!
Yesterday we were also treated to seeing Galloway meeting a son of Saddam. This was while on a tour, again fund-raising for charity.
Here is a photo of interest.
This is a photo of Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein in 1983 to negotiate and arrange sales of some very nasty WMD-type stuff. Throughout the 1980's Saddam was an ally of the USA receiving financial assistance, and also military assistance in its war with Iran. As soon as that war finished Saddam was then tricked into invading Kuwait in 1990 after April Glaspie had indicated to Saddam that the USA would not get involved if Saddam invaded Kuwait. We then went to war on Iraq to restore Kuwaiti democracy, which was one king, one vote. During the 1990's Iraq was bombed and bombed and bombed. Many, many men, women and children died, amid allegations that Saddam had WMDs, the same WMDs that the USA, and the UK for that matter, had sold him! Were these sales by accident or design? Knowing the way the NWO works it was no accident, just like al-Qaeda is called "blowback". An excuse would be needed to invade Iraq, and the camouflage of enforcing the no-fly zone would seriously weaken resistance to any invasion of land forces.
Galloway sees things like this that other MPs don't seem to see, or do not want to see because of what it implies. But more importantly he gets out of the Commons and tells us.
Perhaps MPs should have a Red Leotard Day in the House of Commons, for charity. They could raise millions! I doubt it would happen. They have too much work to do in building the Police State.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
One man who is on the advisory council of The Eurasia Foundation The Eurasia Foundation I did not investigate is Michael Mandelbaum.
Mandelbaum is listed as the Director of American Foreign Policy at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. I thought I recognised the name Nitze. I was not wrong.
It is one of the neocon organisations, along with the American Enterprise Institute and The Hudson Institute.
Paul Wolfowitz was head of Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, or SAIS.
The current staff of SAIS includes:
Zbigniew Brzezinski (British agent, Kissinger-clone and co-author of the "clash of civilizations" theory of world war along with another British agent Bernard Lewis).
Francis Fukuyama (PNAC)
Eliot Cohen (co-founder of PNAC and warmongering chickenhawk).
A colleague of Mandelbaum at SAIS is S Frederick Starr, who is Chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute. Starr is also a Trustee of The Eurasia Foundation.
Another associate of SAIS is Charles Fairbanks, co-author of "The Clean Break" document calling for war for Israel on Syria, Iraq and every where else.
SAIS lists Brzezinski, Starr, Fairbanks and Mandelbaum as their experts on Russia.
SAIS is also holding some evening talks with people like Bill Kristol and Donald Rumsfeld.
The argument between Russia and the UK, and indeed the West, is that Russia is not democratic enough. This is a smokescreen. For "not democratic enough" read "not giving up its natural resources that easily".
So why do I say this?
Let's take a look at who controls The Eurasia Foundation.
The chairs on its advisory council are currently occupied by such human rights campaigners as:
Madeleine Albright (thought the indiscriminate bombing of Iraqi children was a price worth paying)
James A. Baker III (oil)
Lawrence Eagleburger (NSA, CFR, Kissinger Associate)
Members of the Advisory Council include:
Frank Carlucci (Chairman of Carlyle Group)
Donald McHenry (Bilderberg 1996).
Ann Pickard (Director for Global Businesses, Shell Gas & Power)
Robert Strauss (Bilderberg 1992)
Martin Feldstein (since 1996 has been virtually a permanent fixture at Bilderberg. Also member of CFR).
Donors to The Eurasia Foundation are:
Open Society/Soros Foundations
and not forgetting YUKOS.
When Putin arrested Yukos controller Mikhail Khodorkovsky it was to Lord Jacob Rothschild who Khodorkovsky turned to and gave his controlling25% stake in Yukos to. This is also why the Russian oligarchs have escaped to London for sanctuary from Putin.
So this isn't just friendly spying. This is about destabilising Russia in order to gain control of Russia's natural resources. Similar attempts were made by Great Britain in the 19th Century with Giuseppe Mazzini and Young Russia and its derivatives who assassinated Tsars Alexander II and II, and again in 1905 and again in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution. For analysis on who financed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution see "Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution" by Antony C Sutton.
For why else would people like Albright, Soros, Carlucci, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell get involved with such an organisation as The Eurasia Foundation?
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Shortly after 7/7 it was leaked that the alleged bombers had been under surveillance at some time, but were not thought to be a threat.
The French Minister Sarkozy alleged that some of the alleged bombers had been arrested the year before.
The Sunday Times today reports that the intelligence services had bugged Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer for two months. Kahn talked of his desire to fight in the Jihad, return to Pakistan, and raise money for Islamic extremism.
Question: why were they under surveillance in the first place? Is it, as the article alleges, because Kahn had attended a camp in Pakistan for terrorists?
So let's get this straight:
1. Kahn attends a terrorist training camp in Pakistan
2. Kahn returns to Great Britain and is subsequently bugged and placed under surveillance
3. during that surveillance Kahn is heard discussing fighting in the Jihad and raising money for terrorism
And yet he was not thought to be a threat to national security?
One item of news that has escaped the mainstream media's reporting of the London 7/7 bombs is the foreknowledge of the intelligence services of the bombs.
Meir Dagan told German newspaper Bild am Sontag that Mossad received advance warning of the bombs. This was reported in the 10th July edition of Bild am Sontag. It was only six minutes warning, Dagan says, but it was enough to stop Benjamin Netanyahu who was in a hotel close to Liverpool Street.
The reports surrounding this advance warning and Netanyahu are conflicting. Was it the British who stopped Netanyahu in the hotel foyer? Or was it the Israelis who stopped Netanyahu in his room?
Who knows? Who wants to know?
First Israel denied receiving advance warning.
Then it said the British told them.
But then Dagan says they received warning six minutes before the first explosion.
No wonder Blair wants to avoid a public inquiry!!
Who gave Israel advance warning of the explosions? Was it the British? If so, when did the British receive the warning? Was it coded like an IRA warning? Have they received similar warnings before?
2 = MI5 knew of Kahn's desire to fight in the Jihad and that he had attended a terrorist training camp
2 = there was advance warning received by somebody.
2 + 2 = coverup
I still stand by what I suggested to Rachel of North London when she attacked "the conspiraloons": THEY KNEW AND LET IT HAPPEN!!
In a word, WAR.
Bloody, destructive, power-grabbing, profit-making war.
ps what happened to the listening devices used on Kahn and Tanweer after they were deemed not to be a threat to national security? Is it possible they were left in place, still active or re-activated, and somebody from the intelligence services still listened in and heard every little detail of the plot to bomb London and not tell anyone until six minutes before the first bomb?
MI5 knew of bomber’s plan for holy war
BRITAIN’S top spies knew that the ringleader of the London bombers was planning to fight for Al-Qaeda more than a year before the July 7 suicide attacks, security sources have revealed.
MI5 bugged Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, a second bomber, for two months as they talked about Khan’s desire to fight in what he saw as the Islamic holy war.
Agents also listened in as the men talked between themselves about Khan’s plans to return to Pakistan where he had attended a camp for British terrorists. They also spoke about engaging in crime to raise money for Islamic extremism.
However, police and MI5 officers ruled that the two men were not an “immediate risk” and did not present a “direct threat” to national security.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
1. to condition you to the total surveillance society. If you can't see that such a society is within reach then you must be blind. Such a society was prophesised by such luminaries as George Orwell in "1984", but more ominously by Zbigniew Brzezinski in "Between Two Ages : America's Role in the Technetronic Era".
2. to minimise the effect the phrase "Big Brother" has when critics of the growing police state use the phrase "big brother" to describe the state.
3. to reduce your resistance to the police state and the total surveillance society, for how can you protest against being surveilled every second of your life if you yourself have sat in front of the TV and watched Channel 4's "Big Brother"? Have you watched the participants sleeping at 3am? Have you watched them discuss whatever in the lounge? in the pool? in the garden? So how can you protest if somebody wants to watch your every move and hear every word you speak, or even know every private thought you have (for such technology exists)?
The New World Order is taking revenge on Galloway. But I bet Galloway knew it would too.
They've tried labelling him as
1. a Saddam supporter - that footage of Galloway talking to Saddam about "your indefatigability" is taken out of context. Galloway was praising the Iraqi people as a whole, not Saddam.
2. in Saddam's pay - some "documents" in pristine condition (much like the passports at the WTC on 9/11) were found in a burnt out building implicating Galloway as a paid Iraqi agent. The documents were unsigned and later Galloway won damages in court over them. They were as phony as the 9/11 cover story.
The two most vociferous pro-war newspapers before the 2003 Iraq War were The Daily Telegraph and The Sun. Today both carry photos of Galloway pretending to be a cat licking milk from an imaginary saucer and being rewarded with a fuss from Rula Lenska.
The Chief Whip of The Labour Party is demanding Galloway return to the commons. Interview after interview, particularly with his constituents on the streets of Bow and Bethnal Green, raise the same demand.
I am disappointed that people can't see he is being made to look a fool because of his anti-war pro-palestinian stand, and for taking on the neocons in their own backyard.
I want him to win now, so that during his victory interview with the press, TV etc he can tell the world who he is giving his money to, and why, and what is like being a displaced, dispossessed Palestinian. That's what they fear.
Friday, January 06, 2006
It's the Hajj this month. Thousands of Muslims will be professing allegiance to Allah, walking around a big black stone and throwing stones at obelisks. The images above show what I am talking about. There are three obelisks and everyone should throw seven stones in a particular order at each obelisk, one on 11th , the second on 12th and and the final obelisk on the 13th night.
Apparently the obelisk represents Satan.
So what do we find in the capial of the United States of America, Washington DC?
This is the Washington Monument, the largest obelisk on Earth. It was named after George Washington who was a Freemason, laid the cornerstone for the Capitol in a freemasonic ceremony, and was inaugurated in a Freemasonic ceremony. The Cornerstone for the Washington Monument was also laid during a freemasonic ceremony.
Other obelisks are in Rome, with one in St Peters Square, London and Paris.
A plaque was added to the cornerstone of the Capitol, and the engraving referred to "...the year of Masonry 5793"
Do you get the feeling there is something ancient going on, with this "war on terrorism"?
I recently read the US government is going to hit its debt ceiling in March i.e. reach its credit limit. The Federal Reserve is a cartel of privately-owned banks and does not have to extend the ceiling.
If Iran is selling oil in euros, China is dumping the dollar, and in March the ceiling is not raised then this year is going to be deadly.
China signals reserves switch away from dollar
By Geoff Dyer in Shanghai and Andrew Balls in Washington
Published: January 5 2006 20:13 Last updated: January 6 2006 02:43
China indicated on Thursday it could begin to diversify its rapidly growing foreign exchange reserves away from the US dollar and government bonds – a potential shift with significant implications for global financial and commodity markets.
Economists estimate that more that 70 per cent of the reserves are invested in US dollar assets, which has helped to sustain the recent large US deficits. If China were to stop acquiring such a large proportion of dollars with its reserves – currently accumulating at about $15bn (€12.4bn) a month – it could put heavy downward pressure on the greenback.
Iran will stop selling its oil in dollars in March. The USA is demanding action under the pretext of WMD.
Maybe these wars are about oil after "oil".
January 4, 2006 – On November 10th 2005, the Muckraker Report published an article that described one of the unspoken reasons why the United States had to invade Iraq; to liberate the U.S. dollar in Iraq so that Iraqi oil could once again be purchased with the petrodollar. See The liberation of the U.S. Dollar in Iraq
In November 2000, Iraq stopped accepting U.S. dollars for their oil. Counted as a purely political move, Saddam Hussein switched the currency required to purchase Iraqi oil to the euro. Selling oil through the U.N. Oil for Food Program, Iraq converted all of its U.S. dollars in its U.N. account to the euro. Shortly thereafter, Iraq converted $10 billion in their U.N. reserve fund to the euro. By the end of 2000, Iraq had abandoned the U.S. dollar completely.
Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was ended, the country’s accounts were switch back to dollars, and oil began to be sold once again for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with the euro. Universal global dollar supremacy was restored. It is interesting to note that the latest recession that the United States endured began and ended within the same timeframe as when Iraq was trading oil for euros. Whether this is a coincidence or related, the American people may never know.
In March 2006, Iran will take Iraq’s switch to the petroeuro to new heights by launching a third oil exchange. The Iranians have developed a petroeuro system for oil trade, which when enacted, will once again threaten U.S. dollar supremacy far greater than Iraq’s euro conversion. Called the Iran Oil Bourse, an exchange that only accepts the euro for oil sales would mean that the entire world could begin purchasing oil from any oil-producing nation with euros instead of dollars. The Iranian plan isn’t limited to purchasing one oil-producing country’s oil with euros. Their plan will create a global alternative to the U.S. dollar. Come March 2006, the Iran Oil Bourse will further the momentum of OPEC to create an alternate currency for oil purchases worldwide. China, Russia, and the European Union are evaluating the Iranian plan to exchange oil for euros, and giving the plan serious consideration.
The dollar is worthless. Several court cases in the USA over the years have found the dollar to be worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar as a useable currency is that it is in demand because people think they can pass it on to a vendor who then can pass it on to another vendor etc. People will only accept payment in a form of "money" if they think they can use it to buy goods etc from another vendor.
So when the demand for dollars goes down e.g. if oil transactions are only in Euros, then the demand for dollars goes down, so the power of the dollar goes down, and down, and down...
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Its members were Iraq, Iran and North Korea. They were sponsoring terrorism and had WMDs aimed at your barbecue.
So come 1970 there's the USA, with enough nukes and bio and chemical warfare weaponry to destroy the universe. And there's these states who didn't have anything.
Question: how did Iraq, Iran and North Korea get the WMD technology?
From the USA, of course!
The Matrix-Churchill saga here in the UK showed British complicity in building Iraq's arsenal. There is more to this, but I'll save that for another day.
But there's photos of Donald Rumsfeld arranging sales of this, that and the other bottle of nasty stuff to Saddam. And he was given all sorts of financial credit to build his arsenal.
It was also Rumsfeld who gave North Korea its nuclear know-how when he was on the board of ABB selling reactors and God knows what else.
Iran also received nuclear assistance from the USA before the Shah was deposed because he wanted too much commission on the oil.
So today we learn of a CIA attempt to give/sell flawed intelligence to the Iranians in Vienna in 2000.
Apparently this Russian defected and was ordered by the CIA to give the Iranians a flawed design for a detonator of a nuclear missile. The Russian noticed the flaw almost instantly. He dropped the design off at an address in Vienna, but also pointed out to the Iranians that there was a flaw!
The concern of the Russian was that the CIA was giving the Iranians the know-how.
The CIA claimed they wanted to delay Iran going nuclear.
But this fits perfectly with the pattern of creating a monster i.e. the Axis of Evil, and then telling us that the monster (the Axis of Evil) has to be tamed.
Because the USA can't tell us "let's invade Iran because we don't like them". There has to be an excuse. That excuse is WMD, or the threat of such. Therefore the Axis of Evil must be given, or at the least given pointers to, the technology required for WMDs.
Thus we will have nearly endless warfare, probably nuclear, and at least bio and chemical warfare.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
I am suspicious of this because the Zionist movement that eventually bombed its way to creating Israel in 1948 is a British tool. The Zionist movement really took off around 1840 with Lord Palmerston and a few others. By this time the Rothschilds were in control of British finances. Herzl did not publish Der Judensaat until over 50 years later, after the Rothschilds had saved several Zionist settlelments in the then Palestine.
BBC Newsnight also revealed recently that the British had given Israel quite a lot of heavy water which is required for nuclear processing.
I can only think this is inciting mistrust and possibly hatred of Israel, and the USA.
British program uncovers Israel’s secret nuclear plans
1/2/2006 9:00:00 PM GMT
The Israeli government plans to protest a BBC national program about Israel's nuclear program. Dubbed “Israel’s secret weapons”, the program mainly focuses on the international community’s double standards in dealing with Israel’s unconventional weapons, according to an article on Israel’s Haaretz daily.
The program, to be aired next Sunday, shows that Israeli occupation forces used some form of unidentified chemical weapons on Palestinian civilians in February 2001. It also reveals Israel’s efforts to cover up its work on unconventional weapons, mainly referring to whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu, who served an 18-year prison term for disclosing classified information about the country’s nuclear program at the Dimona nuclear reactor, and the trial of Brig. Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Yoav, who was convicted of showing two unpublished book manuscripts, one fictional and the other a memoir, to unauthorized people.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
You see, a long time ago some men from an organisation called "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC) wrote to the then President of the United States of America Bill Clinton demanding action on Iraq. Saddam is a threat to freedom and world security, they cried. That was in 1998.
Shortly after that these same people of PNAC began wishing for "a new Pearl Harbour", an event so catastrophic to the US public that they would gladly send their beloved sons and daughters off to fight in a war in a far off land (sitting on a lake of lovely, lovely oil).
On September 11th 2001 PNAC got their "new Pearl Harbour", when the World Trade Centre was hit. Somehow despite being the most fortified and defended building on the planet, The Pentagon was hit, even though the WTC had been hit an hour before!
The men at PNAC (God bless 'em) took upon themselves to pin the blame on Saddam and get him. For the men who wrote that letter to Clinton were now in power, in the White House, in the Pentagon, in the State Department.
Surely if they wrote to Clinton in 1998 demanding replacing Saddam in 1998, then come 2001, three years later, they had a plan for the reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq. Particularly if the good 'ol boys of the RAF and USAF had been bombing and bombing and bombing Iraq into the third world throughout the 1990's.
So come 2005, two years after Saddam has been ousted, and report after report has confirmed that there was no, repeat no, serious plan for a post-Saddam Iraq.
Money, lots of it, has gone missing. Precious archaeological pieces have been looted. The place is falling apart, with no security. Ahmed Chalabi is now in charge of the oil (Chalabi is the man who supplied Cheney et al with some really dodgy "intelligence").
So today I find it no surprise that the USA is not going to give Iraq the infrastructure it promised to make it a beacon of hope for the rest of the Middle East. No, instead watch Iraq crumble into three states along religious lines. Iran will be accused of meddling.
Bush pulls the plug on Iraq reconstruction
$18bn funding to stop at end of year
Suzanne Goldenberg in WashingtonTuesday January 3, 2006The Guardian
The Bush administration has scaled back its ambitions to rebuild Iraq from the devastation wrought by war and dictatorship and does not intend to seek new funds for reconstruction, it emerged yesterday.
In a decision that will be seen as a retreat from a promise by President George Bush to give Iraq the best infrastructure in the region, administration officials say they will not seek reconstruction funds when the budget request is presented to Congress next month, the Washington Post reported yesterday.
The $18.4bn (£10.6bn) allocation is scheduled to run out in June 2007. The move will be seen by critics as further evidence of the administration's failure to plan for the aftermath of the war.
A country with running water and steady energy supply and health system etc is unikely to break out into civil war (unless you get some SAS guys in there to plant some IEDs which can be blamed on opposing factions).
Not only are our clothes tagged with tiny RFID transmitters.
Not only are our car journeys to be tracked.
Not only are hundreds of images of our faces taken by CCTV.
Not only are some young offenders tagged (which is not working, surprise, surprise).
Not only is there a service to track your children (because paedophiles are deliberately being released early or being given light sentences to molest and abuse your children).
They only want to go and tag nonpayers to the Child Support Agency now.
Why not just come straight out with it and tell us all to register at our nearest Post Office tomorrow and get injected with a microchip implant. Oops, they can't do that because the electronic infrastructure is not working yet. That's what the ID card is for. The infrastructure (database, readers ect) will work. But the ID Card itself will fail (and will be designed to fail, probably easily forged), to be replaced by...THE MICROCHIP IMPLANT.
Parents who fail to pay child support money could be tagged, Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton said.
Mr Hutton said the idea was being examined as part of reforms of the powers of the Child Support Agency.
"I want to get tough with those dads who are not paying for their kids," he told BBC News.
A review of the Child Support Agency is under way after Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was "not properly suited" to its job.
Mr Hutton said he would make a statement to Parliament soon setting out how he plans to improve the CSA's performance.
Mr Hutton's comments follow press reports suggesting his department was looking at imposing curfews backed by tagging to restrict the movements of absent parents.
It sounds alot. But the actual physical value is only a tiny fraction of this.
For what is the legal definition of £?
The banks run a system called Fractional Reserve Banking. This allows them to create money out of thin air.
Here is a brief example of how FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING works;
The RipOff Bank has £100 pounds in its vault, and does not have any other debt to call on. Mr X goes to the RipOff Bank and asks for a loan of £1500. You would think the RipOff Bank can't satisfy this request, right?WRONG!Here, with the magic of FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING, is how the RipOff Bank can satisfy this request of Mr X.FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING allows the RipOff bank to create money upto a specified legal multiple of its deposits. It's that simple. Say the legal multiple is 10. Then the RipOff bank can create another £900 to loan £1000 to Mr X. The RipOff Bank does not have to ask anybody to repay any debt to do this, or to get the money from anyone or anywhere else. IT SIMPLY CREATES THE MONEY with a bookkeeping entry and/or entry onto a computer.
But Mr X requested £1500. So the RipOff Bank asks another bank, the Bankster Bank, for a loan of £500. But the Bankster Bank too only has £100 in its vault. But through FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING the Bankster Bank can create £500 and lend it to the RipOff Bank for Mr X, and still keep the £100 in its vault to use for its customer Mrs Y, who wants a loan of £300.
Through this example we see that the amount of "money" in circulation has increased by £900 + £400 = £1300, and on a base of just £100 + £100 = £200. No gold or silver was dug from the ground. The "money" was simply typed into a computer. This is transferred via cheque or electronically into the bank account of Mr X, which may or may not be with either RipOff Bank or Bankster Bank.
You must then work your arse off to pay it back...and with interest!
This is also how the banks make their money. We are led to believe that the banks carefully invest the deposits of their customers in successful businesses, and the interest earned by the banks customers is taken from the profit the bank made from investing in the businesses. You can now see that banking as a profession is not that difficult. You don't have to be a superb economist to be a successful banker and invest wisely in businesses anticipated to do well. The banks can easily afford to lose some of the money they create from your deposits.
So when we are told we owe £1.13 Trillion, we basically owe £0, for most of that "debt" is thin air. Some of the debt will be physical gold, the base for first credit pyramid that created the thin air money. The rest is thin air, typed into a computer.
But look what The Independent says about the effect this "debt" has: Half of all heavy debtors suffer from depression.
Of only they knew...
ps If you don't believe me just ask your bank if it uses fractional reserve banking and if it was used to create the "money" from thin air for your loan/mortgage/credit card etc