Thursday, November 30, 2006


They just love terror!

Clean out the stables, NOW!


British security forces 'colluded in international terrorism'
29/11/2006 - 18:19:22

British security forces colluded in acts of international terrorism in the 1970s, a Dáil committee said in a hard-hitting report today.

“The spectre of collusion” was present in the attacks investigated by the probe into a series of bomb and gun attacks carried out on both sides of the border by loyalist paramilitaries.

At a press conference in the grounds of the Dáil in Dublin, the committee concluded that security force members were involved in the attacks: “We now have enough information to be fully satisfied not only that it (collusion) occurred, but that it was widespread.”

It added: “The sub-committee notes that the British cabinet was aware of the level to which the security forces had been infiltrated by terrorists and we believe that its inadequate response to this knowledge permitted the problem to continue and to grow.”

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said the findings were very disturbing.

“The findings in this report regarding collusion are deeply troubling and a matter of most serious concern. They paint a very disturbing picture,” he said.

“We have consistently pressed the British government for any cooperation they can provide in relation to all of these incidents.”

And he said it was absolutely essential the British government examine the findings of all of the reports on collusion.

The Taoiseach said the terror attacks occurred during a dark and tragic period of Irish history and urged people to think of the victims.

The two governments have been in contact today, with Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern meeting Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain.

Mr Ahern said: “I advised him of the Irish Government’s grave concern at the contents of the report, and of allegations of involvement of members of British security forces in these appalling events.

“I stressed the importance of full and unfettered British co-operation with the ongoing investigations and inquiries into these matters, as the Government has consistently made clear to the British government.”

Both the Taoiseach and the Foreign Affairs Minister welcomed calls for a parliamentary debate on the findings.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006


According to The Independent today Litvinenko told Scaramella that he smuggled nuclear material out of Russia for the FSB.


Litvinenko 'smuggled nuclear material'
By Cahal Milmo, Peter Popham and Jason Bennetto
Published: 29 November 2006

Alexander Litvinenko, the poisoned former Russian agent, told the Italian academic he met on the day he fell ill that he had organised the smuggling of nuclear material out of Russia for his security service employers.

Mario Scaramella, who flew into London yesterday to be interviewed by Scotland Yard officers investigating Mr Litvinenko's death, said Mr Litvinenko told him about the operation for the FSB security service, the successor to the KGB.

This could explain the objects found in Litvinenko's colon, one of which had apparently burst.

If the contents of these objects was Polonium-210 then this could also explain how Polonium-210 entered his body. I would assume that the objects were made of material of sufficient strength to block the radiation from damaging his body, but with one of them bursting open that shield had been removed and the Polonium-210 began destroying his internal organs.

Apparently Goldfarb was unaware of this smuggling history of Litvinenko.

I'm thinking this is now a possibility;
1. Litvinenko was still smuggling, ingesting the contraband which in this latest case was Polonium-210 (for whatever reason).
2. one of the pouches ruptured, and the Polonium-210 was able to begin destroying his organs.
3. knowing he was doomed he and his pals blamed Putin

Without a satisfactory explanation for the presence of those objects in Litvinenko's digestive system this is now another interesting twist.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006


1. Putin did it - if it was Putin then this has to be the most audacious assassination in known history. To assassinate a long-time critic on foreign soil, particularly British soil, knowing the kind of resulting death would be milked to death by his critics, is a very bold and dangerous step. So why would Putin do it? To silence a long-time critic, who some believe had outlived his usefulness, and who had actually discredited himself with wild theories about Russia, al-Qaeda and 9/11? To stop some damaging information falling into the wrong hands? To use a very rarely used poison which fingers only a few states is potentially self-incriminating. But then do what your enemies expect you to do the least. But then again, why assassinate a discredited critic when you are about to negotiate potentially lucrative contracts with European customers?

2. Suicide - a theory I proposed due to the still unexplained presence of some dense matter in Litvinenko's colon, and which seems to have quietly slipped from news reports upon the discovery of Polonium-210. Once a satisfactory explanation for the presence of these objects is given I will dismiss this theory. He was married with kids and living a not uncomfortable life, even if he was living it carefully. However he was in the pay of certain ruthless individuals who may well have put pressure on him, via e.g. death threats to his family. Remember we are talking about control of Russia. Putin kicked these certain individuals out of Russia after they had systematically raped Russia and is slowly regaining control of Russia's natural resources. Russians seem happy with Putin. There's a lot of control at stake here. Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on Russia for energy. Andrei Luguvoy stated that he met Litvinenko with Kotvun and a third man, who the mainstream media are still failing to mention. Sources also told The Independent that there are quite a few inconsistencies with Litvinenko's story of what happened on the 1st November, but this may be down to pain and loss of memory.

3. "Dignity and Honour" - according to the News of the World last Sunday some of the information Litvinenko was passed on 1st November named "Dignity and Honour" as drawing up a hitlist of critics who were damaging Putin. If this is actually the case then it is possible that Putin knew about the assassination and let it happen. But then the same arguments in 1. are applicable.

4. Berezovsky - Berezovsky and his Russian and now London-based oligarch pals have quite a lot to gain from the slow, agonizing and dare I say photogenic death of a critic of Putin. Perhaps Litvinenko had outlived his usefulness and was as is suggested expendable. Perhaps Litvinenko had found some damaging information on Berezovsky himself and was about to spill the beans on his sponsor.

5. Agreed hit - if Putin is NWO then perhaps Litvinenko had some info, or was about to find some, which would blow the scam, so it was agreed between concerned parties that Litvinenko could be assassinated on British soil and theories would persist on who the assassins were; Putin, "Dignity and Honour", Berezovsky? It wouldn't matter because potentially damaging info would now be buried.

So which do I think? I really don't know. Until the objects in Litvinenko's colon can be explained then suicide, be it assisted, forced or voluntary, is still on the table.

But if there is an innocent explanation for the presence of these objects then I would say "Dignity and Honour" are the most probable culprits. But wether Putin (a) knew and (b) acquiesced is debatable.

Sunday, November 26, 2006


The News of the World is reporting that Dignity and Honour are the culprits in the death of Litvinenko.


THE ruthless assassin at the centre of the Litvinenko poison murder is a highly-trained veteran of Russia's deadly Spetsnaz special forces.

The News of the World knows the killer's full identity but for legal reasons we are just using his middle name Igor.

The 46-year-old expert in covert operations was dramatically fingered in a bombshell document passed to former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko at London's Itsu sushi bar before he was slipped lethal radioactive polonium-210.

The three-page dossier was handed to Scotland Yard by the victim and is now being analysed by the anti-terrorist branch. The News of the World has obtained a copy and can reveal it contains a chilling hitlist with Litvinenko, 43, as a prime target.

...It reveals that Dignity And Honour, part of a group of ex-KGB spies, appear to be waging their own Cold War on dissidents trying to embarrass President Vladimir Putin.

I posed the question that Litvinenko, knowingly or unknowingly, was involved in his own death based on the unexplained presence of three objects of dense matter in Litvinenko's colon. Are they still there? How did they get there?

This report now fingers ex-KGB spies getting their own back.

Would they have sought Putin's acquiesence? If so, did he give it?

Does this arrangement give plausible deniability to Putin?

I can only guess that these people are really pissed off about the way in which Russia was systematically raped by the now London-based oligarchs, and by what the ancestors of their sponsors did throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries with terrorism and revolutions in Russia.

Thursday, November 23, 2006


When the story broke about the possible assassination of Alexander Litvinenko I reserved judgement on the allegation. The media was reporting every second that Litvinenko was the target because he had some information on the murder of Anna Politkovskaya which was alleged to be potentially damaging to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Where is this information?

Why has it not been released in the wake of this alleged assassination attempt?

We were told that somehow Litvinenko had been poisioned with thallium, a tasteless and odourless toxic metal, after meeting with some "contacts". Litvinenko showed symptoms of suffering from high levels of thallium, thus, we were told, he was the target of an assassination attempt.

It now appears that the doctors treating Litvinenko are saying that thallium may not be the cause, and are instead focusing on some pieces of "dense matter" in his colon.

I did allow the possibility that Litvinenko may well have been the target of an assassination attempt, but also allowed the possibility that he either poisoned himself, or allowed himself to be poisoned, with something which mimicked the symptoms of thallium overdose.

The non-release of the alleged information on the murder of Anna Politkovskaya together with these suspicious objects in Litvinenko's colon currently indicate to me the latter.

If you wanted to damage somebody would you fake injury and blame that somebody for that injury? This is the same false-flag MO that has occured throughout history, including 9/11.

The doctors treating Litvinenko may well be pressured to conclude that he was the target of an assassination attempt, or if not they may be replaced.

We'll have to wait and see.


Doctors treating poisoned Russian focus on objects in his colon
By Cahal Milmo
Published: 23 November 2006
The poison used to attack the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko remained unknown last night as doctors searching for a radioactive toxin focused their efforts on pieces of "dense matter" found in his intestines.

The team treating Mr Litvinenko at University College Hospital in central London believe the defector must have knowingly swallowed the three pieces of material which have become lodged in his colon.

X-rays have shown that two of the items are of a similar size to a 2p coin and the other is the shape of a figure "8", according to a hospital source. But it is not yet known whether the three items are linked to Mr Litvinenko's illness, which has left him without a functioning immune system, due to the failure of his bone marrow, and liver damage. Tests are being carried out to identify the pieces of material.

Mr Litvinenko, 43, who believes he is the victim of an assassination attempt sanctioned by Moscow, fell ill three weeks ago after two meetings with contacts in London. He was warned of a death threat against him at one of the meetings.

Doctors said on Tuesday that they now believe thallium sulphate, the "secret agent's poison" originally suspected of causing Mr Litvinenko's condition, is unlikely to be the source.

Instead, they are investigating whether he has ingested a radioactive substance, possibly thallium 201, which is used in hospitals as a "tracer" in cardiac tests.

Friends of Mr Litvinenko claimed that his condition had continued to deteriorate. In a statement, UCH said he remained "unchanged" in a serious by stable condition.

Alex Goldfarb, who helped Mr Litvinenko flee Russia in 2000 after he levelled corruption allegations against the KGB's successor, the FSB, said: "We do not know what has caused the poisoning because the radioactivity has probably left his system... The doctors are supporting his functions and his liver while we wait to see if his bone marrow cells recover."

Mr Litvinenko is believed to have been investigating the murder in Moscow of the dissident journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

The poison used to attack the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko remained unknown last night as doctors searching for a radioactive toxin focused their efforts on pieces of "dense matter" found in his intestines.

The team treating Mr Litvinenko at University College Hospital in central London believe the defector must have knowingly swallowed the three pieces of material which have become lodged in his colon.

X-rays have shown that two of the items are of a similar size to a 2p coin and the other is the shape of a figure "8", according to a hospital source. But it is not yet known whether the three items are linked to Mr Litvinenko's illness, which has left him without a functioning immune system, due to the failure of his bone marrow, and liver damage. Tests are being carried out to identify the pieces of material.

Mr Litvinenko, 43, who believes he is the victim of an assassination attempt sanctioned by Moscow, fell ill three weeks ago after two meetings with contacts in London. He was warned of a death threat against him at one of the meetings.
Doctors said on Tuesday that they now believe thallium sulphate, the "secret agent's poison" originally suspected of causing Mr Litvinenko's condition, is unlikely to be the source.

Instead, they are investigating whether he has ingested a radioactive substance, possibly thallium 201, which is used in hospitals as a "tracer" in cardiac tests.

Friends of Mr Litvinenko claimed that his condition had continued to deteriorate. In a statement, UCH said he remained "unchanged" in a serious by stable condition.

Alex Goldfarb, who helped Mr Litvinenko flee Russia in 2000 after he levelled corruption allegations against the KGB's successor, the FSB, said: "We do not know what has caused the poisoning because the radioactivity has probably left his system... The doctors are supporting his functions and his liver while we wait to see if his bone marrow cells recover."

Mr Litvinenko is believed to have been investigating the murder in Moscow of the dissident journalist Anna Politkovskaya

Friday, November 17, 2006


It could only happen in America?

A man runs a part of the government which gives its stamp of approval to an implantable microchip, despite its known and unknown dangers.
On leaving that government post that man joins the board of the company who manufacture the aforementioned implantable microchip, and he now holds hundreds of thousands of stock options.
Now that man is running for the Republican nomination of the US Presidential elctions in 2008!!

That man is Tommy Thompson.
The company is Verichip.

See how Verchip is linked to the Nazis through IBM on YouTube, in a video called "IBM, Verichip and the Fourth Reich".


Tommy Thompson - The 'Chip' President?
Election Bid Raises Specter Of RFID Implant Threat

Katherine Albrecht
Thursday, November 16, 2006

Former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson is considering a run for president in 2008, a move that should spark alarm among those familiar with Thompson's calls for widespread RFID chipping of Americans. The authors of "Spychips," Dr. Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre, who closely monitor the RFID industry, caution that his position on the Board of the VeriChip Corporation and his stock options in the company make Thompson one of the most dangerous figures in American politics today.

As head of Health of Health and Human Services, Thompson oversaw the scandal-ridden FDA when it approved the VeriChip as a medical device. Shortly after leaving his cabinet post, he joined the board of the VeriChip Corporation and wasted no time in using his clout to promote the company's glass encapsulated RFID tags. These tags are injected into human flesh to uniquely number and identify people.

In public appearances, Thompson has suggested implanting the microchips into Americans to link to their electronic medical records. "It's very beneficial and it's going to be extremely helpful and it's a giant step forward to getting what we call an electronic medical record for all Americans," he told CBS MarketWatch in July 2005. He also suggested implanting military personnel with the chips to replace dog tags.

Thompson's desire to run for president is not mere speculation. Media outlets in his home state of Wisconsin, where he served four terms as governor, have confirmed Thompson is laying the foundation for a presidential bid. His wife Sue Ann has told reporters that the family has discussed his candidacy and that "He should give it a try. He's got a lot of good ideas." Thompson himself has stated, "There's no question I'm interested."

Thompson is considered a long-shot for the Republican nomination, but his influence shouldn't be discounted, says McIntyre. "Despite his folksy manner, he's a savvy politician whose Washington connections run deep, and he's got a vested interest in chipping America." She points out that Thompson has an option on more than 150,000 shares of VeriChip stock.

Right now those options aren't worth much. Security flaws and public squeamishness have hurt the company's sales, resulting in losses of millions of dollars.

"It will take a considerable shift in public perception to chip enough Americans to turn all that red ink to black," Albrecht observes. "It concerns us that Thompson would have a financial interest in having people roll up their sleeves while aiming for such an influential office."

Ironically, Thompson himself has not yet received a microchip implant despite what must be extraordinary pressure from the VeriChip Corporation. He made a promise to do so on national television over a year ago.

"Given the unpopularity of the VeriChip and people's concern it could be abused, Thompson has been wise to avoid getting chipped himself," says Albrecht. "Getting chipped would would be political suicide for any politician. Even if he remains chip-free as we hope, the American people should still be wary of him."

Tuesday, November 14, 2006


Blair's speech to the Lord Mayor's Banquet did indeed call for talks between Iran, Syria and the USA and UK, BUT WITH CONDITIONS.


On the contrary, we should start with Israel/Palestine. That is the core. We should then make progress on Lebanon. We should unite all moderate Arab and Moslem voices behind a push for peace in those countries but also in Iraq. We should be standing up for, empowering, respecting those with a moderate and modern view of the faith of Islam everywhere.

What is happening in the Middle East today is not complex. It is simple. Iran is being confronted over its nuclear weapons ambitions. Its stock market has lost a third of its value in the last year and foreign credit is increasingly hard to come by. The statements of its President - such as wiping Israel from the face of the earth - are causing alarm, even in Iran.

To be fair, they have a genuine, if entirely misplaced fear, that the US seeks a military solution in Iran. They don't. But we all want Iran to suspend its enrichment process which if allowed to continue, will give them a nuclear weapon. Under the agreement we brokered in June, the US has said they will talk to Iran direct for the first time in 30 years, if they abide by the UN demand to suspend enrichment. But Iran is refusing to do it.

Instead they are using the pressure points in the region to thwart us. So they help the most extreme elements of Hamas in Palestine; Hizbollah in the Lebanon; Shia militia in Iraq. That way, they put obstacles in the path to peace, paint us, as they did over the Israel/Lebanon conflict, as the aggressors, inflame the Arab street and create political turmoil in our democratic politics.

It is a perfectly straightforward and clear strategy. It will only be defeated by an equally clear one: to relieve these pressure points one by one and then, from a position of strength to talk, in a way I described in July in my speech in Los Angeles: offer Iran a clear strategic choice: they help the MEPP [Middle East Peace Process] not hinder it; they stop supporting terrorism in Lebanon or Iraq; and they abide by, not flout, their international obligations. In that case, a new partnership is possible. Or alternatively they face the consequences of not doing so: isolation.

The basic point I come back to, again and again and which I have made many times here - is that whether in Iraq, or Afghanistan or indeed combating terrorism here, these battles are inextricably bound together. It is a global issue. It needs a global response.

Paragraph 1: Exactly. Start with the Israel/Palestine conflict. Tell everyone how it has been engineered by certain circles in the Anglo-American Establishment and name names. Get Israel to "de-nuke" as suggested by The Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College earlier this year. If this does not happen then completely diplomatically isolate Israel. Israel has the bomb. Israel has the military death machine and is invading and bombing its neighbours. Israel is building an apartheid wall.

Paragraph 2 : no wonder Iran's stock market has lost so much and money is leaking, being labelled part of "the axis of evil".

Paragraph 3 : I wonder why Iran has a genuine fear of invasion. Could it be because many US Navy ships and personnel are busy in practice operations in the Persian Gulf, including with aircraft carriers, and were filmed by an Iranian drone? And as for abiding by the UN, the USA has consistently vetoed resolutions against Israel.

Paragraph 4 : despite claims by politicians such as Blair and Rumsfeld US Marine General Peter Pace said he had no evidence that Iran was involved in Iraq. And as for Lebanon, it is now becoming clear that Israel provoked the kidnapping incident on the border and had planned the response to it a year before! And we allowed DU bombs to fly across our country to kill Lebanese civilians!

Paragraph 5 : no. We need to tell it as it is. We created Israel with the specific purpose of inciting Islam for a world war. We defuse that by not vetoing UN resolutions against Israel, by diplomatically isolating Israel, by wthholding Federal Reserve funds to Israel which sustain the barbaric Zionist state and its death machine. But above all, GET ISRAEL TO DENUKE!! Christ, Lieberman is one step away from the Israeli Prime Minister. Lieberman wants to nuke Tehran and can do so because Israel has the bomb, and we know that because we gave it to them!!

Monday, November 13, 2006


Some trick, trick, trickery is afoot.

Someone has been planning some trap for the Iranians and Syrians to fall into. A recent previous post on the avoidance of Blair answering my simple questions about money should tell you he wouldn't be doing this unless there was a trap somewhere.

Maybe it is, "let's have talks with the Iranians and Syrians but make them look unreasonable and isolate them".

I'm interested in what will happen in these talks.


Blair looking to Iran and Syria

Tony Blair is set to make a major foreign policy speech

Tony Blair is to call for dialogue with Iran and Syria to secure peace in the Middle East, as Defence Secretary Des Browne says change is "under way".

The prime minister believes the two states should be warned of the consequences of failing to help.

In a major foreign policy speech in London he will also defend the UK's close relationship with the US.

The Syrian ambassador to the US told the BBC his country was willing to "engage" with the US and the UK.

Ahead of Mr Blair's speech, his defence secretary played down suggestions the US mid-term elections were behind an apparent change of UK policy on Iraq.

There has to be dialogue with Syria and Iran
Mark Littlewood , Cambridge

Send us your comments

"Change has been under way for some time now and it distorts the reality to suggest that that change is predicated upon a change in American politics," said Mr Browne.

He added: "Throughout the conflict, for example, we've been calling on Iran and Syria to do more to stop the flow into Iraq of foreign fighters, bomb making equipment and knowhow - and we will continue to talk to all of Iraq's neighbours."

The White House has already indicated it would consider talking to Iran and Syria - previously described by President Bush as part of an "Axis of Evil" - about the future of Iraq.

Syria's Ambassador to the US, Imad Moustapha, told BBC Radio 4's World at One that his country was willing to engage.

Price of peace

"In one way or another, Syria wants to become a part of the solution to the problem. We are willing to engage and we can help - I'm not claiming we have the magical wand - we can help play a constructive role.

"We have played a constructive role in the past. Syria has invited Israel time and again to re-engage in a peace process."

He added that for such assistance "the price should be very clear - we want a comprehensive, fair and honourable Middle East settlement".

Mr Blair will address the Lord Mayor's banquet at the Guildhall stressing the need to "make clear" to Syria and Iran how they can help make peace in the Middle East, an aide said.

And he will say that resolving the situation in Iraq requires action to deal with the region's other issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Lebanon.

He will add that the only British foreign policy that could work is one based on "strong alliances".

'With or against us'

"For that reason, our partnership with America and our membership of the EU are precisely suited to Britain," he will add.

"For that reason anti-Americanism or euroscepticism are not merely foolish, they are the surest route to the destruction of our true national interest."

Memorial to slain US marines in Iraq
The US death toll in Iraq stands at more than 2,800 troops

In the US, White House chief-of-staff Josh Bolten said "a fresh approach" was needed on Iraq.

Its Iraq Study Group is due to give its recommendations on US strategy in Iraq by the end of the year.

President George W Bush is meeting the panel on Monday, and Mr Blair will talk to it via video link on Tuesday.

'Natural extension'

The panel reportedly thinks that "staying the course" is an untenable long-term strategy, and is said to have been looking at two options.

One is the phased withdrawal of US troops, and the other is to increase contact with Syria and Iran.

We have to make the most of our friendships... with the moderate Arab nations of the Middle East
William Hague
Shadow foreign secretary

A Downing Street spokeswoman said Mr Blair would ensure the members of the panel were "fully briefed on UK ideas" when he spoke to them.

British officials had been in contact with the panel since it began, and the prime minister's intervention was "a natural extension of that", she said.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague welcomed Mr Blair's engagement with the US panel, stressing the need for "heavy British involvement" in the reassessment of current thinking.

But he told BBC News hopes of involving Iran and Syria in the short-term could prove "naive".

"We have to make the most of our friendships and build on our friendships with the moderate Arab nations of the Middle East," he said.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell criticised Mr Blair's willingness to appear before the US panel to discuss ideas for strategy in Iraq while refusing to do the same in the UK.

"We need a fresh strategy based on British priorities, not one that relies on the outcome of an American inquiry."

He suggested a "new approach with phased withdrawal at its centre is essential" and pushed for Iran and Syria to be involved.


I wonder where this is coming from. Could it be Lieberman?


Olmert hints at possible military action against Iran

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent and Itim

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted on Sunday for the first time at the possibility of Israeli military action against Iran to thwart its nuclear efforts.

In a conversation with press aboard his plane to the United States on Sunday, Olmert said that "Iran will only agree to a compromise on the issue of its nuclear program if it has a reason to be afraid."

Olmert refused to elaborate to the press on Israel's options regarding the issue.

The prime minister was speaking ahead of a Monday evening (Israel time) meeting with United States President George Bush at the White House.

The two are expected to discuss the Iranian nuclear threat, the situation in the Palestinian Authority and the implementation of the cease-fire in Lebanon.

In an interview published on Sunday in Newsweek and the Washington Post, Olmert made statements about Iran that took on the harshest tones so far.

In the interview, Olmert compared Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler and said "he has to be stopped."

"My position is clear," the prime minister said regarding Iran. "If there can be a compromise that will stop Iran short of crossing the technological threshold that will lead them into nuclear capabilities, we will be for such a compromise."

"But I don't believe that Iran will accept such compromise unless they have a very good reason to fear the consequences of not reaching it," explained Olmert. "In other words, Iran must start to fear."

When asked what he thought could be done about Iran, Olmert said, "I can think of many different measures. The guideline has to be that this government and the people of Iran must understand that if they do not accept the request of the international community, they're going to pay dearly."

Responding to the interview, Iran said it would react swiftly and harshly to such a move by Israel.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference on Sunday that Iran would put into action its Revolutionary Guards if Israel attacked the Islamic Republic.

"If Israel takes such a stupid step and attacks, the answer of Iran and its Revolutionary Guard will be rapid, firm and destructive and it will be given in a few seconds," he said.

He also said the country was pressing ahead with plans to expand its program to enrich uranium, which the West and Israel accuse Iran of using to make nuclear warheads, despite Tehran's denials.

After the Washington leg of Olmert's trip, during which he will also meet with administration and congressional leaders, Olmert will head to Los Angeles to speak at the General Assembly (GA) of the United Jewish Communities.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who flew out to Los Angeles last Thursday, was due to open the GA on Sunday.


I do not endorse WSWS, but occasionally they do come up with some good articles. This one is about Avigdor Lieberman joining the Israeli government. Although he is not a member of the ruling coalition of the Labor Party or Kadima Party he will occupy the brand new specially created position of Minister for Strategic Affairs, and he will have more power than the Defence Minister Amir Peretz or the Foreign Secretary Tzipi Livni. Lieberman's post is concerned with the threats to Israel (which I thought would come under Peretz), in particular that perceived as coming from Iran.

But why?

Is it because Lieberman wants to nuke Tehran?

Is this because Netanyahu can't get in?

After the debacle of Lebanon Israel began calling for resignations and investigations into the persoanl lives of its leaders after allegations of rape and profiteering. Netanyahu's name was thrown around as a worthy replacement. Maybe Lieberman is good enough for the critics who want war, war and more war.


Israel: Olmert brings Lieberman’s far-right party into government
By Jean Shaoul
13 November 2006
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has brought Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the far-right Israel Beitenu (Israel is Our Home) party, into his cabinet as deputy prime minister. Lieberman has been given the specially created post of minister of strategic affairs, dealing with threats against Israel, with a focus on Iran.

As a member of the foreign and defence committees and other “security cabinets,” and reporting directly to the prime minister, Lieberman will be one of the inner circle making Israel’s key decisions. He will be more powerful than either the defence or foreign ministers, Amir Peretz and Zippi Livni, both of whom are from the Labour Party.

Lieberman is an ultra-nationalist and notorious racist, who in 2001 advocated using nuclear weapons against Tehran as well as bombing Palestinian civilians and targeting Egypt’s Aswan High Dam. He is in favour of the ethnic cleansing of Israeli Arabs.

His appointment signifies a major shift to the right within the Israeli political establishment on both domestic and foreign policy. This shift presages sharp class struggles in Israel and new wars that will further destabilise the region.

Lieberman’s inclusion in the cabinet confirms that Israel is opposed to any resolution of the Palestine conflict on terms other than the establishment of a “Greater Israel.”

As Ha’aretz opined, “The choice of the most unrestrained and irresponsible man around for this job constitutes a strategic threat in its own right.”

Within days of Lieberman joining the government, Israel threatened to invade Egypt to prevent Palestinian militants smuggling arms into Gaza and launched a massive military offensive against Gaza, the most extensive since last June, in order to stop the firing of crude homemade Qassem rockets on towns and villages in the south of Israel that rarely prove fatal.

In a weeklong operation starting on November 3, an Israeli brigade encircled and laid siege to Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza, killing 8 people and wounding 60. Troops blew up 40 homes and damaged 400 more. The military rounded up and interrogated thousands of men, detaining dozens.

In another operation, Israeli troops fired on a group of women demonstrating in support of Palestinian militants besieged in a mosque in Beit Hanoun, killing 2 women and injuring 10. They turned their fire on the mosque and destroyed it.

In the most notorious incident, tanks bombarded a residential area of Beit Hanoun, in the early hours of the morning on November 7, killing 19 people and injuring more than 50. More than 60 Palestinians and an Israeli soldier have been killed in the weeklong offensive.

The US-based human rights group Physicians for Human Rights has stated that of the 247 fatalities from Israeli fire in Gaza between June 28 and October 27, nearly 63 percent of were civilians, of which more than one third were children.

Lieberman’s appointment to the newly created post of strategic affairs with a special focus on Iran also underscores the preparations by Washington for further military adventures in pursuit of its imperialist agenda in the Middle East, with Israel as Washington’s main subcontractor.

The reaction from the West to his appointment is revealing. The US ambassador to Israel called on Lieberman even before his appointment had been officially confirmed by parliament. His visit was followed one day later by European Union Commissioner Javier Solana.

Just last week, the White House accused Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and their Lebanese supporters of trying to topple the elected government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora. A spokesman said any attempt to undermine Lebanon’s government would violate the country’s sovereignty and United Nations resolutions.

Olmert turned to Lieberman and Israel Beitenu, the fifth-largest party in the parliamentary elections last March, to shore up his tottering government. The Kadima-Labour coalition faced collapse in the wake of Israel’s defeat at the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the prospect of corruption and criminal charges against Olmert and other members of his government. Now, with Israel Beitenu’s 11 seats, the coalition has 78 votes in the 120-seat Knesset, Israel’s parliament.

Lieberman founded Israel Beitenu in the aftermath of his acrimonious split with Benyamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party in 1999. The party draws its main support from the 1 million-strong Russian immigrant community that came to Israel as conditions deteriorated precipitously in the former Soviet Union.

He is best known for his espousal of ethnic cleansing via a “population exchange,” a policy supported by other far-right parties such as Moledet, Herut and Hayil. One million of Israel’s 6 million inhabitants are Arab. Under Lieberman’s plan, first announced in 2001, one third of Israel’s Arab citizens who live in the north of Israel would be stripped of their Israeli citizenship to become citizens of the Palestinian Authority, while Israel would keep the Zionist settlements in the West Bank. He also advocates financial incentives to encourage Israeli Arabs to leave Israel and the use of “loyalty tests” to determine whether those Arabs who remain in Israel should continue to hold Israeli citizenship.

Lieberman served twice in Sharon’s coalition governments. He called, when a cabinet minister, for the bombing of Palestinian gas stations, banks and commercial centres during Israel’s assault on Jenin in April 2002. He was sacked in June 2004 for opposing Sharon’s plans to dismantle the Israeli settlements in Gaza.

Earlier this year, he demanded that Arab Israeli legislators who met with Hamas officials or marked Israel’s Independence Day as the Palestinian Nakba, or “catastrophe day,” be charged with treason and executed, calling them Nazi supporters.

In return for shoring up Olmert’s coalition, Lieberman insisted upon a number of conditions:

* An inquiry into the conduct of the war against Lebanon.

* An end to Olmert’s plan to settle Israel’s final borders based upon the dismantling of a few isolated settlements and the settler outposts, even though most of the Zionist settlements in the West Bank would be included.

* Cabinet support for legislation to replace Israel’s parliamentary system with a presidential system with enhanced powers for the executive, whereby the president would appoint the cabinet, whose members would not serve as legislators or be dependent upon or answerable to parliament.

* An increase in the level of minimum voter support that a party, under Israel’s system of proportional representation, needs for representation in the Knesset, to prevent small parties winning seats in parliament and thereby effectively disenfranchise Israel’s Arab citizens.

Labour endorses Lieberman

Amir Peretz, Labour’s leader, and his Labour cabinet colleagues endorsed Lieberman’s appointment and the coalition with Israel Beitenu. All except one Labourite remained in their posts, arguing that it was necessary to do so in order to forestall the fall of the government and new elections.

Only Ophir Pines-Paz, the minister of culture, sport, science and technology, opposed Lieberman’s appointment. He resigned his cabinet position and announced he would run for leadership of the Labour Party against Peretz next year.

Peretz, a founder of the “Peace Now” movement, assumed the leadership of the party just 12 months ago on the basis of an appeal to widespread popular sentiment for peace with the Palestinians and social reform.

He took Labour out of Ariel Sharon’s Likud coalition government, which Labour had propped up after Sharon lost the support of much of his own party and the ultranationalist parties—for whom the pullout from Gaza was little short of treason—and the ultra-religious parties whose social base includes some of the most impoverished layers. Labour’s alliance with Likud had become untenable, as the government waged an unremitting economic war on the working class at home even as it waged a military war against the Palestinians.

Peretz’s election as Labour leader prompted Sharon, with the support of Shimon Peres and other Labour members, to split from Likud. He proclaimed the founding of a new “centrist” party, Kadima, to take forward his expansionist agenda, and called an early general election.

In May, following the March general election in which Kadima became the largest party without an overall majority in the Knesset, Peretz took Labour back into a coalition with Kadima, now led by Olmert. He took up the defence portfolio, launching a brutal military assault on the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon. In so doing, Peretz and Labour have laid the basis for Kadima’s ongoing lurch to the right and a government that can now accommodate a fascistic demagogue.

Saturday, November 11, 2006


The website has been restructured to account for new information, but is still not quite finished. Some info still requires adding to certain sections, but it's about 90% there.


Please, please, please spread this post around.

World War 1 was not the fault of Germany. It was the British Monarchy and its agents, Freemasonry and British Intelligence.

FACT 1 : Freemasonry had condemned Archduke Ferdinand to death in 1912
FACT 2 : Archduke Ferdinand knew Freemasonry wanted him dead
FACT 3 : most of the group who assassinated Ferdinand were Freemasons, and they had consulted with Freemasons abroad about the assassination
FACT 4 : the assassins were also members of a group called Young Bosnia, which was a member of Young Europe, which was created by Freemason and British Intelligence agent Giuseppe Mazzini
FACT 5 : Kaiser Wilhelm II was told by King George of England that Great Britain would not get involved in any war, thus tricking Germany and Austria into pursuing a military solution
FACT 6 : but Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) King Edward VII had spent years diplomatically isolating Germany specifically for Germany's destruction
FACT 7 : so when Austria declared war the diplomacy of Edward VII fell into place and Germany and Austria were surrounded on the continental mainland
FACT 8 : so Germany enacted its Schlieffen Plan which the British knew about, and as soon as Germany set foot in Belgium the British declared war on Germany citing an obscure treaty with Belgium
FACT 9 : Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in his memoirs that after the war he was told by "a distinguished Freemason" that Freemasonry had planned for the destruction of the German and Austrian monarchies.

Thus a network of revolutionary terrorists created and run by British Intelligence, assisted by Freemasonry, assassinated Archduke Ferdinand which, with Britain's indication that it would remain neutral, led to Austria declaring war and UGLE Grand Master King Edward VII's diplomacy led to the encirclement of Germany and Austria, which would ultimately lead to the desruction of Kaiser Wilhelm II as monarch of Germany as planned by Freemasonry.

You can dress this up with competing markets etc, but ultimately it was Freemasonry and British Intelligence, not Germany, that started the war.

Friday, November 10, 2006


So Blair backs Manningham-Bull-*-er that there is a very real and growing threat.

He recently wrote an article in The Daily Telegraph pleading for ID cards.

Is it a coincidence that only a few days after Blair wrote that article, and the day after the Foreign Secretary calls for unity to isolate extremists, that the head of MI5 terrorizes us with tall tales of Muslim hordes conspiring to bang down our doors to slit our throats?

We, the UK and the USA with Australia, went into Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now being told that we face a violent Islamofascist reaction.

Did Peru join those invasions? Is it under the so-called Islamofascist threat?
Did Iceland join those invasions? Is it under the so-called Islamofascist threat?
Did Papua New Guinea join those invasions? Is it under the so-called Islamofascist threat?

Spain went in, and Madrid was attacked (but under suspicious circumstances).
The UK went in, and London was attacked (again under suspicious circumstances).

I know this not a scientific statistcial analysis, but it looks suggestive that foreign policy may well have an influence on who gets bombed. But Blair knows it. He was told what would happen, and he ignored it. Because Tony knows best?

I can't understand why Blair just doesn't come straight out with it, no more bullshitting, and demand, no enact compulsory microchipping.

If he knew "the plan" and cared he wouldn't be saying all this crap. He'd be telling everyone that what is happening was planned at least between 100 to 200 years ago, probably longer, and he'd be approaching Islam and freedom and our human rights with a completely different attitude.

But he's not.

I therefore conclude that either
1. he knows "the plan" and is pushing it forward because he has a multi-million pound mortgage to pay and four kids to look after, or
2. he doesn't know the plan, is as naive as Beckett and really is an ass believing that he is untouchable

I recently wrote to Blair and asked him to explain to me in his own words how he can justify the current monetary system of fractional reserve banking. He didn't. He whimped out and passed the letter on to Gordon Brown, who has so far not replied either. I asked if he couldn't justify it what is he going to do about it. Again, no reply.

I asked him politely to justify. No threats. No verbal abuse.

I showed him how the current system is used and abused for the benefit of a very tiny but evil few.

I showed him how it keeps the whole world oppressed.

I showed him how a different system of government-controlled money is much fairer and more stable for the world, including his beloved Africa that he appears to care so much about.

He refused to respond with any explanation of or justification for the current monetary system in which a cabal of self-appointed individuals can create virtually as much 'money' as they want for what ever purpose they want, which I can tell you now has ultimately been for world wars and the creation and sustenance of Israel for its ultimate purpose, world war 3 and an eventual evil global police state. I quoted Lord Josiah Stamp,

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money ."

What did Blair say to that? Sweet FA. Silenzio.

If he hasn't a clue where our money is coming from what the F&£$ is he doing as our PM?

But I think he does know.

He's not dumb. He's just another sell-out thinking he'll get a EU or UN powerpost in return for pushing forward the agenda. It happened to Kinnock!

And to think that he is going to stand in front of the cenotaph, and look solemn and lay a wreath in remembrance of those who died to protect the freedoms that he and Bush are now taking away?!


By the clock on my computer it is now 11am on Saturday 11th November 2006.


So Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller terrorizes us into thinking there are Islamofascist terrorists plotting to slit our throats hiding under every plant pot. This after the naive Margaret Beckett appealed to Muslims to isolate the extremists in their communities.

So who do the newspapers and even the BBC give prime spot to this morning?

Apparently a number of plots have been foiled which could have resulted in mass murder. Would these include the so-called Old Trafford, Ricin and Forest Gate plots, all of which occured on her watch? And please don't suggest the farce of 10th August is counted among these "successes" too.

Yes, I can believe there are some plots, but nowhere near as many as we are told. And what plots there have been were at the least sloppily investigated (I refer to 7/7 and all we know now following the initial denials and claims of "clean skins" etc).

And if MI5 are indeed snowed under with work, whose fault is that?

For further details I suggest you read The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, which references the "Covenant of Security" between the "Islamofascists" and MI5. Yeah, that's right, WE PROTECTED THEM!!

Like a careful, loving gardener talking and tending to his prize plants in his greenhouse, we gave them sanctuary from the cruel world, we encouraged them to grow, we fed them.

This is not the first time terrorists were fostered and given sanctuary in London. It occured in the 19th Century with all sorts of nihilists and narodniks and terrorists congregating in London, all run by Lord Palmerston's Giuseppe Mazzini. It was his Young Europe who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, an event which was designed to lead to WW1 after one time Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) King Edward VII had skillfully diplomatically isolated Germany specifically for war and its eventual destruction. And it was derivatives of Mazzini's Young Russia who assassinated Tsar Alexander II, after he stopped the City of London bankers from breaking up the USA and installing a privately-owned central bank during the 1861 Civil War by sending his fleets to help Abraham Lincoln blockade ports supplying the Southern states.

Northern Ireland? Yep. British Intelligence aiding and controlling the IRA. And even shooting civilians to provoke terrorism.

We don't need or want it.

But they need it.

They need it to gain more power.

It is their drug of choice; TERROR!!

If it can't be manifested physically, by passively allowing events to occur, or shooting civilians, then bogus events, such as Old Trafford, are dreamt up and splashed across the media (but there's virtual silence when the plots are found to be bogus).


Thursday, November 09, 2006


She spoke at the Royal United Services Institute this morning, and attempted to show how the British government is not anti-Muslim. She referenced Afghanistan;


"Next week it will be five years since the Taliban were thrown out of Kabul.

Afghanistan was an example of what happens when we turn a blind eye to the activities of extremists. When the Soviet occupation collapsed, the international community provided some humanitarian aid but tended to put wider state development into the 'too difficult' tray. And we severely underestimated what this failure to engage would mean for our own security.

We walked away precisely at the moment when we should have been supporting the people who spoke with the voice of moderation and who shared our values.

The result was a disaster for the people of Afghanistan – who suffered a terrible civil war, followed by years of repression under a brutal regime which had one of the worst human rights records in history. But it was a disaster for the rest of us too. The Taliban encouraged terrorists to use the country as a safe haven from which to launch an increasingly deadly series of attacks – culminating in the horror of 9/11.

That is why we, on behalf of the international community, and in concert with over 30 other nations, went into Afghanistan.

That is why we are there today.

We are helping to try to turn a failed state into one that provides for its people and functions as a part of the international community. What is being achieved is rarely reported.

Four million who fled their homes have returned. Men and women turned out in their millions to vote. The media is flourishing. Healthcare has vastly improved. Girls are back in school.

There is a massive amount left to do. Insecurity is the biggest challenge. It threatens the lives of individuals and the future of the nation. President Karzai and his Government want and need to help the NATO-led International Force bring the rule of law to all parts of the country.

That is why we – along with the Dutch, the Canadians and others – have taken responsibility for helping Afghan forces in the South of the country. The alternative is to leave the Taliban and the drug traffickers to operate with impunity. That would undercut everything we have worked to achieve in Afghanistan.

I am under absolutely no illusion about how tough it is there. British soldiers have died. My own staff have suffered attacks by suicide bombers. But we have to be there.

Pull out, walk away again and the only winners will be the Taliban and the terrorists.

We are not going to let that happen.

point 1: the Taliban were created by the Pakistani ISI with the CIA.
point 2: the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was prepared by the CIA before the Soviets invaded
point 3: despite NATO and other armed Western forces occupying Afghanistan for nearly five years the place is still a shithole, heroin supply is back to its former levels before the Taliban almost eradicated it, and what the hell are NATO doing there anyway?
point 4: negotiations were underway between Western energy companies and the Taliban for a very lucrative pipeline to cross Afghanistan (so they can't have been all that bad, eh?) but the Taliban wanted too much money, so they went the way of Mossadegh of Iran and were kicked out
point 5: MI5 "encouraged terrorists to use THIS country [UK] as a safe haven from which to launch an increasingly deadly series of attacks – culminating in the horror of 9/11." (see Londonistan, and The Covenant of Security between MI5 and Islamic terrorists).

And we most certainly do not treat Israel and the Palestinians equally.

Two Israeli soldiers are kidnapped under suspicious circumstances and we allow Israel to bomb Lebanon to waste, with another massacre at Qana, AND with bombs from the USA made of DU flown via Scotland!!?

And it was British agent Hempher who two centuries ago corrupted a young angry Muslim called Wahhabi.

And it was the British who created The Muslim Brotherhood.

Both of these, Wahhabism and The Muslim Brotherhood, were named by TONY 'BLOODSUCKER' BLAIR as the instigators of terrorism a few months ago while on his warmongering tour of the globe (and producing tonnes of CO2 from jet fuel at the same time).

Margaret, it's called creating your own monsters, problem-reaction-solution.

For war and the police state there needs to be a visible threat. We created and have nurtured that threat for two centuries!

The clash of civilizations was written about in 1871 by Albert Pike. Pike probably just put the plan down in writing, for I think the plan has been around for centuries and that the religions and political movements were created centuries ago for the clash. Domenico Margiotta writes about "ses projets de destruction universelle" in Le Palladisme

Voici dans le camp de Lucifer deployes en ligne de bataille les bouddhistes eclaires deja par la Vraie Lumiere, les mahometans et les juifs baignant dans sa penombre immense, les protestants y marchant hardiment.

Dans l'autre camp, voici, poussiere d'hommes, ces catholiques maudits, vous a l'obscurantisme. Il cite aussi le vulgrum pecus de 130 millions d'idolatres, fetichistes et adorateurs de divers idoles, faisant bande a part, formant l'enjeu formidable des deux combattants, le prix de la victoire, l'anima vili sur laquelle s'exercera la puissance maconnique universelle!

Voici encore les reprouves, les maudits, quelques millions de libres penseurs deistes, et deux million d'athees, voues par le grand Pontife Luiferien a la reprobation de la secte, menaces d'une extermination complete, ou d'une conversion en masse a la religion de la Vraie Lumiere.

What this says is basically this; get the religions Islam and Judaism to fight each other (hence Israel was created). Get the Catholics and the Atheists to fight too. Then they will each eventually destroy other and the survivors will be converted to the religion of "true light", i.e. Satanism, for what other "religion" would propose such a bloody and violent "clash of civilizations".

If this plan was proposed by somebody other than Pike then I would not believe it. But knowing who Pike was, and who he wrote to about this plan, Giuseppe Mazzini, then the last 140 years of history, including why Israel was created and sustained, are seen in a completely different light.

It is the aim of this blog and my website, which is currently being revised and restructured, to show how to interpret the last 140 years of history.

Friday, November 03, 2006


In Israel there is currently an investigation into what happened before and during the debacle between Lebanon and Israel this summer. We have since discovered that Israel had been planning for exactly what happened, kidnap of soldiers on the border, which explains why Israel was able to respond so swiftly with a such a slick and lethal response. There are conflicting reports as to where exactly the soldiers were when they were kidnapped. Even though they knew, it now appears as though sections within the Israeli power structure did not want the soldiers on the border to know where Hizb'Allah cells were on the border, thus increasing the likelihood of a confrontation between Israel and Hizb'Allah which could then be used as a pretext for just plain violence and murder of Lebanese civilians by Israel with indiscriminating air raids with DU bombs flown from the USA via Scotland. A similar tactic to provoke and allow confrontation was made in 1941 at Pearl Harbour, when FDR and his inner circle provoked Japan and knew the Japanese fleet was sailing full steam ahead to Pearl Harbour but did not tell Admiral Kimmel, and when Kimmel fearing war was close put the Pacific fleet out to sea he was told by FDR to put it back into dock at Pearl Harbour!!

So what have we learned today? The military should NEVER, EVER, EVER trust its politicians


Key data withheld from army officers during Lebanon war

By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents

Senior officers Northern Command and Division 91 officers were not privy to essential intelligence information regarding Hezbollah's deployment prior to the second Lebanon War.

The intelligence, which was available to the Israel Defense Forces, included accurate information about Hezbollah bunkers and positions, as well as the internal structure of such positions.

The officers were aware that such information existed, but were prevented by the Intelligence Directorate's Committee on Source Security, claiming that the information was secret. Military Intelligence decided that the information would only be made available in the event of a war.

Officers' demands to gain access to information on routine security preparations that could counter Hezbollah raids inside the border fence were also rejected, and led to repeated and heated arguments among various units.

The information on Hezbollah positions was also withheld from the units during the war itself. Although there was a plan to transfer the data, which was stored in sealed boxes, to relevant units during a war, it was not carried out in time.

The initial boxes of intelligence reached the division command only a week after the initial encounter between an elite IDF unit and Hezbollah guerrillas inside a bunker (on July 19). But even then, it was difficult to adapt the intelligence to the immediate needs of the unit fighting there

Wednesday, November 01, 2006


or should that be NIGHTMARE!!

You've got to read this continuation of what American kids-at-school are subject to.

Any bog-standard examination of what happened in the major massacres at Columbine etc will show that there is alot more to what happened than we are told.

Yet again, we see kids terrorized, but this time not by Osama bin Laden, but by US psychocops!!

Maybe the FBI could explain in private to the parents why ObL is not wanted for 9/11, yet it is perfectly OK for cops to storm into schools so that the kids actuallly piss themselves?! (and while they are explaining that to the public maybe they could explain a few things about 9/11 and Aaron Russo's film too "America:From Freedom to Fascism").

Thankfully it appears some parents are very disturbed by this psychotic move.

On my first day at school I remember my mum walking me to school, waving goodbye at the gates, and turning around for home thinking I was in safe hands.



We used to associate Madonna with the Catholic Church. According to them she was the mother of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin.

But then in the 1980's a young woman from the USA broke onto the pop music scene. Her pop name was Madonna. She was rebellious, and gradually her concerts and pop videos bordered on the pornographic with simulations of group sex on stage. This was exactly what the Satanists who run the planet wanted; a young, artistic, energetic woman to call herself Madonna to drag the young women of the world away from the Church and into rebellion, extravagance and indulgence.

But now in her mid-40's she has adopted a young child from Africa whose mother died from AIDS. The media has really whipped this up. They aren't asking questions such as, why is it that despite two decades after Live Aid and years of Red Nose Day and the like that Africa is still such a shithole?

Madonna has shown some compassion and saved a young Malawi from dire poverty and possible early death. Is this media frenzy designed to put off other people from showing similar compassion and adopting, or showing their compassion in other ways?

Oh yes!

Once a year at Bohemian Grove in California there is the most bizarre ritual called "The Cremation of Care". The top politicians, businessmen, bankers etc attend and witness a mock human sacrifice. You can watch the ritual through Alex Jones' website, but basically the ritual involves a Priest talking to "care" and banishing "detested dull care" as the Priest calls him, eventually burning an effigy of a human called "care" in fire in front of a 40 foot stone owl called Moloch. Child sacrifice was made to Moloch. When the effigy of "care" is set alight screams of pain are heard over loud speakers placed around The Grove and the attendees all cheer at this "sacrifice".


But this encourages the attendees into detesting "dull care". The bankers and politicians who are Grovers and have seen this ritual could easily change the world from one of despair and death into one of hope and life in an instant. But they don't.

So when they see someone like Madonna, who has been used and given her money and celebrity status because she openly displayed her sexuality while she called herself Madonna thus encouraging young women to do the same, these people become very, very pissed off.

Thus Madonna is attacked and an atmosphere is created in which similar displays of "care" are discouraged.