Friday, March 30, 2007


I was just about to write on "the Iran hostage crisis" as one seriously excited MSM reporter called it this morning when I visited Craig Murray's blog. And what he has been saying and suggesting I agree with 100%!

His latest blog sums up the debacle, and particular attention should be paid to the quote from Royal Australian Navy Commodore Peter Lockwood.


March 29, 2007
Both Sides Must Stop This Mad Confrontation, Now
There is no agreed maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Persian Gulf. Until the current mad propaganda exercise of the last week, nobody would have found that in the least a controversial statement.

Let me quote, for example, from that well known far left source Stars and Stripes magazine, October 24 2006.

'Bumping into the Iranians can’t be helped in the northern Persian Gulf, where the lines between Iraqi and Iranian territorial water are blurred, officials said.

"No maritime border has been agreed upon by the two countries," Lockwood said.'

That is Royal Australian Navy Commodore Peter Lockwood. He is the Commander of the Combined Task Force in the Northern Persian Gulf.

I might even know something about it myself, having been Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1989 to 1992, and having been personally responsible in the Embargo Surveillance Centre for getting individual real time clearance for the Royal Navy to board specific vessels in these waters.

As I feared, Blair adopted the stupid and confrontational approach of publishing maps ignoring the boundary dispute, thus claiming a very blurred situation is crystal clear and the Iranians totally in the wrong. This has in turn notched the Iranians up another twist in their own spiral of intransigence and stupidity.

Both the British and the Iranian governments are milking this for maximum propaganda value and playing to their respective galleries. Neither has any real care at all for either the British captives or the thousands who could die in Iran and Basra if this gets out of hand.

Tony Blair's contempt for Middle Eastern lives has already been adequately demonstrated in Iraq and Lebanon. His lack of genuine concern for British servicemen demonstrated by his steadfast refusal to meet even one parent of a dead British serviceman or woman, killed in the wars he created. He is confronting an Iranian leadership with an equal lust for glory and lack of human concern.

It is essential now for both sides to back down. No solution is possible if either side continues to insist that the other is completely in the wrong and they are completely in the right. And the first step towards finding a peaceful way out, is to acknowledge the self-evident truth that maritime boundaries are disputed and problematic in this area.

Both sides can therefore accept that the other acted in good faith with regard to their view of where the boundary was. They can also accept that boats move about and all the coordinates given by either party were also in good faith. The captives should be immediately released and, to international acclamation, Iran and Iraq, which now are good neighbours, should appoint a joint panel of judges to arbitrate a maritime boundary and settle this boundary dispute.

That is the way out. For the British to insist on their little red border line, or the Iranians on their GPS coordinates, plainly indicates a greater desire to score propaganda points in the run up to a war in which a lot of people will die, than to resolve the dispute and free the captives. The international community needs to put heavy pressure on both Britain and Iran to stop this mad confrontation.

The British people must break out of the jingoism created by their laudable concern for their servicemen and woman, and realise that this is just a small part of the madness of our policy of continual war in the Middle East. That is what we have to stop.

Thursday, March 29, 2007



Disputes - international:
Iran protests Afghanistan's limiting flow of dammed tributaries to the Helmand River in periods of drought; Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf; Iran and UAE dispute Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island, which are occupied by Iran; Iran stands alone among littoral states in insisting upon a division of the Caspian Sea into five equal sectors.

Every map I have looked at showing Iraq and Iran has not shown any border on the sea either, except for one from the Royal Navy showing Cornwall's operational area.

So to me it would appear that there is a requirement to get the borders sorted out immediately before any more 'disputes' occur (though I believe things like this were planned centuries ago).

This does not however give Iran licence to arrest and detain British sailors (and commandos?) either, particularly when even my dog knows that Israel, the USA, Great Britain and Australia are looking for any excuse to nuke Tehran.

Have the Iranians even considered how easy it was to arrest those sailors, considering there was a lack of support and cover, and that the six Iranian boats were able to 'surprise' the sailors? Where exactly was HMS Cornwall in relation to the sailors and was that distance considered sufficient for communication and to provide sea and air cover should things go wrong (as did happen)? Have the Iranians even considered the remote possibility that they were ALLOWED to arrest the sailors in order to prepare Britain and the USA for a strike upon Iran? Russia is reporting a build up of US troops on the Iranian border, and has leaked an attack on the 6th April.

As I understand it two Iranian boats approached first, and four followed shortly after. What did Cornwall do? Did it know what was happening? Was it communicating to HQ or London what was happening? Apparently the Iranians were just on their side of the disputed border.

I think this has to be one of the biggest, possibly suicidal, diplomatic blunders ever. Iran has made its point, but embarrased itself. Britain and its partners have at least shown some of us that they are prepared to risk the life of a married mother of one to get their bloody war on Iran.


HMS Cornwall is home to Combined Task Force 158, and comprises not just British, but Australian and American naval personnel too.

Are you telling me these combined Navies couldn't detect SIX, repeat SIX, Iranian boats approaching two of their boats, in one of the most disputed waterways in the world, particularly if the British really were 1.7 miles inside Iraqi territorial waters? BOLLOCKS!! They were allowed to be arrested for purposes of war.

Why has no one in the mainstream media questioned this?

The Times today even refers to the Lynx from HMS Cornwall taking coordinates from a handheld GPS device. Where was that during the arrest?

Thursday, March 22, 2007


"Whistleblowers" focused on Barclays Bank last night. It showed what the atmosphere, security and working conditions inside Barclays are like; terrible.

But it missed the most important aspect of Barclays; that it is allowed to commit legalised fraud on a truly global scale via the fractional reserve banking system.

I hope last nights programme will indicate to that some people are prepared to run such a system.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007


Does a terrorist banker really say that line in "Casino Royale"?

And if so, what are its implications?

During the scene in which Le Chiffre is torturing Bond by bashing Bond's balls with a knotted rope a man with a gun enters the room after shooting several people out of view. Le Chiffre, aware of who the man is, appears to say the following line very nervously (as you would with a gun pointing at you);

"I'll get the money. Cheltenham, I'll get the money."

But too late. "Cheltenham" shoots Le Chiffre.

Who is "Cheltenham"? Or should that be, "who controls Cheltenham"?

To me, being the conspiraloon I am, Cheltenham = GCHQ = British Intelligence

I mean, how many people have the christian name "Cheltenham"? Why not use the name "Jeff", or "Bob", or "Dave"?

Art is art is art. I was taught at school very little of an artist's work is left to randomness. Most of a painting, a poem, a novel, is designed to enhance and promote the theme of the work.

Casino Royale sounded interesting to me after I read that there was a reference to the put options of 9/11 from which someone made a fortune betting that certain airline stocks would drop like a lead fish (and as I understand that fortune is still unclaimed). To those who suspect Hollywood is 100% controlled this reference to the 9/11 put options was a very bold and risky gamble to take in order to look "clever".

But perhaps there is more to Casino Royale.

Yes, there's the implantable microchip, which is carved out of Bond's arm while he is unconcious.

But perhaps I misheard the name "Cheltenham".

I've replayed the scene again and again, and to me it sounds like Le Chiffre says "Cheltenham".

If this really is the case, is Casino Royale hinting to us that British Intelligence is controlling terror?

Tuesday, March 20, 2007


In my Top 10.

Andy Williams
Words by Don Black and Music by John Barry

Born free, as free as the wind blows
As free as the grass grows
Born free to follow your heart

Live free and beauty surrounds you
The world still astounds you
Each time you look at a star

Stay free, where no walls divide you
You're free as the roaring tide
So there's no need to hide

Born free, and life is worth living
But only worth living
'cause you're born free

(Stay free, where no walls divide you)
You're free as the roaring tide
So there's no need to hide

Born free, and life is worth living
But only worth living
'cause you're born free

Saturday, March 17, 2007



I wrote to the $££$££$ last year about the financial system and did not receive a reply from him.

He is not bovvered about everyone being in debt slavery (including himself!) and the fraudulent financial system and its abuse for the benefit of a few.

He is bovvered about getting a few plum directorships after retiring as PM to pay off all those mortgages and fees.

Thursday, March 15, 2007


KSM has apparently confessed to 9/11, A to Z, among other things.

The transcript of the closed hearing to determine his enemy combatant status has been released. Why? It's OK to release a transcript of a closed hearing, but not see or hear it, or even prosecute him in a court of law?

During the stitch-up of George Galloway "they" tried to put words in Tariq Aziz's mouth and published a confession allegedly from Taziz which alleged Galloway was on Saddam's payroll. Galloway's lawyer immediately spoke to Aziz who strongly denied saying what "they" had written he had said.

So I cannot trust this transcript 100%.

However, assuming the transcript is a genuine record of events from the weekend there are a few comments to make;
claim 3, in which he admits planning the attack on the WTC 1993.
claim 27, in which he admits planning Bojinka.

The 1993 WTC attack was allowed to happen, and was actually assisted by the FBI.

Bojinka was thwarted, but investigation led to the discovery that as far back as 1995 terrorists were planning on hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. This contradicts everything that Rice, Cheney, and all the rest said when they claimed using hijacked planes as WMD had never been suspected. When this is added to the claims of Sibel Edmonds and others, several military officers, AG Ashcroft and Mayor Willie Brown (from Rice herself!) receiving warnings not to fly on commercial aircraft on or around 9/11, then we at least have a LIHOP scenario.

I have always believed that there are terrorist plots out there, but not in the number we are told, and that they reflect a genuine hatred of the USA, Israel and the UK, and they are caused to some degree by our foreign policies (probably as a deliberate provocation) and because we gave the terrorists shelter and assistance in allowing them to spread their hatred.

I have always believed that there are good intelligence agents and bad intelligence agents who have the power to stop or permit terrorist acts occuring, either on their own initiative or from a direct order.

I have always believed that there are ignorant politicians who will look no further than the BBC for their news and analysis of it, and cannot understand how terrorist acts can be allowed to happen by intelligence agencies if it would help a particular agenda, or they do understand but don't want to know for fear of what an investigation may reveal in all its glory.

But now perhaps the FBI can explicitly list 9/11 as a crime for which bin Laden is wanted?

Or maybe even KSM will be proescuted in a court of law so we can find out how 9/11 was done, and then perhaps we can begin to understand how the greatest military and intelligence apparatus in the world failed in (a) detecting and (b) preventing the attacks on that murdered September day.

I say, if KSM has really confessed to 9/11 in such an open way then get him in a court of law IMMEDIATELY to tell us all under oath how the 9/11 operation was organised.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007


The Daily Telegraph and The Times have been propagating the story that the Iranian Ali Reza Asgari who was reported as disappeared recently had defected in a planned operation possibly with Mossad involving organizing for 10 members of his close family to also defect.

That now appears to be absolute bollocks!

When I first heard the this story I thought it is possible that Israel/USA had a mole in Iran, and that when the time was right would pull him out in a media stunt to present what goes on in Iran regarding Hizb'Allah, nukes etc. But then when I heard that 10 members of his family were out of the country at the same time I thought, "aye, aye, somefink's not right".

Now Asgari's wife, his brother and his three children appeared outside the Turkish embassy in Tehran.


Relatives of missing Iranian general accuse US of kidnap

Robert Tait in Tehran
Tuesday March 13, 2007
The Guardian

Claims by western intelligence to have scored a coup by securing the defection of a senior Iranian general were contradicted yesterday by the man's relatives, who claimed he had been kidnapped by US or Israeli agents.
Relatives of Ali Reza Asgari, an Iranian former deputy defence minister who disappeared during a trip to Turkey, said reports that he had fled to the west were "lies". They said he would never have spied on Iran or abandoned his family.

Their appearance, outside the Turkish embassy in Tehran, seemed to counter speculation that General Asgari had arranged for his family to move to the west.
Media reports based on unnamed intelligence sources have suggested that he is cooperating with western agencies after escaping from Iran because he feared his cover as a mole was about to be blown.He was said to have fled to the Syrian capital, Damascus, and then to Istanbul after securing the escape of 10 relatives. However, Gen Asgari's wife, Ziba Ahmadi, emerged with his brother and three of his children to talk to reporters. They said all the general's close relatives remained in Iran. "We are here in Iran and have not gone anywhere," said Mrs Ahmadi. "These are enemies' rumours. My husband did not have any problems with Iran that would have led him to seek asylum. The person who wants to seek asylum first takes his family with him."

Gen Asgari has two wives. However, his brother, Davoud, said: "His wives, children, father and brother are all in Iran."

Mrs Ahmadi said Gen Asgari went missing on December 9, contradicting reports that he disappeared last month. His trip has been depicted as part of an elaborate escape operation. However, his wife said he went to attend to business interests.

· Gen Asgari's relatives spoke after meeting Devrim Ozturk, Turkey's chargé d'affaires in Tehran.


Last week Channel 4 threw its contribution to the "man v nature" argument of global warming. Today, George Monbiot does a reasonable job of destroying the credibility of (a) the evidence, and (b) the producer of that documentary.


Content and confident that he has demolished the "it's nature" argument advanced by the Durkin piece Monbiot then brings into question the WTC collapses and other "conspiracies" and has a dig at them.

I see Channel 4 as just another outlet with which to batter us into submission. Some of the programmes it shows are absolutely sick, particularly some of the sex stuff. SICK! If it was an honest media outlet it would do as I suggest and air a 3 hour nothing-off-limits documentary on the Federal Reserve and its families every night for a whole year. Alas, like Michael Moore, it has done no such thing.

So with the "it's nature" crowd shouting with joy about the Durkin piece, along comes Monbiot with facts about the producer and his sources and demolishes it. Monbiot doesn't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, so his demolition of the Durkin piece increases the credibility of the "9/11 wasn't a conspiracy" school of thought.

It's a tricky one.

My thoughts on global warming?

It seems to be happening for real. The hottest years on record have been in the last decade. I can well believe that we have put ourselves into this situation by driving around on Rockefeller oil products for decades while chopping down the forests etc.

But would the NWO plan global warming for use as "a global problem for global solution" by having us drive around in Chelsea tractors and flying everywhere?

I'm not so sure about that.

But what if it could be "turned off". I don't think the NWO would risk creating such a massive hazard as climate change by CO2 if they couldn't control it, or knew for sure 100% what the eventual outcome would be.

If it can be "turned off" ie there is a controlled artificial source for the warming, then what we are seeing is weather-warfare by the NWO against the world population. Possible sources could be a microwaved atmosphere and planet? God only knows what all those satellites are doing up there. HAARP could be contributing in some way.

Otherwise I think there is some bogus science going on and what is part of a natural cycle is being capitalised upon by the NWO.


In a word; EVERYTHING!


Your mind.

Your family.

Your home.

Your car.

Your local council.

Your national government.

Your planet.

And beyond.

They want to control every aspect of your life.

Monitors in your car to track where your car is every second of the day? Ultimately they want cameras and microphones in your house, your garden, your shed, to monitor everything you say and do.

RFID chips on credit/debit cards to track where you are, but only when you are carrying it? Ultimately they want at least one implantable microchip in you to track where you are every second of every day. There will be more darker reasons for this too, but for now the tracking will suffice.

They want this because they are scared.

They are scared of what you will do when you find out what they have done, and what they plan to do.

They want to be able to control every single one of us in one way or another, to stop ideas propagating and actions taking place that will threaten them.

That control is now crumbling.

They are gradually being exposed for what they are; warmongering, sex-crazed, profit-mad, megalomaniac, inhuman, undead %*$*£%$!! Every bad aspect of human nature is shown in their actions.

This is why there is the inverted, irregular and incomplete pentagram in the street design immediately north of The White House.

The Freemasonic historian Manly P Hall wrote the following of the inverted pentagram in his The Secret Teachings of All Ages available online at

In symbolism, an inverted figure always signifies a perverted power. The average person does not even suspect the occult properties of emblematic pentacles. On this subject the great Paracelsus has written: "No doubt many will scoff at the seals, their characters and their uses, which are described in these books, because it seems incredible to them that metals and characters which are dead should have any power and effect. Yet no one has ever proved that the metals and also the characters as we know them are dead, for the salts, sulphur, and quintessences of metals are the highest preservatives of human life and are far superior to all other simples." (Translated from the original German.)

The black magician cannot use the symbols of white magic without bringing down upon himself the forces of white magic, which would be fatal to his schemes. He must therefore distort the hierograms so that they typify the occult fact that he himself is distorting the principles for which the symbols stand. Black magic is not a fundamental art; it is the misuse of an art. Therefore it has no symbols of its own. It merely takes the emblematic figures of white magic, and by inverting and reversing them signifies that it is left-handed.

A good instance of this practice is found in the pentagram, or five-pointed star, made of five connected lines. This figure is the time-honored symbol of the magical arts, and signifies the five properties of the Great Magical Agent, the five senses of man, the five elements of nature, the five extremities of the human body. By means of the pentagram within his own soul, man not only may master and govern all creatures inferior to himself, but may demand consideration at the hands of those superior to himself.

The pentagram is used extensively in black magic, but when so used its form always differs in one of three ways: The star may be broken at one point by not permitting the converging lines to touch; it may be inverted by having one point down and two up; or it may be distorted by having the points of varying lengths. When used in black magic, the pentagram is called the "sign of the cloven hoof," or the footprint of the Devil. The star with two points upward is also called the "Goat of Mendes," because the inverted star is the same shape as a goat's head. When the upright star turns and the upper point falls to the bottom, it signifies the fall of the Morning Star.

That did not happen by accident.

Just like World War 1, which they also engineered.

Just like World War 2, which they also engineered.

And just like World War 3 between Islam and Zionism, which they also engineered, but which also appears to be stalling.

9/11 was just that. An emergency call to the evil-doers that "The Great Work" was behind schedule.

"The Great Work" is the enslavement and ownership of the world's people and its resources.

The worst is yet to come.


Holbrooke, he of the CFR and the National Endowment for Democracy, has a piece in The Washington Post today, entitled "Russia's Test In Kosovo" at

In it Holbrooke threatens that if Russia blocks giving Kosovo autonomy there will be another war in the Balkans.

Now Kosovo is shaping up as the biggest international test yet of Vladimir Putin. If Moscow vetoes or delays the Ahtisaari plan, the Kosovar Albanians will declare independence unilaterally. Some countries, including the United States and many Muslim states, would probably recognize them, but most of the European Union would not. A major European crisis would be assured. Bloodshed would return to the Balkans. NATO, which is pledged to keep peace in Kosovo, could find itself back in battle in Europe.

Would the Russians really benefit from all this? Certainly not. European security and stability -- and Russia's relationship with the West -- are on the line

Is he simply advising, or threatening?

Well, to answer that we had better look at how and why Kosovo gained its "independence".

During the 1990's there was always war in the Balkans for some reason or another. Yugoslavia was being broken up in one way or another. NATO bombers played a significant part, particularly towards the end. It was all about "freedom and democracy" we were told.

Not so.

As with Iraq, it was all about oil.

There was to be a large pipeline built across the Balkans, called the Trans-Balkan Pipeline, which would carry oil from the Caspian Region to Bulgaria and into Southern Europe, making countries along the pipeline dependent on the USA. That pipeline was to be constructed by AMBO, The Albanian-Macedonia-Bulgarian Company. You may not be surprised to learn that AMBO had significant links to Halliburton, and also had all the major Anglo-American oil companies involved.

So it was imperative that Yugoslavia be broken up, and in any way possible, so that the pipeline could proceed. Milosevic either opposed the pipeline, or wanted too much as a pay-off.

Regarding Kosovo, the Anglo-Americans supported the autonomy of Kosovo and supported it in a number of ways, particularly through the Kosovo Liberation Army. Fighting with the KLA were the CIA and there one-time partners, the Mujahideen. MI6 and the SAS were involved too. It was all financed by drug money laundered through greedy, ask-no-questions European banks.

So when Holbrooke uses words like,
Bloodshed would return to the Balkans. NATO, which is pledged to keep peace in Kosovo, could find itself back in battle in Europe.

is he really so unaware of the real reason for 10 years of warfare in the Balkans?


This guy is spot on, with his analysis, and his suggestions. I suspect there are lots more out there with similar experiences and views.

The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th


The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th
Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon speaks out
on 9/11, NORAD and what should have happened on 9/11.
By Jeremy Baker

Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon

Within three hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Robin Hordon knew it was an inside job. He had been an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) for eleven years before Reagan fired him and hundreds of his colleagues after they went on strike in the eighties. Having handled in-flight emergencies and two actual hijackings in his career, he is well qualified to comment on what NORAD should have been able to achieve in its response to the near simultaneous hijacking of four domestic passenger carriers on the morning of September 11th, 2001.

“There had to be something huge to explain why those aircraft weren’t shot down out of the sky. We have fighters on the ready to handle these situations twenty-four-seven. We have NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) monitors monitoring our skies twenty-four-seven. We have a lot of human beings, civilian and military, who care about doing their jobs.”

I spoke to Mr. Hordon one afternoon at a coffee shop in Bremerton, Washington.

“You have to understand the emotions, the duty, the job of an ATC. We are paid to watch aircraft go across the country.”
It’s clear that Hordon is passionate about the subject. A lot of people are. The dark questions that the attacks have left lingering in the national psyche have been recorded. 49% of New Yorkers believe that the government had something to do with 9/11. Following an interview with Charlie Sheen, a CNN poll revealed that 82% of respondents believed that there was “a government cover-up of 9/11.” Jay Leno asked Bill Maher on The Tonight Show about the fact that 37% of Americans (according to Scribbs-Howard) believe that the government was involved in some way with the attacks (Maher was definitely not one of them).

As far as the “emotions, the duty, the job” of an ATC is concerned, Hordon puts it this way:

“Imagine yourself at a circus, a fair, a crowded sports event. You have in your hand your little child of five or six, you’re amongst hundreds of people and you turn around and see that your child is gone. How do you feel at that moment? You feel panicked. You feel that this is the worst thing possible, so what you do is you engage. When ATCs lose an aircraft, all hell breaks loose. They flip right into motion. We take action and do not wait for other things to happen.”
As a former member of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization), Hordon’s years as an ATC are particularly relevent to 9/11 researchers.

“I was a certified ATC in Boston west-bound departures, the routing that AA11 and UA175 followed on 9/11. I know it like the back of my hand.”
He even received a letter of commendation for his role in dealing with an actual hijacking. When it became clear that there hadn’t been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets.

“I’m sorry but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticut—bang, done deal.”
According to Hordon, air emergencies requiring scrambles, or “flushes,” from fighter jets occur 50 to 150 times a year.

“It’s routine. At Otis AFB we would have practice exercises two or three times a year. We’d flush aircraft, get the B-52’s up, get the tankers up, get the fighters up. Just out of Otis there’d be twenty, thirty fighter jets. And on 9/11 there were plenty of fighters as well. They were just diverted over the ocean, tied up in drills, etc.”

The vast majority of air incidents are simple communications or routing failures, common mishaps that are easily remedied. Nonetheless, when a problem does arise, it is treated as an emergency and interceptors are scrambled.

“This is exactly what’s written in our manuals. We alert our immediate supervisors, we get another set of eyes on the scope. We have, two feet away from us, a little button that says ADC, Air Defense Command [nowadays NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector)]. Bing, hit the button. ‘Hey, this is me at the Boston Center air space. I just lost a target or I have an erratic target. He is twenty-five miles west of Keene, last reported at such-and-such location.’”
Pilots use similar checklists when responding to problems with their airplanes:

“If I lose an engine in a multi-engine aircraft I know exactly what to do. I start to control the aircraft to fly with one engine, I’ll shut the ailing engine down, I’ll get the aircraft trimmed up. It’s check, check, check.”
Hordon is not persuaded by those who make excuses for the lack of military response on 9/11. U.S. air defenses have been on hair-trigger alert to defend the nation from attack since the early sixties. The idea that, on the morning of 9/11, there was an inexplicable wave of incompetence on the part of his former FAA “brothers in arms” offends him deeply.

“The pilots are in their ready rooms, the planes are in open-ended hangars. You have frontline players, pilots and controllers. I’m there, I’m watching. The pilot is there, he’s flying. We have direct air defense command communications. That’s the way it’s been for fifty years.”

The unfathomable delays seen in military action on 9/11 are inconceivable to those who have painstakingly investigated the matter—and for a man who worked for years keeping air travel over the U.S. safe.

“Military pilots would have their asses off the ground faster than you could imagine. I know how quickly our systems can respond. Why would you design a system that responds slowly to an emergency?”
Claims by authorities that, once a hijacked aircraft’s transponders have been turned off, the plane becomes virtually invisible to radar, is another sore point for Hordon.

“Bottom line, these aircraft were always radar monitored, we were always in communication with them, even if they were hijacked. The only way you can lose an aircraft these days is for the plane to flat out blow up.”
Since any genuine air attack would not likely announce itself as such, NORAD radar has to be able to detect anything. But there’s nothing stealthy about an enormous Boeing passenger liner, whether its transponder is operating properly or not.

“That aircraft is represented on their radar scope from the time it takes off to the time it lands. Even little puddle-jumpers out of our local airports. NORAD tracks all these aircraft. They have the world’s most sophisticated radar.”
After eleven eventful years as an ATC, Hordon naturally reacted with shock when he first heard that fifty years of tried and true in-flight emergency protocol was abruptly altered in June of 2001, just two months before the attacks.

“Rumsfeld put a third party in between the ATC and the Air Defense Controller responsible for scrambling interceptors —the Pentagon.”
He speculates that

“the phone calls went from the FAA to the Pentagon and were not answered. Therefore the Pentagon never reached down to the ADC base to release the aircraft. The Boston Center’s ATCs got so frustrated with the non-answer from the military that they finally said, ‘get these guys going anyways.’ That’s the way it’s been for fifty years. We scramble aircraft. We don’t wait for OK’s from third or fourth parties.”
The no-show status of the U.S. military on the morning of September 11th, 2001, has understandably become the single most compelling point that 9/11 researchers, writers and activists use to support their claims of complicity on the part of the U.S government (and its military and intelligence apparatus) in the attacks. When even those who condemn “conspiracy theory” in regard to 9/11 have questioned the military’s conduct that morning, it’s clear that this anomaly is worthy of intense concern and diligent investigation. Whatever the case may be, there are no doubts that history’s largest and most technologically advanced military was apparently caught completely off guard by four huge hijacked passenger jets that were in the air for almost two hours on the crystal clear morning of 9/11.

9/11 researchers have spent years speculating about what exactly did happen in the cockpits of the hijacked jets on 9/11. Theories run the gamut, from duplicate aircraft taking over the flight plans of the hijacked planes to passenger jets being remotely commandeered in mid-air. Naturally, the technical complexities involved in operating a huge commercial passenger jet can only be fully conveyed by someone with extensive aviation training and experience.

“For years, they have been improving what the common person will call an autopilot. The modern term is a flight director. You can program a flight director basically for your entire flight, before and after you take off.”

Flight directors—high-tech navigational computers—are used in commercial aircraft because they are always sensing every factor that affects an aircraft’s flight (wind speed and direction, fuel weight, atmospheric conditions, etc.) and instantly make the adjustments necessary to sustain the most efficient and economic operation of the plane.

“The Boeing 707 Series, I believe, were the last series of aircraft built where you actually controlled the plane using wires or cables. There are no cables anymore. What we have now are electronic or hydraulic sensors that transmit information to servos and other control devices that apply pressure to the control surfaces.”

The fact that the operation of modern aircraft is primarily computerized essentially makes the controls hackable, either from onboard or, if the proper receivers are installed in the plane, from a remote location.

“Internally the aircraft had to have a separate receiver unit built into it; separate windows of access into the flight director and an ability to disengage the manual controls in the aircraft and take it over with all of the pre-determined information.”
Hordon adds an important caveat:

if a flight director was redirected during a flight, the new flight-plan would not necessarily be communicated to those on the ground.
Obviously, the training required to alter a flight director’s routing is substantial. But, as a student pilot learns to operate increasingly sophisticated aircraft, this knowledge becomes available as needed. Hordon believes that if the hijackers really did take control of the cockpits this may well have been what they were studying in the flight schools they attended.

Much has been made by 9/11 researchers about the seemingly limitless incompetence of the 9/11 hijackers as pilots—amateur aviators who could barely operate light aircraft. This odd fact has led many conspiracy advocates to speculate that the nineteen alleged hijackers may have been merely a gang of patsies or “Oswalds,” groomed by their handlers to take the fall for the attacks without their knowledge or involvement. Some researchers even speculate that these “terrorists” never actually boarded the planes at all. Although this theory may sound outlandish to many, it is however supported by the astonishing fact that none of the hijackers’ names appear on any of the published passenger manifests. But Hordon believes that, if the hijackers really were on the planes and did indeed take over the cockpits as reported, their ability to actually fly the aircraft to their targets is a distinct possibility.

“If anybody thinks that these flight directors weren’t sophisticated enough to be programmed to go to these exact, specific coordinates—WTC One and Two—they’re wrong. It has nothing to do with pilot competence.”
Hordon believes that it would be relatively easy for the hijackers to reroute a commercial jet’s flight director to hit any location with great accuracy, as long as they had acquired the proper training. This is apparently one of the few accurate scenarios portrayed in the Hollywood movie Flight 93, a film Hordon otherwise dismisses as elaborate propaganda designed to deceive the public and sell the official story. This point is intriguing when you consider the fact that a book recently published by the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine—Debunking 9/11 Myths—specifically claims that the hijackers of UA Flight 93 stormed the cockpit, took over the controls and drove the plane by sight, a method that PM and its army of expert technicians and specialists have nicknamed “point and go.” Besides representing a bizarre departure from Hordon’s expert analysis, PM’s “point and go” theory also contradicts the scenario dramatized in Flight 93. Although it’s difficult for many people to believe that such a lack of consensus exists among the “experts” who support the official story, this is really just one of many examples where this kind of unfathomable contradiction has occurred.

Some theorists have speculated that homing beacons may have been transmitting signals to Flights 11 and 175 from within the Twin Towers—all the hijacked planes had to do was follow these signals to their destinations. Although he doesn’t necessarily subscribe to this theory, Hordon elaborates on it as a possibility:

“When a commercial jet approaches its destination, the flight director interfaces with transmitters located at the end of a runway and makes the adjustments. All the pilots have to do is sit back, monitor the controls and watch the airplane land itself, even in “zero-zero” conditions [no ceiling height or visibility].”
This combination of computerized onboard controls and what is essentially a homing signal from the flight’s destination is called “coupling,” a technological dance performed by aircraft thousands of times a day at airports all around the world.

Often criticized by detractors for speculating about the use of “Buck Rogers”-style aviation technology in the attacks, 9/11 researchers are nonetheless vindicated by Hordon who believes that such speculation may not be so outlandish after all. Referring to elaborate experiments done by the military decades ago that involved the remote control commandeering of aircraft, Hordon responds:

“In the seventies, they were extremely sophisticated with aircraft. Could they commandeer an aircraft in mid-flight right now? Absolutely, in a heartbeat. Clearly the technology is there. It’s been there for a long time.”
It only seems reasonable that if this technology were the most efficient, reliable and discrete means to guarantee the success of such an elaborate operation, the conspirators wouldn’t hesitate to make full use of it.

The question of whether or not the hijackers piloted the planes themselves or if control of the aircraft was taken completely out of their hands by operatives from a remote location has always been central to 9/11 researchers. But, to Robin Hordon, it’s, at best, a moot point:

“My answer to you is it’s irrelevant. It’s irrelevant whether the hijackers were real and were actually in the aircraft or whether the aircraft was commandeered by external forces. It could have been either one. One way or another, somebody other than U.S. certified airline pilots took over that aircraft, whether it be a terrorist sitting in the cockpit or someone outside the cockpit.”
Whatever scenarios Hordon may consider in regard to Flights 11, 175 and 93, he is adamant that 9/11 researchers shouldn’t rest until they’ve gotten to the bottom of the alleged crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. To many, the idea that a military jet or missile—not Flight 77—actually struck the Pentagon is a bizarre and almost inconceivable assertion. But for many 9/11 researchers, it is a central and compelling focus.

“The particular maneuver that was called upon for this huge Boeing aircraft, OK, it’s highly suspicious that a flight director could pull that one off. We also know that it’s highly suspicious that if it were the pilot that people say was operating the aircraft, we know that that guy couldn’t pull that off. That was completely impossible.”
A common notion to which many defenders of the official account cling (including such notables as Noam Chomsky) is the idea that any conspiracy as vast as 9/11 would have had to involve hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, all in-the-know and willing to go to the grave with their secrets. But well researched claims—that many sizable covert operations have indeed been kept from the public in the past; that state of the art technology can drastically reduce the number of people required for any given “op,” and that systemic “compartmentalization” of duties can effectively exploit many people’s involvement without their knowledge—have convincingly refuted this assertion. In addition, the ability of higher-ups to intimidate and silence potential whistleblowers after the fact is formidable. Naturally, Mr. Hordon has a thing or two to say on the subject.

“I think we all have to agree that, one way or another, the U.S. military was involved in the attacks. The advantage that Rumsfeld had is that he can classify, reshape, make available, make unavailable any information that he wants, at any time and deny that information to the public for any reason, especially national security.”

Hordon believes that one facet of the plan that the conspirators could not control was the individual integrity of the civilians in the FAA—dedicated professionals who would not likely remain silent if they had witnessed something unusual during the attacks. Number one on Hordon’s list are the air traffic controllers: “What part of this whole thing is missing? Is it not the voice tapes from the civilian ATC’s? They had to devise a way to take the loose lips group, the civilian guys, and disengage them. If they are allowed to testify exactly as to their normal protocol behavior, they’re going to prove that the military were the culpable ones.” When he was in the FAA, Hordon was certified as the operator in his facility tasked to secure relevant data after an air emergency; if not entirely because of public safety concerns, certainly for liability reasons. “Whenever we had an incident, an emergency, on-air trouble, some type of a near ‘mid-air’ or a breakdown in aviation rules, we would immediately take the voice tapes and secure them. We would immediately take the radar data on that controller’s scope that day and secure them. Whenever there was an incident, all of the information, all of it was secured. Period.”

Despite this rigid protocol, there have been shocking accounts of ATC records being seized shortly after the attacks and kept far from public scrutiny. Hordon believes that these ATC recordings have either been destroyed or mutilated.

“The reason that they’re not giving us this early-on information is because they want to paint a picture of confusion, and they had to somehow get the civilian eye-witnesses out of it.”
Although the 9/11 Commission, desperate to deflect the public’s attention away from official quarters, scapegoated the FAA for incompetence in regard to the attacks, Hordon believes that the real confusion originated in the Pentagon, a theory that jibes well with the timely and suspicious change in air defense protocol mentioned above.

“The FAA has given us the computerized information about the aircraft being tracked. What the FAA has not given us is the internal tapes from the sectors in the Boston Center who were controlling this aircraft.”
If there were one point Robin Hordon would like to impress most upon 9/11 Truth researchers and activists it would be that the truth about the non-performance of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 lies in a careful examination of the first few minutes after the planes were known to have been hijacked.

“The first fifteen minutes are the key. I have done the math. If we had scrambled some aircraft five or six minutes after we saw this huge deviation, the fighters from Otis would have intercepted American 11 over southwestern Connecticut or just south of Albany, NY. The federal government and the military, for extremely serious reasons, are keeping the public focused on after American 11 hits the tower. But the real focus for 9/11 researchers should be what NORAD was doing five minutes after American 11 lost its transponder and went off course.”
Whatever criticism Hordon may have for NORAD and the Pentagon, it certainly doesn’t extend to the individuals on the frontlines of our nation’s civil defense:

“These are military fighter pilots. These are good guys. They figure stuff out. What do you think the pilots are doing? Ordering coffee and donuts? No. They are up there, their blood is pumping, they are thinking one thing: ‘My country is being invaded. This is why I stand on the ready in the waiting room down at Otis AFB; so that I can get up and defend my country.’ Do you think they’re going to get on the tail of American 11 when it was heading straight for the WTC and let it hit? No. What they’re going to do is say ‘OK, there’s going to be some bodies and shrapnel…boom.’ They’re going to take that risk.”
One of Hordon’s more ambitious proposals for the 9/11 Truth movement is that a support network be developed for the aid and protection of its single most important resource, whistleblowers.

“What the 9/11 movement should do is band together and develop safe lives for whistleblowers.” Legal counsel, moral support, even physical protection could do much to inspire those who are considering stepping forward with potentially explosive insider testimony about the attacks.
Hordon would also like to see young people being told the truth about politics, history and the world in their schools. “The people who are our greatest assets are the kids in high school. If the military is taking advantage of the susceptibility of high school kids to seduce them to kill people, the peace movement needs to offer alternatives. We need to make available, at the end of the high school years, alternatives of thought in regard to the world’s economy and control apparatus.” Hordon’s plan, though idealistic, is not without a certain opportunism:

“I want to go to high school kids because it’s a two for one proposition. First, their ears are wide open. They’re skeptical about this government right now and they’re plugged into the internet. Second, if we give them material to bring home, it winds up on the kitchen table. And what happens when parents find contraband that’s come into the house? They read it. It’s two for one.”

Many 9/11 activists believe that their work on issues related to the attacks has greater potential for true social transformation than any other single issue, and Hordon emphatically agrees.

“I think that this 9/11 thing is the quintessential opportunity to expose all of the infecting poisons; more than Iran Contra weapons for hostages, more than rampant militarism, more than Watergate, more than Enron, more than the dark side of the world’s financial institutions, more than any other similar kind of thing. I think that this is pretty much their last gasp, and the reason is very simple; the internet. We’re going to catch’em.”

Activists with a sense of humor are always a breath of fresh air. After his stint as an ATC, Hordon worked for years at the comedy club Catch a Rising Star in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Something must have rubbed off:

“We have two parties in this country; we have republicans and we have republicans dressed up in blue drag. And when we get the blue outer clothing off of the fake democrats, they stand there in their red Armani underwear.”
Hordon respects humor as a formidable weapon for activists. As an artistic coordinator for up and coming comedians, he once worked with some of the most talented and successful comics of our time including Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David. Some of the political comics he once coached are regulars on Air America Radio. Of the reigning powers-that-be, he has this to say:

“They know they’re done with 9/11. They know they’re cooked. They’re just throwing boxes of nails in the road behind their car as it speeds away and they’re hoping that all our tires get flattened. But it’s not happening. They know they’re pretty much done.”

Grounded and well informed, Robin Hordon is not a typical pie-in-the-sky progressive, and he likes what he sees happening around him.

“There’s so much good work being done. There’s such a cool pattern now and there’s so many kids coming up who know not to believe the stories they’re being told.”
His greatest hope is that these young movers and shakers shun the roads previously taken by their less politically savvy forebears.

“Sixty percent of our elected officials are millionaires. Until we change that, we are going to struggle to make our democracy better. And I think that, you now, democracies are OK. I think it’s a pretty good plan. I think we should try to get one.”
Copyright 2007 Darkprints

Monday, March 12, 2007


1. they create religions for four purposes; to keep us divided, to make the general public behave "good", to make the general public believe there is some omnipotent being who will look after us so we don't rebel, and to make our leaders who follow and preach such religions look "good"
2. they have the power to create virtually as much money as they want so that in this shitty system we have now in which we are told we have "freedom" they can simply create money while we must work, work, work for it. This forces man to perform acts against his fellow man that otherwise he would not do. Increasingly this is leading women to do the same. It also allows them to finance major wars, initially religious but in the last century this became political.
3. so while we act "good" they are creating loads of money for themselves and getting us to do the work for them via the economy or do the fighting for them in which we kill each other while they make astronomical profits, and we don't rebel because we think there is a god who will save us and cast judgement on us, or we do rebel only when the NWO can raise the finance to force one or other leader out of office who has become troublesome or the agenda demands it.

That's it.

It's that simple.

They have the money to do whatever they want and force religion down our throats to force us to behave good while they behave bad.


Sunday, March 11, 2007


I seriously doubt. Until the BBC does a good and proper nothing-off-limits 3 hour expose on the Federal Reserve and its controlling families, and repeats it at 7pm - 8pm every day for a whole year then it will forever be a cesspit of arselicking journalism.

But maybe tonight it could go a teeny, tiny way with "The Trap - What Happened to Our Dreams of Freedom", BBC 2 at 9pm.

We'll see...

Saturday, March 10, 2007


I'll just report this in full for your education about the Cayman Islands and the multi-trillion dollar hedge funds about to implode.


This article appears in the March 9, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
London's Cayman Islands:
The Empire of the Hedge Funds
by Richard Freeman

On Feb. 27, the world's hedge funds, through their manipulation and miscalculation of the yen carry-trade, led to a violent unwinding of that carry-trade, which triggered disintegration of the world financial structure. Stock exchanges fell, from the Dow Jones exchange in the United States, to China's Shanghai composite index, to Brazil's Bovespa index, shedding more than $1.5 trillion in paper losses. Secondary incidents contributed to setting off the downturn. But hedge funds had already bled the major international commercial banks and corporations into absolute bankruptcy, and had leveraged borrowed funds and derivatives into the biggest financial tumor ever. That, combined with their yen carry-trade role, amplified the effect of the secondary incidents, and is now driving the financial system further into systemic breakdown.

And where are those hedge funds? Though they may have offices in locations like Greenwich, Connecticut, or New York City, 8,282 out of the total of 9,800 hedge funds operating at the end of the third quarter 2006 worldwide, were registered in the Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, run like a dictatorship by a Royal Governor appointed by Queen Elizabeth II, with a total population of 57,000 people.

There is good reason for this. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is supposed to "regulate" the hedge funds, but instead runs a protection racket for their derivatives trading and tax sheltering. The CIMA gives each hedge fund, at registration, a 100-year exemption from any taxes; shelters the fund's activity behind a wall of official secrecy; allows the fund to self-regulate; and prevents other nations from regulating the funds by insisting on first and final authority in this area.

And the remainder of the world's hedge funds, not registered in the Cayman Islands? Most are registered in other British Overseas Territories and satrapies, such as the Bahamas, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, and the Isle of Man.

Global Financial Oligarchy's Instrument
Since mid-January, forces internationally—ranging from the Danish government, to German Vice Chancellor Franz Müntefering (who has famously labeled hedge funds "locusts"), to U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)—have directed initiatives geared to regulating, and potentially bringing under control the predatory activities of the world's hedge funds. For his efforts, Müntefering was outrageously attacked on Feb. 14 by the German edition of the Financial Times, the London financier oligarchy's mouthpiece, as an "anti-Semite."

The Müntefering, Levin, and other initiatives, though reflecting a well-intentioned impulse, don't recognize the real nature of the beast; accordingly, they will not solve the problem. For the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, closely intertwined banks and hedge funds are its foremost instruments of power, to control the financial system, and loot and devastate companies and nations. Recognizing that this financial system is fracturing, the oligarchy will go to general nuclear war against Iran, Russia, and China, rather than lose its instruments of power. Therefore, it is impossible to think of hedge-fund reform in the United States, or in Germany, because the real source of power of hedge funds in these countries, lies outside in the Cayman Islands, ensconced in a fortified shell. Leaders such as Müntefering or Levin, must be prepared to break the power of the Cayman Islands—which means the death grip of the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, if they are to achieve anything of value at all.

This oligarchy made changes in the Cayman Islands so that the hedge-fund "slime-mold" would find hospitable grounds for growth. The hedge funds' growth in the Caymans, in turn, fueled their growth internationally.

The three island specks in the Caribbean Sea, 480 miles south from Florida's southern tip—which came to be known as the Caymans, after the native word for crocodile (caymana)—had for centuries been a basing area for pirates who attacked trading vessels.

Though under British rule for centuries, the Caymans officially became a British Crown Colony in 1971, though later the term was changed to the euphemistic moniker British Overseas Territory; then as now, Queen Elizabeth II rules firmly, appointing the Islands' Governor, etc.

In 1993, the decision was made to turn this tourist trap into a major financial power, through the adoption of a Mutual Funds Law, to enable the easy incorporation and/or registration of hedge funds in a deregulated system. (Technically, a hedge fund is a type of mutual fund, but not your grandfather's type.[*]) According to a firm that incorporates hedge funds, "The Mutual Fund Law was established ... to position the Cayman Islands as a hub in the financial industry."

According to representatives of Charles Adams, Ritchie & Duckworth, a Cayman Islands law firm that is involved in the hedge-fund business, the Cayman Islands offer prospective hedge funds:

"No regulatory restriction on investment policies or strategies, commercial terms..., or choice of service providers....

"Tax-neutral environment with no direct corporation, capital gains, income, profits or withholding taxes applicable to funds" (emphasis added).
The ease of setting up a hedge fund was brought home in a telephone discussion with a member of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, which is charged with "regulating" them. From the day of application, it takes but two to five days for a hedge fund to be approved, and costs $3,600 in total fees, a mere drop in the bucket. To invest in a hedge fund, an investor must put up at least $100,000. From then onward, the hedge fund must produce an annual account, audited by a Caymans local accountant. If one recalls how Arthur Andersen LLP and other accountants carried out audits in recent years, it is apparent that this does not have to be a high hurdle.

The only information that the CIMA will release about a hedge fund, is that it is registered, and where its registered office is. The names of investors and other minimal information are kept strictly secret. Since the Cayman Islands have no tax laws, the CIMA shares little or no information with other nations' authorities on tax matters. On other matters, it is up to the CIMA whether it will "share or divulge information."

On the whole, neither the United States' Securities and Exchange Commission, nor other countries' regulatory bodies, have any regulatory authority over hedge funds. Moreover, neither the SEC, nor other bodies, have pierced the CIMA's armor.

The 1993 Mutual Fund Law had its effect: with direction from the City of London, the number of hedge funds operating in the Cayman Islands exploded: from 1,685 hedge funds in 1997, to 8,282 at the end of the third quarter 2006, a fivefold increase. Cayman Island hedge funds are four-fifths of the world total. Globally, hedge funds hold $1.44 trillion in assets under management, but through using leverage of anywhere from 5 to 20 times, they command up to $30 trillion of deployable funds.

But the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy built an entire financial superstructure on the Cayman Islands. Aside from the Caymans' huge holdings of hedge-fund assets, the Islands' banking system possesses assets of $1.41 trillion (though this includes some overlap with the hedge fund assets). The offshore, unregulated Cayman Islands has the fourth-largest banking system in the world—after those of the United Stats, Japan, and Britain. Compare: The United States has 300 million people, the Cayman Islands has 57,000.

The Cayman Islands also is the world's number-two jurisdiction for captive insurance companies (a type of limited-purpose, and increasingly speculative insurance company). Cayman licensees hold $29.6 trillion in assets.

The Queen's Men
To have the Caymans function as an epicenter for globalization and financial warfare, the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy hand-selected the top Cayman officials.

Since late 2005, the Governor of the Islands, approved by the office of the Queen, is Stuart Duncan Jack, a career officer of the British Foreign Office. For his service, Jack was knighted Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, a chivalric order founded by Queen Victoria, which ranks above that of the Order of the British Empire.

Timothy Ridley, the chairman of the vital Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, is a lawyer who was knighted as a member of the Order of the British Empire for his role in building up the hedge funds and their infrastructure during the 1990s.
Two Americans on the board of the CIMA, further indicate the nasty character of that institution.

Warren Coats, who served for 26 years with the International Monetary Fund, was called in by the United States to be an advisor to Iraq and Afghanistan on "rebuilding money and banking systems"—which has resulted in disaster.

Richard Rahn, a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, the oligarchy's coordinating center for deregulation and elimination of the nation-state, is also the head of the Center for Economic Growth. This Center is an offshoot of the rightist FreedomWorks Foundation, run by C. Boyden Gray, heir of the Reynolds Tobacco fortune; and by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex). Rahn's buddy and intelligence operative Gray helped arrange the European Union Savings Directive, which permitted the Cayman Islands government to exempt the hedge funds there from reporting to European countries their "cross-border income."
In addition to the Caymans, the offshore British Virgin Islands has over 2,000 hedge funds registered, and Bermuda has over 500. (Note that the total number of hedge funds officially registered in British outposts, combined, exceeds the world total, in this unregulated sector.)

The Real Enemy
With the power accumulated from these unregulated offshore British outposts led by the Cayman Islands, the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy has assembled an incredible strike force, above and against the interest of nation-states.

Hedge funds are the dominant force in the Japanese yen and to an extent, the Swiss franc carry-trade. The carry-trade has provided an enormous source of liquidity for some of the most risky derivatives and leveraged financial games in the world. The unwinding of this trade, represented by the 3.6% appreciation of the yen from Feb. 26 to March 2, by itself can bring down the world financial system.

According to reports, during 2005, the hedge funds were responsible for up to 50% of the transactions on the London and New York stock exchanges.

Senators Carl Levin and Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)—chairman and ranking member of the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee—have shown that the hedge funds are a center for circulating hundreds of billions of dollars in hot-money flows and tax shelters. They document a case of the brothers Sam and Charles Wyly of Texas, who used two Cayman Island hedge funds to store and shelter $300 million from taxes in the United States.

The hedge funds are among the biggest speculators in some of the most precarious derivatives instruments, like credit derivatives, and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which are adding instability to the shaking world financial system.

The hedge funds are leading a frenzied wave of mergers and acquisitions, which reached nearly $4 trillion last year, and they are buying up and stripping down companies from auto parts producer Delphi and Texas power utility TXU, to Office Equities Properties, to hundreds of thousands of apartments in Berlin and Dresden, Germany. This has led to hundreds of thousands of workers being laid off.
They are assisted by their Wall Street allies. Taken altogether, the hedge funds, with money borrowed from the world's biggest commercial and investment banks, have pushed the world's derivatives bubble well past $600 trillion in nominal value, and put the world on the path of the biggest financial disintegration in modern history.

At the same time, in this Anglo-Dutch mix are the big banks, like the British Crown's Dope, Inc. bank, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Europe's biggest; and the Dutch ABN-Amro, which owns the old-line British Empire investment bank Barings. With this integrated force, using the Cayman Islands as a basing operation, the Anglo-Dutch Liberals have leverage over the world financial system.

The hedge funds' wild forays cannot be controlled by neat resolutions on open reporting. The hedge-fund issue involves the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, which believes it is in an end-game war, and will do anything to preserve its

power. This is the level of the fight by any force serious about tackling the hedge-fund question.


[*] EIR's "Glossary of the Global Financial Casino," published May 27, 2005, defines a hedge fund as "a form of mutual fund used by wealthy individuals and institutions to engage in aggressive speculative activities prohibited to ordinary mutual funds. Hedge funds are restricted by law to no more than 100 investors per fund, and these investors are presumed to be sufficiently knowledgeable to understand the risks. Most hedge funds have extremely high minimum investment amounts ranging from $250,000 to well over $1 million.


Masha Lipman has an article published in The Washington Post about a demonstration in St Petersburg. Lipman works for the Carnegie Centre in Moscow, whose head has recently been a regular at Bilderberg meetings.

The event was organized by Drugaya Rossiya (Other Russia), a medley of small opposition groups headed by political opponents of President Vladimir Putin such as former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov and former chess champion Garry Kasparov.

The Washington Post had already reported that the protest was broken up by Russian police and some protestors had been beaten and arrested. This is disappointing to hear, but after reading on it is possible that agents provocateur were involved in one way or another. It also may not come as a surprise that similar police violence has also occured in the USA many times before too, and in fact there are regular beatings, and even shootings, of Afro-Americans and others eg Danny Casolaro who ask questions.

So what is the purpose of such an article?

Lipman states that the organisers of the demo were "Other Russia", which Lipman says is headed by former chess champion Garry Kasparov and former PM Kasyanov.

OK, for a start Kasyanov is supported by Nevzlin and Berezovsky in his bid to become Russian President in 2008, was a crony of Yeltsin, and was sacked by Putin.

But if we go to the website of Other Russia at
we begin to uncover the real motives.

The membershiplist of Other Russia is available at and it unsurprisingly contains alot of Russians from Russian human rights and opposition organizations. A significant portion of them are senior members of organizations beginning with "Open", such as Open Tomsk. From the "Young" network of the 19th Century I would hazard a guess that these are all minor partners in an umbrella organization, either Open Russia Foundation (Rothschild) or Open Society (Soros).

But there is also a list of foreign members at the bottom of that page, and one organization in particular has a number of members of Other Russia. That organization is The National Endowment for Democracy. One Richard Holbrooke of the CFR is also listed as a member, as is the British Ambassador to Russia!!

If anyone can point to a similar Russian political pressure group in either Great Britain or the USA which has members including the Ambassador(!!) then I would be surprised to hear of it and them. Surely it goes against all principles of diplomacy to have your Ambassador marching in the streets demanding this, that and the other, and could explain why he claims he was harassed by a Russian nationalist organization. But then again the British haven't been that diplomatic for the last 300 to 400 or so years, with all those assassinations, financing wars and revolutions...

But let's ignore that and dig into The National Endowment for Deomocracy.

Their "Who We Are" page says it all, at

Carl Gershman - member of CFR and recipient of The Order of the Knight's Cross

Directors include:
Ambassador Morton Abramowitz - Senior Fellow at the CFR and ex-President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Senator Norm Coleman - the dude who tried to smear George Galloway in the oil-for-food debacle, and failed.

Kenneth Duberstein - CFR

Esther Dyson - Eurasia Foundation (I exposed the EF last year following Russia kicking out several MI6 spies and claiming EF was a conduit for intelligence ops)

Francis Fukuyama - co-founder of PNAC, with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc

Lee H. Hamilton - vice-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission

Michael Novak - AEI

So there's more to the NED and therefore The Other Russia than Lipman cared to report. No doubt there are some ignorant but caring people in Other Russia who are concerned for democracy, and who may well see America as a shining light of democracy but have no idea as to how American politics REALLY works and see the influx of American money and influence as a good thing.

But it's not.

Other Russia is just another tool for Anglo-American interference in Russian politics.

Once again, follow the money. There are people who can create virtually unlimited amounts of it, and they use it for their own megalomaniac purposes.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007


Hmm. A very strange thing happened today.

A big white envelope was posted through my door addressed to the Headteacher of a named comprehensive school. That school does not exist in the city in which I live, and it was simply addressed to "Headteacher" i.e. no name.

This is the first time this has happened, and as far as I know has not happened to my neighbours.

So why was a large white envelope addressed to a nameless Headteacher of a nonexistent school sent to my address? Or why is that of interest?

Well, in the last few days I have been in contact with a local school about attending it for a few days to gain some classroom experience, because I am considering a career in teaching and would benefit from the experience of such a visit.

So what?

About this time last year I was thinking of the same thing, and began to get frequent phone calls which when I answered gave no reply. These weren't the automatic sort from call centres because on most of them I could hear noises in the background, noises as if the phone was inside a pub, as well as breathing (not the heavy breathing from a pervert). I did a 1471 and found the area code was Halifax. I didn't attend the classroom visits last year because I wanted to do something else, get something out of my system, which could also possibly benefit any students I taught before going into teaching. When I pulled out of the visits last year those mysterious phone calls stopped.


But the coincidence is...interesting, but also disturbing.

Is someone trying to warn me off teaching?

Ah well, it looks like I'll just have to become a teacher now!

Tuesday, March 06, 2007


Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom and The United States of America,

There is a cancer within the world human population.

It is not a cancer that can be clinically diagnosed in a hospital laboratory.

It is a cancer of evil.

It has resided in London and now Washington for 300 or so years.

Before then, the Netherlands, Venice and Rome.

Before then, Babylon.

Throughout the ages it has gradually crawled its slimy way to its current resting place.

It has left its footprint in the streets of Washington DC, in a curious pentagram immediately North of the White House, and in the creation of a 13 layer pyramid with Moloch the owl in place of its capstone, with The Capitol inside its belly.

It has knowingly sewn the seeds for world wars and other minor wars but still bloody all the same, which our ancestors fought, possibly against each other, in order for it to profit from them and to gain more power and control to further its aim of global control.

While you virtually fight each other for the right to work forty, possible fifty, maybe even sixty hours per week for money just to survive and pay the mortgage or rent and your debts, it can simply create money for itself with the flick of a pen and provide that money to finance whatever scheme it wishes, be it the implantable microchip or yet another war.

While you are at work looking forward to the weekend to watch your football team, or to spend hard-earned time with your family, it is dreaming up schemes to send you into war and to create fear in you in order that you cede more and more control to it.

Someone once said, “Give me control of a nation’s currency and I care not who makes the laws”.

During the 19th Century this cancer tried to create a privately-owned central bank in Russia, which would control the currency of Russia. It also tried the same in the USA. It already had control of Great Britain through The Bank of England, but it failed in our great countries because our ancestors knew its plan.

Our leaders united and fought against that plan.

I speak of Abraham Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II.

Lincoln printed Greenbacks, government-printed money, to finance his defence from its assault. And for this Lincoln was eventually assassinated by the cancer against which he fought.

Alexander sent his Navy to America to assist Lincoln to blockade ports supplying the enemies of Lincoln. Alexander too then became the subject of several assassination attempts from a revolutionary terrorist organization created by the cancer, and he was eventually assassinated in 1881 by a splinter group of that terrorist organization.

In 1913 it finally achieved its aim in America, with the creation of the Federal Reserve. And just a few months later World War 1 began, in which our peoples once again became allies, though only briefly, for with the astronomical profits from The Federal Reserve it was able to finance Bolshevism and The Bolshevik Revolution which ultimately led to the death of our Tsar and his family, and the creation of Communism, the USSR and the deaths of tens of millions of our people, and The Cold War which caused great mistrust between our two nations.

It also created Adolf Hitler, specifically for World War 2.

It also created Israel, specifically for World War 3.

That war is now upon us.

Our people must unite once again to defeat this evil cancer, or it will consume this potentially wonderful planet with flames and blood, leaving our children and grandchildren as its slaves.

I extend my hand of friendship to the great American people, and to the good people of Great Britain.

But they must realize that this cancer is among them, driving them and our children towards catastrophe for this planet and the human race.


Taking 9/11 and/or 7/7 on their own is not the approach to take to solve the mystery of “whodunit?”

The events of those days have been claimed by some to be false-flag acts of terror. There are examples of this throughout history, and I will briefly describe some later. But these same events also fit into a general pattern of violent events in modern history, e.g. world wars and revolutions, which have ultimately benefited a small group of people. These can all be traced back to a group of people we know as The New World Order.

How is it that such a small group of people could cause so much mayhem for the majority of people and gain so much power?

Modern history, and by that I mean the last 300 or so years, has been dominated by this self-appointed elite called The New World Order. They can cause global chaos and war because they have the power to create virtually unlimited amounts of money for themselves and their cronies via a banking system known as fractional reserve banking which can be used to finance certain industries and extremist political parties that incite violence against particular sections of society and the globe. With this knowledge we can then begin to “follow the money”, and we will find that all trails lead back to one bank in particular, The Federal Reserve.

The biggest financial fraud ever foisted upon mankind is The Federal Reserve of the USA. It is not a part of the US Government, as its name may suggest, but is in fact a privately owned bank, or to be more accurate, a cartel such as NatWest and HSBC could form, but with the appearance of being part of the Government and with the monopoly on creating the currency for the nation. The same trick was used for creating The Bank of England, which until 1946 was also privately owned and not part of the British Government as its name would suggest.

Major events need major sources of finance. The general public of the UK can raise approximately £20 million for Red Nose Day, a once a year event for charity. This is peanuts when compared to the sums that the international bankers can raise. So one has to ask where did the money come from for dictators such as Hitler and Stalin? There was no “Hitler Day” in Germany for Germans to raise funds for Hitler and the Nazi Party. There was no “Stalin Day” in Soviet Russia for a similar purpose. These people and the political movements they represent got their money from somewhere.

But where?

I will not name them by name here but some readers should know of whom I speak.

One particular family controls a bank which is a major stockholder in The Federal Reserve. It has such a huge advantage over most banks in the USA because it has so much financial clout. Although all the banks in the USA can create money the bank this family controls can create a far greater sum of money than most of the other banks could ever dream of due to its position in The Federal Reserve system. This bank can create money for corporations which would never be able to raise the money for a particular enterprise or nation, due to perhaps moral reasons of other banks, or simply that the initial capital for the planned enterprise or nation would be beyond the means of most banks.

The current banking system is simply a way in which the banks actually create money for themselves, but use the public to give it back over a number of years, through loans for example, AND with interest! For example a bank with $1000 in its vault could create $9,000 in loans and then receive that money back over several years, so that after several years the bank has effectively created money for itself and has $10,000 plus interest. Hopefully you can see that after the $9,000 has been paid back the bank can then loan out $90,00, and when that is all paid back the bank can then loan out $900,000 etc etc etc. The bank doesn’t have to loan, but does so because in a few years time it gets the money back it simply created “with a flick of the pen”, as stated by former Director of the Bank of England, Josiah Stamp.

Recently there have been reports that oil and banking corporations have enjoyed record profits…AGAIN!

This family of whom I speak controls at least one bank in the Federal Reserve cartel. They also control at least one of the major US oil corporations who have recently announced record profits.

So with all this profit, from banking and oil, what could you do with it?

Cancer Research? Charity? Write off Third World debt?

Hmm. Look around you. There’s not much of that going on.

But war needs money.

And the Politicians who take us into war need money. Their election campaigns need money. Their offices need money. Their assistants need money.

War is the greatest catalyst for a change in society.

If you can create money you can control who becomes our leading politicians, who then decide if we go to war.

This is what happens at meetings of Bilderberg and the Council on Foreign Relations, both created with the assistance of this family and their partners-in-crime, where informal interviews take place and attendees are encouraged to speak their minds and be honest about their intentions and beliefs so that the organisers can check certain boxes on their checklist for each attendee. If the attendee has all his or her boxes checked then he or she will go on to power, and ultimately war.

If you have the power to create money you can simply create a bit of "the green stuff" to buy a newspaper or ten to support one politician while destroying another politician.

See? It’s dead easy!

And when you can control the politicians in power you can control who they appoint.

You can suggest/dictate who becomes a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director for Homeland Security, the Director of Central Intelligence, Secretaries of State, etc, etc, etc.

And when you control the Pentagon and the CIA you can then influence which clandestine projects go live or are killed. Surveillance and black ops can be run in the name of “national security”, so that what is believed to be a system of intelligence and military for the benefit of the nation is in fact a private intelligence and military operation, with certain people given access to prime intelligence, while we, i.e. the general public, get the lies we are encouraged to believe by the media which is owned by the same group of elite people. Assassinations, and even invasions, in the name of “national security”, following months of propaganda in the newspapers you own, can be beneficial to private individuals.

And with such profits comes the ability to create think tanks to influence the opinion and policy of governments, besides the general public, who can also be influenced by the propaganda in the newspapers and TV which you own.

It really is that simple.

This family of whom I speak, who part control the Federal Reserve and control major oil corporations, have created several such think tanks. As have their banker/industrialist pals. One project this family funded was that of Alfred Kinsey, who published research claiming that the average US citizen was really a sexually depraved animal. It was later discovered that his research was largely based on interviews with criminals and convicted sex offenders. This is just one example of how pubic opinion can be influenced. We are now seeing the sexualisation of children, and sex on TV, particularly Channel 4, more frequently, although the BBC chipped in with a series about lesbians which contained one scene depicting oral sex between two lesbians, which was shown shortly after 9pm. The aim of such programmes is to destroy love, to kill it, annihilate it, utterly and completely.

Look around you! Our “Labour” government has just proposed a cut in real-terms in the wages of nurses. Yet there seems to be no problem in financing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why?

I can state this with confidence because the people who have this power to create virtually unlimited amounts of money do not use it for the benefit of mankind, but instead use it to create monsters such as Hitler and Stalin and have them fight in world wars. Sure, they create charitable funds which due to the total sum of the funds which are donated give the appearance that the charity is enormous and the donors are nice. But what may appear to be a huge amount of money in one sum to us, when distributed in much smaller sums to projects all over the world, is actually very little, and may well just about sustain the recipients until the following year, when the same handout is begged for and possibly donated again, or not. But little mention is made of the system which was implemented by the same “charitable” donors which has reduced national economies around the globe to one of debt slavery from which they cannot escape.

The pieces of the jigsaw are gradually being put into place.

An expanded NATO, extending its sphere of influence so it now bombs kids in Afghanistan to death.

An expanded EU, now considering including Israel, as is NATO. Israel is in the Middle East, but Article V of the NATO treaty could be used for a third world war.

A North American Union between Mexico, the USA and Canada is in the pipeline, with the new currency the Amero being discussed openly, and a new superhighway to transport goods between Mexico and Canade via certain states in the USA now being built.

Global problems such as drugs, terrorism and climate change are highlighted in the media which we are told all require global solutions.

Real power is becoming more and more centralised.

Control and surveillance of society in general are about to take major leap into civil rights with RFID chips on ID cards, and ultimately the human-implantable microchip for all of us (well, all except the agents of the NWO).

We are undoubtedly advancing towards a powerful world government with centralised control. Some would argue we have one already; the UN. I would argue that the UN is a world-government-in-waiting. It has some powers over national sovereignty, but does not yet have total control.

But where did this organization, the UN, come from?

And what could make it even more powerful?

As I have stated before here is what can be proved beyond doubt.

World War 1 was planned by the British Monarchy. Prince Edward, before he became King Edward VII, was Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), and while occupying this position he spent years isolating Germany in preparation for a war on the European mainland. This was recognised by European newspapers before WW1. Archduke Ferdinand knew that Freemasonry wanted him dead. Many of the assassins of Ferdinand were Freemasons, and at their trial they testified to the encouragement and assistance they received from Freemasonry. They were members of a revolutionary terrorist organization, Young Europe, created by a 33rd Degree Freemason and British Agent, Giuseppe Mazzini. Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote after the war in his memoirs that a distinguished German Freemason had told him that Freemasonry wanted to destroy Germany and Austro-Hungary in preparation for a European Superstate. In 1916 the British and French were on the verge of defeat, but due mainly to the highly suspicious sinking of The Lusitania which eventually dragged the USA into the war, the USA was able to legally loan the Allies billions of dollars and send its military to France which guaranteed the defeat of Germany.

And who benefited from this? The people controlling the privately-owned cartel, The Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve system allows the Federal Reserve Families to create the money for the US government, and from the government bonds to then create much more money for their private operations, leading to astronomical profits which was used to fund think tanks, buy newspapers, buy politicians etc etc etc. So with large government bonds in their vaults the Federal Reserve Families were rolling in money and blood.

After WW1 the powers met at Versailles, Paris, France, to discuss the organization of the post-war world. The representatives of the Allies were dominated by the Rothschilds, who are the prime power in the Federal Reserve. Germany was blackmailed into signing the Treaty of Versailles, in which Germany accepted the blame for starting the war and was thus bound to pay reparations. Germany’s military was also severely restricted by the Treaty. There was also an attempt at world government, The League of Nations. The Rockefellers donated land for the HQ of the League in Geneva. However, the United States voted against signing up to The League, despite Wilson almost killing himself through exhaustion from a national speaking tour (paid for by whom?) to convince America that it needed to cede sovereignty to a world government, The League of Nations.

So Hitler was brought to power. At first Hitler, and then Hitler’s Reich, received substantial financial, industrial and ideological support from Wall Street, and The City of London. IG Farben was created by Wall Street, had strong links to Wall Street and The Federal Reserve via its board members, and was given the technology to manufacture oil and rubber by Wall Street to prosecute a long war on the European mainland because Germany had no access to major reliable sources of either.

Hitler’s stated enemy was “The Jews”, and he directed this hatred against Communist Russia. The Bolshevik Revolution was itself a product of Wall Street and City of London manipulation. Jacob Schiff took personal credit for financing the revolutions that eventually brought down the Romanovs. Trotsky and many of his friends were detained by Canadian authorities and were found to be travelling with substantial quantities of money and some very-well connected friends with friendships leading straight to the White House! Trotsky was given an American Passport by Wilson. Trotsky was released from detention at the request of the British Admiralty and continued his journey to Russia for the “re-revolution” (this was after Freemason Kerensky had taken power). Lenin was sent into Russia as part of a German Intelligence operation sanctioned by Bethmann-Hollweg, the Freemason cousin of the Rothschilds, who had urged Austria to declare war instead of following diplomacy. Following their coup d’etat Lenin and Trotsky were supervised by British Agent Bruce Lockhart and American Raymond Robbins. British Agent Captain George Hill created the Cheka, which helped the Bolsheviks retain control in the following civil war. In return for giving the Bolsheviks such support Wall Street was awarded the bulk of the contracts to build Soviet Russia, as testified to by Stalin himself.

Thus in World War 2 the two antagonists, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, were created by Wall Street with a little help from The City of London and its agents. And how could this be? Because The Federal Reserve is a money-creating machine, and its controllers had the power to create such opposites and wanted to create those two opposites to fight each other in a war larger than World War 1. The purpose of that was to drag the USA into yet another major world war, but this one would need to be longer and bloodier than the first so that after such a long and bloody war the USA would vote for a world governing body to stop the wars the Federal Reserve Families were fomenting and financing in the first place! Yet by late 1941, two years of war between the USSR/UK and the Nazis was still not enough to coax the USA to join the war. So FDR, at the suggestion of Winston Churchill, provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbour. FDR and his inner circle knew the Japanese fleet was sailing full steam ahead to Pearl Harbour because the super-secret Japanese codes had been broken, but FDR did not tell Pearl Harbour. And so on that day of infamy the USA was dragged into World War 2. FDR was a very good friend of Wall Street.

Towards the end of the war Freemasons FDR, Stalin and Churchill met at Yalta to discuss how to divide the world up between them.

And after nearly six years of world war, with millions dead and with two atomic bombs unnecessarily dropped on Japan, the war finally ended and post-war construction began.

Due to the much larger number of deaths of US military than in WW1 the USA willingly signed up to a world governing body, The United Nations. And once again the Rockefellers, one of the Federal Reserve Families, donated land for the HQ of this world-government-in-waiting in New York, despite financing the USA war effort through the Federal Reserve.

Also created were the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These institutions have since helped to create the Third World and to keep it in debt slavery to the Federal Reserve Families. In fact it is not just the Third World, but most of the world.

The holocaust of World War 2 enabled the Zionists to muster some support for their Zionist claim to Israel, but not enough. Middle Eastern nations declared that they would wage war on any Zionist state in Palestine. So Israel was created by the Zionists terrorizing Palestinians off their land, declaring Eretz Israel and being recognised by the USA and the USSR. But where did the Zionists get the finance for their military training and arms? Who can create money?

Since then the ultra-rich have gotten very much richer, power has been taken from the people and centralised, and a war between Zionism and Islam is threatening and has been threateneing, a war more terrible than World War 2, no doubt resulting in frequent use of WMD of all sorts against millions of not billions of innocent civilians

But all this is not accident.

This was planned, at the very latest by the end of the 19th Century, when Zionists began to settle in Palestine and the Zionist movement began to receive substantial financial assistance.

But who could finance such a movement? It’s simple really. People who can create virtually unlimited amounts of money.

Once you understand that there are people who
1. can create virtually unlimited amounts of money, and then
2. use that power for their own desire for world governance,
modern history makes so much more sense, doesn’t it?

World War 1 was all about taking control of Palestine from the Ottomans and pass control to Great Britain, under the control of the Rothschilds, who would then flood Palestine with Jews. The Ottomans and Germany knew what would happen if mass Jewsish immigration into Palestine was permitted and opposed it, as did most Jews. Germany and Austria offered some resistance to the plans for a European superstate and world governance so they had to be destroyed to get the idea of a world government established.

World War 2 was all about creating Israel and the reason to support its existence (the holocaust) once it was created, as well as establishing mechanisms for some national sovereignty to be ceded to international organizations, e.g. UN, and for a financial stranglehold over the world status quo in the post-war world so that no serious threat to “the great plan” could arise.

With some international organizations created for finance and law it will be easier and quicker for a world government to be created.

But what could speed up the process of world governance? Another world war!

We have seen that WW1 and WW2 were all about creating the international organizations we now have for world dominance, not total control, and to create the friction which would be used to foment WW3. That friction is to be manufactured between Zionism and Islam.

The Jewish immigration into Palestine angered Islam. Germany and the Ottomans and most Jewry opposed it. But because the Zionists had the backing of the people who can create virtually unlimited amounts of money the Zionists were able to gain financial and political support for their plan, and when they couldn’t get what they wanted then the Zionists just stole what they wanted.

World War 3 will be about destroying all national sovereignty, love and religion. Israel was created specifically for the purpose of starting World War 3, with its very aggressive desire for expansion, which creates huge anger within the Islamic world, particularly in the near-Middle East, as Israel treats Palestinians not much better than the Nazis treated the Jews.

And who supported this Zionist movement in its infancy, continues to support it, and at several times in the last century was its leaders? The Rothschilds.

And who are the major powers in The Federal Reserve? The Rothschilds.

What does that give them? The power to create virtually unlimited quantities of money.

And did they agree to pay Hitler’s ransom to save Jews? No.

One has to ask, why?

They could finance World Wars and Zionism through the Federal Reserve, but not pay the ransom demanded by Hitler to save tens of thousands of Jews? Hmm.

There’s something not right about that, is there?

In order to expand the Israel/Palestinian conflict beyond the Middle East, the Zionists have been allowed to dominate the administration of the USA. Thus the USA sustains Israel with money from…The Federal Reserve. Yes, it’s there again, that bottomless pit that the Federal Reserve Families can dip into whenever they need any money for anything whatsoever, except for making the world a better, safer place to live in.

So with Israel and its main supporter the USA (and to some degree the UK) on one side, and Islam on the other, what would it take to spark a major war between them?

Hmm. Maybe something like…9/11?

A bloody event, a “new Pearl Harbor”, that would give the Anglo-American Establishment a reason to send significant sections of its military into the Middle East with the support of most of the Anglo-American people. In certain media it could also be portrayed as a crusade.

Before 9/11, in the mid-1990’s, a report was published entitled, “A Clean Break”, composed by among others David and Meyrav Wurmser, Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, and aimed at the then Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. It basically called for all-out war by Israel on some of Israel’s neighbours.

A similar document published a few years later by the Project for a New American Century entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” basically called for the USA to prosecute multiple, simultaneous wars across the globe, particularly in the Middle East (where Israel and oil are).

There are very significant links between the authors of “A Clean Break” and the authors of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. In fact Cheney, a co-founder of PNAC, employed Douglas Feith, co-author of “A Clean Break”, to produce cherry-picked, unsubstantiated and unverified intelligence via The Office of Special Plans to support a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq following 9/11so that Iraq could be invaded.

And on 9/11 Netanyahu was asked what the events of that day meant to Israel. He replied that 9/11 would be very good for Israel, and that it would generate immediate sympathy for Israel.

And we now see why, over 5 years after 9/11, Netanyahu said 9/11 would be very good for Israel.

The targets for Israeli aggression named in “A Clean Break” were Iraq and Lebanon, along with Syria and Iran.

Lebanon has been bombed back to the stone age in a ridiculous over-reaction to a contrived kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, and Iraq has been invaded and Iraq’s oil is going to…c’mon. Take a guess.

And now the USA is threatening primarily Iran, but also Syria.

On 9/11 the Bush Administration was dominated by Israel-firsters and supporters, many of whom were members of or linked to The Project for a New American Century.

The Project for a New American Century was co-founded by, among others, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. On 9/11 Cheney was Vice-President, Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and Wolfowitz was Rumsfeld’s Deputy. Perle was also in the Pentagon.

On 9/11 either Rumsfeld or Cheney had the power to order a shoot down. No such order came, despite there being fighters on permanent stand-by based at Andrews Air Force Base just 10 miles from The Pentagon. There is some doubt about the location of Cheney and Rumsfeld between 9am and 10am on the morning of 9/11 because conflicting testimony was given to the 9/11 Commission.

There is also some doubt about the location of the United Stated Air Force on the morning of 9/11!

Where was it?

There were a number of terrorist drills that morning, all run by Dick Cheney. So wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that Cheney’s location that morning should be well-known, or at least verifiable? And that he should know the locations of parts of the USAF?

Certain persons had the motive, the opportunity and stood to benefit greatly from 9/11. Indeed, PNAC had called for “a New Pearl Harbor” to justify the aggression they so desired for multiple, simultaneous wars of aggression. Such persons are usually prime suspects in criminal investigations.

This is not so with 9/11. Why?

We now know that Pearl Harbour 1941 was (a) provoked, and (b) allowed to happen. It allowed FDR to declare war on the Axis powers with the consent of the American people, something he had been trying to do without success for a long time.

Is it possible that 9/11 was “a new Pearl Harbor”?

Is Pearl Harbour 1941 the only example of an act of terror committed by a government against its own people?

Here are a few, including Pearl Harbour;

JFK and the Gulf of Tonkin - led to the Vietnam War. JFK (who didn't want war) was shot by a lone gunman (or three in a triangulation of crossfire) and replaced by Johnson (who wanted war). Shortly after this the Gulf of Tonkin event occured, or didn't as has now been proved. 60,000 US soldiers died, and hundreds of billions of dollars was spent on a 10 year long war. These are two events which people believed the official version of at the time, but which have now been debunked. Now the vast majority of Americans now believe JFK was assassinated in an act of conspiraloonacy.

Operation Northwoods - a plan signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to create false-flag acts of terror to be blamed on Cuba. Producers of the BBC jokeumentary on 9/11 did not allow Northwoods to be even mentioned in passing let alone seriously discussed. Why?

Operaton Gladio - a NATO cold-war operation which went out of control and led to acts of terror being allowed to happen or encouraged if the outcome was beneficial i.e. troublesome politicians assassinated, bombings committed by controlled left-wing extremists to throw public opinion to the right etc

USS Liberty – an attack by the Israeli Air Force on a US spy ship which was to be blamed on Egypt in order to drag the USA into the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 (and probably a failed forerunner and first attempt to expand the Zionism v Islam conflict beyond the Middle East. 9/11 cucceeded.)

Pearl Harbour (1941) - it is now known FDR gradually placed Japan in a corner to provoke a Japanese attack (at the request of Winston Churchill) and FDR and his inner circle knew about the Japanese sailing directly to Pearl Harbour, but they did not tell the commanding officers at Pearl Harbor despite their suspicions and requests for intel. In fact FDR ordered that all ships at Pearl Harbour should not leave the dock despite the Fleet Commander’s suspicions! After the attack the USA gladly signed upto WW2 and rushed into war without a thorough investigation of the Pearl Harbour attack. Sound familiar?

All these were allowed to happen, or in the case of Northwoods planned to happen, so that military action would occur and/or the police state would grow.

To me there are enough doubts about the official 9/11 story to place 9/11, PNAC’s new Pearl Harbor, among the above as an act of false-flag terrorism.

My doubts include;
no fighters scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base until it was too late
the hole in the Pentagon is too small for a 757 (check the windows either side of the small hole. They say the wings folded into the plane and evaporated!)
Cheney’s location on 9/11 is unverified, despite him running a number of terrorist drills that day (one of which mimicked a similar operation to that which occurred)
the suspicious collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7
the investigation into “the high fivers” arrested on 9/11 was quickly stopped
the FBI was ordered to drop investigations into suspected arab terrorists in the summer of 2001

This is only a fraction of my doubts. Others have more.

Just ask, cui bono?

Who is going to get all that lovely, profitable Iraqi oil, despite claims it was all going to go to the Iraqis.

Who was running all those terrorist drills on 9/11, a fact that was ignored by the commission?

Whose “A Clean Break” strategy for dealing with its neighbours and “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” strategy is being fulfilled, causing further anger in the Islamic world?

And who has “form” for this kind of thing?

If it looks like a trap, and smells like a trap, then it probably is a trap. A trap set over a century ago when the Zionists began to lay claim to Eretz Israel against the wishes of most people, including most Jewry, because most people knew what would follow. Only people of a certain type would support such a movement. They must have at least suspected that violent reactions to the aggressive actions of the Zionists would occur, and if it was suspected then the violent reactions could have been planned and/or planned for i.e. provoked.

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed in his “The War on Truth” shows that time after time after time, the so-called Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists were manipulated by the Anglo-American Establishment for geopolitical reasons. Indeed London was given the nickname “Londonistan” due to its friendliness to such people, and the CIA/Mujahideen friendship is by now legendary. When it suits them the Anglo-American Establishment can be friends with anyone for any purpose. And if so required provocations can be made, and violent reactions to the provocation allowed to occur.

Now, with all this in mind, when people express doubt about the official version of 9/11 and 7/7, is it conspiraloonacy?

9/11, and 7/7, put the citizens of the victim nations in a mood for war and curtailment of civil rights. More violence. More centralized control.

We ask, who benefits?

Is that conspiraloonacy?

Or conspiracy?