Wednesday, December 31, 2008


Well, in 2008 they tried to start wars, and failed.

They are still trying, but the current war on Gaza will be the last attempt because Israel is in a lose-lose situation, i.e. even if it wins it loses because a victory for them will mean a lot of dead innocent civilians and international condemnation.

Yes, outrage will manifest in terrorism (as it is designed to do), but I think after 9/11 there are many more members of the intelligence and military community who have become wise to the situation that the human race finds itself in. For that we can congratulate ourselves, but we are not done yet.

2009 will be the year we take our planet back.

We will take our planet back because we can, and when we know we can then we will.

Forget fear.

We will take our planet back.

It is ours.

We know who most of them are, and we will see them in court one way or another, either as witnesses or as the accused.

I am looking forward to 2009 very much, because it will be the year we take our planet back.

Best wishes for the New Year to everyone...and good luck!

Tuesday, December 30, 2008


If Obama and the USA are to experience a terrorist attack soon after Obama's inaurguration, as indicated by several well-placed insiders, then that attack will require terrorists, or to be more precise patsies.

A Fatwa has been issued by an influential Wahabbi cleric who has been identified as encouraging terrorism.

Of course, such a terrorist attack will be allowed to happen.

A brief history of how and why a Wahabbi Saudi Arabia and a Zionist Israel were deliberately created is provided on my website.



Saudi Wahhabi Cleric Calls for Global Jihad Against Israel, Threatens the U.S.
Increase Decrease

December 29, 2008 (LPAC) -- A leading Saudi Wahhabi cleric, Awadh Al-Qarni (also spelled Al-Garni) issued a Fatwa "to spill the blood" of Israelis everywhere in the world, as a revenge for the Israeli attacks against Palestinians in Gaza. His fatwa, a religious decree, was published today in website, which in turn is run by Sheikh Yosuf Al-Qaradhawi, a leading Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood member and anti-American agent provocateur.

"All Israeli interests, and anything else related to Israel, are a permitted target for Muslims everywhere... They should become targets. Their blood should be shed as the blood of our brothers in Palestine has been shed. They should feel pain more than our brothers," Al-Qarni stated. He added: "This is a fatwa that I am responsible for in front of Allah," Qarni said. Implicating other moderate Arab nations, such as Egypt, he accused them of being "part of the conspiracy". "The recent visit by Israeli Foreign Miniter Tzipi Livni to Egypt, and her embrace by Egyptian officials in front of cameras, followed by her confirmation that the situation in Gaza is going to change, and the lack of any response from Egyptian officials, are part of the conspiracy," he said.

Al-Qarni also attacked the United States for its silent condoning of the Israeli massacres. "Washington, by its silence and support for the Israeli massacres, will destroy the future of humankind, not only relations between Muslims and the West."

Another Saudi cleric, Salman Fahad Al-Oudeh, (chairman of the Saudi institution also issued a statement calling on Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to respond to the Israeli attacks "with actions, not merely words."

These statements should be viewed as signals for Saudi-British sponsored Salafi terrorist networks to wreck havoc internationally and target not only Israeli interests but even American or the interests of U.S.-allied nations. This comes amid warnings that "a third force", not the Palestinian Hamas, Islamic Jihad, nor Lebanese Hezbollah, could expand this conflict into a global threat by targeting other nations with terrorism. This would put the whole world and the incoming Obama Administration in an impossible situation regarding peace in the Middle East and U.S.-Muslim relations.

The two above mentioned Saudi clerics, Al-Qarni and Odeh are part of a 20-person powerful Wahhabi faction in Saudi Arabia who have a key role in sending marching orders and recruits for terrorist operations internationally. In 1994 this grouping was sent to jail by former King Fahad for supporting a call by then London-based Osama Bin Laden for "reform" of the kingdom. These clerics were later released after cutting a deal with the Saudi royal family, according to which the Saudi government support some of their demands for supporting Jihad operations in the Caucasus, Kashmir and other targets of British operations, in return for directing their rhetoric away from the royal family and against the "west", Russia, China, India or other powers allegedly oppressing Muslim minorities.

In November 2004, following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the two joined a group of 20 Wahhabi clerics who issued another Fatwa calling for armed resistance against the Americans in Iraq and anybody who collaborated with the Americans. The "collaborators" category included not only Iraqi government officials, police or armed forces, but almost every Iraqi who went to his job and did not participate in armed resistance against the U.S. troops. Saudi youth and others from Arab countries poured into Iraq after this fatwa to launch suicide attacks against Iraqi civilians. Al-Qaeda and extreme Sunni militant groups inside Iraq used this and similar fatwas to justify to the most heinous crimes against Iraqi and foreign civilians.

This is what these clerics are hoping to arouse now, but on global scale.

Monday, December 29, 2008


Bang. Bang.

Boom. Boom. Boom.


Aaaagh, aagh, aagh, aaaaaagh!

Boom. Boom. Boom.

Fuck you Gazan scumbags.

We want all your la-and, and we're going to get it.


We will drive you into Egypt, if not there then into the sea.



Run you fucking scumbags, you don't deserve to live.

You're on our land so leave it now.

We've got lots of money for all the bombs we need.

You won't get a dollar. We'd rather see you starve.

Bang. Bang.

Boom. Boom.


Nee-naw. Nee-naw.

Oh no, my five beautiful daughters are dead.

I've lost my beautiful children.

My mangled son is blown to bits.

Nee-naw. Nee-naw.


Aaagh! My mother is dead.

Nee-naw. Nee-naw.


Aaagh! My father is dead.

HA! HA! HAA! Die you fucking scumbags.



Or run into Egypt. If not there then into the sea.



Johann Hari in The Independent has written a good article on the inhumanity and criminality of the Israeli assault on Gaza.

According to The Israel Project just 4 people have died this year from the rockets and mortars fired from Gaza, and since June 2004 just 16 have died from this rocket fire.


Yes, it is 16 too many.

But the corpse count in Gaza is currently over 300, and will continue to rise as bodies are dragged from under the rubble.

Is that a proportionate response, particularly with a blockade that has destroyed the Gazan economy and driven many children to starvation? No.

Read Hari's article below.


Johann Hari: The true story behind this war is not the one Israel is telling

Monday, 29 December 2008

The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or rockets. Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended and unmade.

To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the Isle of Wight but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never leave. They live out their lives on top of each other, jobless and hungry, in vast, sagging tower blocks. From the top floor, you can often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean, and Israeli barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall – as they are doing now with more deadly force than at any time since 1967 – there is nowhere to hide.

There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli government says, "We withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and in return we got Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Sixteen civilians have been murdered. How many more are we supposed to sacrifice?" It is a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it, but it is also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years and view the run-up to this war dispassionately.

The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, was unequivocal about this, explaining: "The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians... this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."

Ordinary Palestinians were horrified by this, and by the fetid corruption of their own Fatah leaders, so they voted for Hamas. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice – an Islamist party is antithetical to all my convictions - but we have to be honest. It was a free and democratic election, and it was not a rejection of a two-state solution. The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the University of Maryland, found that 72 per cent want a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 per cent want to reclaim the whole of historic Palestine. So, partly in response to this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long, long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its legal borders.

Rather than seize this opportunity and test Hamas's sincerity, the Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian population. It announced that it was blockading the Gaza Strip in order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process. The Israelis surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything out. They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine – but not enough for survival. Weisglass quipped that the Gazans were being "put on a diet". According to Oxfam, only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza last month to feed 1.5 million people. The United Nations says poverty has reached an "unprecedented level." When I was last in besieged Gaza, I saw hospitals turning away the sick because their machinery and medicine was running out. I met hungry children stumbling around the streets, scavenging for food.

It was in this context – under a collective punishment designed to topple a democracy – that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when it has been terrorising civilians as a matter of state policy.

The American and European governments are responding with a lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate while under rocket fire, but they demand that the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.

Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.

The core of the situation has been starkly laid out by Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. He says that while Hamas militants – like much of the Israeli right-wing – dream of driving their opponents away, "they have recognised this ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future." Instead, "they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967." They are aware that this means they "will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original goals" – and towards a long-term peace based on compromise.

The rejectionists on both sides – from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Bibi Netanyahu of Israel – would then be marginalised. It is the only path that could yet end in peace but it is the Israeli government that refuses to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas."

Why would Israel act this way? The Israeli government wants peace, but only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat by the Palestinians. It means the Israelis can keep the slabs of the West Bank on "their" side of the wall. It means they keep the largest settlements and control the water supply. And it means a divided Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the broken-up West Bank standing alone. Negotiations threaten this vision: they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to. But an imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or the rage. For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it is blockading and bombing today, and compromise with them.

The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth... If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas's court – it is in ours."


Several well-placed insiders have indicated that Barak Obama will be confronted with a massive terrorist attack shortly after his inauguration that will test his resolve.

If such an attack is to involve real terrorists and encouraged and allowed to happen then the current massacre in Gaza will provide them.


"The question is not if but how and when".

This is a quote from an anonymous source close to Ehud Barak which was printed in The Times on 17th June 2007, BEFORE Barak became defence minister for Israel.

"Israel plans attack on Gaza", by Uzi Mahnaimi at

It was recently reported by Haaretz that the attack on Black Saturday was planned six months ago.

The US Presidential election gave Israel a fantastic opportunity to break the ceasefire and invade Gaza while attention was focused on Obama, which it did, resulting in an increase in rockets from Gaza. This then led Israel to increase the blockade, leading to sustained rockets from Gaza, which led to Black Saturday.

I think it is evident that Bloody Barak has been itching for this.

I think it is evident that the invasion of Gaza on the day of the US Presidential election (a similar tactic used by tie-muncher Saakashvili during the Olympics in his bloodlust in South Ossetia) was a provocation designed to provide Barak with the excuse to execute his long time goal of invading Gaza.

Whoever lobbied for Barak to be inserted into his current position is close to the inner circle.


The consequences of Israel's bloodlust could be global. That's why we're all Gazans now.

Every dead child murdered by a cowardly Israeli Air Force pilot from thousands of feet above his defenceless victim drives many more to hate us.

This in turn increases the probability of reprisals against us.

This in turn leads to us losing our freedoms as our governments strip us of our rights in order to protect us from potential terrorism.

But here's a question; who is financing Israel?

It's not Israelis.

It's not the World Jewish Congress.

It is our ally, the USA.

And our government is not unfriendly either. Where are Labour Friends of Israel now, eh? Rubbing their hands with glee? Raising a glass to the Israeli Air Force?

That's right. Our governments are supporting Israel as it murders innocent defenceless children in order to drive many men and women into hatred and terrorism, which of course benefits our governments because it wants to control us as much as it can so we don't discover the even more horrendous crimes it has committed against us in preparing and executing world wars 1 and 2 and the current chaos in the Middle East.

That's why we're all Gazans now.

Israel is effectively bombing our rights and freedoms to smithereens.

Sunday, December 28, 2008


Haaretz is reporting that Israel planned yesterday's attack on Gaza six months ago.

And in the same report Haaretz also recognises that tensions rose dramatically after Israel invaded Gaza to stop an alleged assault on IDF troops by Palestinian militants.

"Disinformation, secrecy and lies: How the Gaza offensive came about" by Barak Ravid.

But during all this year Gaza has been under a blockade of ridiculous proportions.

During the most recent ceasefire brokered by Egypt Israel should have significantly eased the blockade. It has not.

In fact only two weeks ago John Ging, Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, was reported by The Washington Post of all papers to have said,
"This is a disastrous situation, and it's getting worse and worse... It is unprecedented that the UN is unable to get its supplies in to a population under such obvious distress; many of these families have been subsisting on this ration for years, and they are living hand-to-mouth."

The quote is taken from the website of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

On 12th May this year Ging was reported in The Guardian to have said,
"It is a disaster for everybody because it's touching everybody in every aspect of their life, from the moment you get up in the morning until you go to bed at night...The way things have been reduced here, there's a very sub-human existence for the general population."

Yes Hamas should not have been firing rockets. But when Israel is not honouring its side of the bargain but is instead making it worse and driving children to eat grass to survive then what is an air strike killing 225 civlians supposed to do?

If Israel had instead used the money spent in that airstrike, that went into all the intelligence gathering and the planning and the fuel and the weapons that went up in smoke, to finance the infrastructure of Gaza instead then I would bet that the rockets would soon stop.

But no. Israel wants to starve children first before blowing them to bits with weapons from the USA.


Saturday, December 27, 2008


Those bloody Israelis, eh? (tut)

The "surgical" air strikes have killed approximately 200 Palestinian civilians, and united all Palestinian factions against Israel.

Well bloody done.

Who said there wouldn't be an invasion of Gaza? Not me. I predicted it immediately after 7/7.

Israel has blockaded Gaza to the point of starvation, such that on the very day the Israeli Air Force murders 200 Palestinian civilians it sends convoys of aid trucks into Gaza as an indication of sympathy!

But there's only one hand behind this; Rothschild.

Rothschild financed the early Jewish settlements.

Rothschild created Hitler to scare Jews into Israel.

Rothschild spied for Israel to give it the bomb.

If Rothschild (the bankers) didn't want it then it wouldn't happen.

But it has happened.

Witholding finances.

Blockades on food, fuel, medical aid, etc.

It was bound to provoke rockets from Hamas or whoever else it was, rocket attacks that could very easily be used as an excuse for mass murder (again).

What is the ratio of dead Palestinians to dead Israelis? 10:1?

We can now add 200 more dead Palestinians to that ratio, and a united Palestine vowing revenge and to unleash hell.

I guess plans A (Iran), B (Russia v Georgia) and C (Pakistan v India) didn't work, so in one last desperate attempt to ignite a world war to hide their bankster crimes of robbing the world of trillions the Rothschilds and their partners in crime have given a nod and wink to a pure unadulterated genocidal blatantly provocative attack on a starving Gaza.

It's going to take some work to stop this one, but this is the last throw of the dice for them. Stop this and that's it.

Friday, December 26, 2008


Have you seen what Hamas has?

Not only does it have the support of the majority of Palestine, but when Israel invades then I can see all of Palestine supporting Hamas, because "the auld enemy" will be on their turf, killing civilians, possibly their relatives. Everyone in Gaza will know someone who was or will be killed by the IDF.

So why did Palestine elect Hamas, if Hamas are so terrible?

Hamas provides an infrastructure; schools, medical aid, etc. The sort of thing people want. Approximately 90% of Hamas' work is taken up by this.

But the remaining 10% is also very well armed and trained to defend itself, and particularly in the environment that Gaza offers. I can foresee Israel getting dragged into a guerilla war, with many civilian casualties and much international outcry.

But some will be rubbing their hands with glee, for Hamas = Iran in the eyes of some, who will no doubt be foaming at the mouth to widen the assault.


ANALYSIS / A hard look at Hamas' capabilities

By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: IDF, Hamas, Gaza Strip

Approximately 15,000 armed Palestinians. That's the size of the military force the Israel Defense Forces will face if a major operation in the Gaza Strip goes forward. These militants, from various Hamas factions, will presumably be aided by a few thousand militants from other Palestinian groups.

For two years Hamas, with Iranian assistance, has been working hard on developing its military power, using Hezbollah as a model.

Gaza Palestinians are preparing to step up their offensive, with rockets and mortar shells directed at Israel's civilian population in the south, as well as their defense, digging in to retard the IDF's progress and cause heavy Israeli casualties.

Nevertheless, military experts in Israel and the West believe the IDF is capable of retaking Gaza. Israeli reservations about a broad military operation, therefore, are mainly linked to the question of what happens afterward, when the IDF controls a large area that it doesn't want and is in constant friction with terrorists and the civilian population.

The main components of the "Hamas Army":

? Order of battle: Hamas is transitioning from a terror group to a paramilitary guerrilla organization. The transition includes improvements to the command and control structure, the acquisition of better weapons and the creation of a training program.

The core of Hamas' "army" is its military wing, Iz al-Din al-Qassam, which the organization sees as its best trained and most disciplined force. It was deployed against Fatah in June 2007 and it will bear the brunt of any engagement with the IDF. Iz al-Din does not generally perform unpopular policing operations (such as the daily suppression of Fatah), instead focusing on preparing for battle with Israel.

The estimated size of the force is about 1,000, divided into sectors and from brigades down to companies.

? Training: Palestinian sources say Iz al-Din troops undergo rigorous military training as well as participating in ideological classes held in mosques. Hamas forces do six months of basic training that includes live-fire exercises in which they learn to fire rockets, antitank missiles and mortar shells.

They undergo urban warfare training, including exercises simulating an assault on a settlement complete with covering machine-gun fire and antitank fire prior to the assault. Some of the instructors were trained in Iran and Lebanon. In recent years dozens of Gazans have traveled to training camps run by terror organizations and Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

IDF soldiers who have fought Hamas cells in the Gaza Strip in the past two years report an impressive improvement in their discipline and in their equipment.

? Other factions: Hamas and smaller organizations, starting with Islamic Jihad, can be expected to cooperate in the event of an engagement with the IDF. Two Popular Resistance Committee factions maintain close contact with Hamas and are likely to subordinate themselves to the organization in a war with Israel.

Three military groupings identified with global jihad (that is, Al-Qaida and its offshoots), on the other hand, will not accept Hamas authority and will continue to operate independently.

? Rocket attacks: The rockets and mortar shells were initially developed as a way of bypassing the border fence, which prevented militants from entering Israel to carry out attacks. Shin Bet security service head, Yuval Diskin, told the cabinet this week that Hamas already has rockets with a range of 40 kilometers, that are capable of reaching Ashdod and the outskirts of Be'er Sheva.

These are advanced Katyusha that were smuggled into Gaza in pieces through the tunnels and assembled in Gaza. These rockets have not yet been fired at Israel but Hamas and Islamic Jihad already have dozens of 122 mm. Grad rockets with a range of about 20 km. Gaza militants recently began using another Iranian-supplied weapon, 120 mm. mortar shells with an 8-kilometer range.

Hamas has also made significant gains in manufacturing its own rockets. It has learned to create Ammonium Perchlorate Compound, an advanced rocket propellant that in addition to extending the Qassam's range beyond 20 kilometers also - and more importantly - increases the rocket's shelf life.

That means the organization can, for the first time, maintain a supply of rockets for months at a time. Analysts believe Hamas currently has over 1,000 rockets. Islamic Jihad maintains its own production and storage facilities, but both rely on Iranian experts for training. Sources in Gaza say that Hamas' "military industry" is working overtime to manufacture rockets, and that the organization can easily fire 80 rockets a day, as it did on Wednesday.

? Defense: Hamas' defensive strategy includes an extensive underground network of bunkers, tunnels and booby-trapped structures. The Palestinians have proved their explosives capabilities, having destroyed three Israeli tanks and two armored personnel carriers using high-grade explosives.

Antitank missiles are an important component of Hamas' defensive strategy, which takes on board the lessons learned by Hezbollah in the Second Lebanon War. Hamas has acquired antitank missiles from the Eastern bloc, although the exact models and capabilities are not known.

Militants can be expected to employ antitank missiles against Israel Air Force helicopters in the event of a confrontation, in the effort to delay and obstruct the entry of the IDF.

? Offensive plans: Hamas' main weapon is its ability to launch dozens of rockets a day at Israel. In the event of an escalation the organization can be expected to try to prove that it can hit more distant targets, such as Be'er Sheva. Ashkelon is liable to suffer massive rockets attacks. In addition, Hamas is likely to target one kibbutz or moshav near the border in an attempt to cause large numbers of residents to leave and weaken Israeli morale. Israel must also be prepared for a surprise from Hamas, a la Hezbollah, ranging from additional tunnels to facilitate abductions to attacks on boats or aircraft and up to attacks on strategic targets in the south.


As I recall Hamas was elected in 2006, since when Israel has unlawfully withheld tax causing the Palestininan economy (if you can call it that) collapsed, has blockaded Gaza for months, and now threatens to invade Gaza to surgically remove Hamas.

And that bastion of freedom and democracy, the USA, finances this bullshit!?

It's all a load of rollox.

Monday, December 22, 2008


The Bilderberg Washington Post has published a dreamy piece on Hanukkah by Edgar Bronfman, former President of the World Jewish Congress.

Bronfman's outrageous comment is available at

Why do I believe Bronfman's to be outrageous?

Bronfman is a multi-billionaire, yet has the cheek to write the following;

"Religious zealotry, the source of so much hatred and violence today, is the last thing Jews should encourage."

Yet the Jewish State of Israel is this very minute starving Gaza in a blockade akin to the methods employed by the Nazis to the Polish ghettos.

Bronfman could feed every man, woman and child in Gaza for a decade. Instead the children of Gaza fight with the dogs and the gulls for scraps of food on the rubbish tips. Such treatment is bound to drive Gaza into extremism and thus more violence.

So have a zealot-free heart, Edgar. Surely you can spare a few million dollars to feed Gaza at Hannukah?


There are a hell of a lot of J P Morgan, i.e. Rothschild, outfits listed on the FSA register.

So what does this mean?

It means that those J P Morgan subsidiaries and partners, including J P Morgan Chase (boo, hiss, get off!), are supposed to abide by FSA regulations.

The FSA recently published a consultation study proposing that consumers should protect themselves much better than they are currently doing. Naturally this was greeted with outrage.

I have pointed out numerous times that the FSA has several roles, two of which are to protect the consumer, and to educate the consumer.

It is clearly evident that the FSA has done neither.

J P Morgan Chase is THE pirate ship of the Bedbug World Order.

It is the result of several amalgamations of Bedbug World Order banks.

And who is now a consultant for blood money? Tony Blair (boo, hiss, get off!).

The FSA has failed miserably, and possibly deliberately, in order to create massive financial instability in preparation for world war and world government, as called for by Bilderbergers Kissinger, Blair, Brown, Rachman, etc, etc, etc.

Saturday, December 20, 2008


From the manufacturers of Ken and Barbie, new miniature dolls of your favourite Bilderbergers;
Tony Blair
Gordon Brown
Henry Kissinger
David Rockefeller
Gideon Rachman
Martin Wolf
Eric Roll
Etienne Davignon

and many, many more.

Create and re-live your very own Bilderberg meeting in your living room.

Write your very own invitations.

There are even secret service dolls to create your very own protection outfit.

Each doll can make several unique comments.

The David Rockefeller doll can say, “I want to rule the world. Read my memoirs.”.

And when you move the left wrist of a secret service doll close to its mouth it says, “That Alex Jones needs taking out.”.

The fun and intrigue will never stop when you buy the new Bilderberg dolls.

Now available in all good toy stores.

(Exclusive 5 star holiday resort hotel sold separately)


We don't need empty apologies.

We need walks of shame, followed by trials for massive fraud and corruption, and plenty of long custodial sentences.

Then we, the ordinary British taxpayer, can take control of our money supply and create as much of it as we need in order to kick start our economy and build ourselves a country we can be proud of.


Dear Santa

I want lots and lots of shoes.


That absurd and ridiculous BBC Teletubbies looks more and more like real life every day.

You see, there are no derivatives in Teletubbyland.

There’s never any gang violence.

No drugs.

No suicides on TV.

No engineered world wars or engineered crises to lead to a tyrannical world government.

Not in Teletubbyland.

In Teletubbyland the sun always shines.

Everyone is happy.

Everyone has a home but nobody does any real work, like mining.

The rabbits nibble away at the grass.

Tinky Winky parades his red handbag with pride.

And everyone has some sort of telecommunication device, i.e. microchip, implanted into their bodies.

Mummy, what’s a derivative?

Friday, December 19, 2008


He's a globalist!

I have just read Peston's The New Capitalism available on the BBC at

Peston attempts to pin the blame for the current credit crisis on the West using Chinese savings to inflate a credit bubble for us to buy nice homes and cars and everything else nice.

However, he does not use the D word; DERIVATIVE.

Basically Peston softens the real cause of the crisis by not using the D word, possibly because he is under a D notice not to use the D word.

Derivatives is a form of gambling, except on a much larger scale, in the quadrillions!

Not trillions, but quadrillions! The next scale up.

Get it?

Instead of financing industry, trade and commerce with credit to create a stable and growing economy, the banks quickly inflated a credit bubble with ever increasing mortgages and gambled the resulting debt instruments away in derivatives on the scale of QUADRILLIONS of pounds sterling in order to make a quick buck. Why Peston does not mention this raises suspicions.

But then Peston repays his employers by suggesting that, like our Bilderberger PM Gordon Brown does, we require a global(ist) solution, a breaking down of national sovereignty, so an international regulatory body can interfere with and direct every nation's finances. The IMF sort of does this now, but obviously not enough.

Even Peston recognises that the main nations that caused this crisis are the UK and the USA. So why should the whole world submit to yet another international regulatory body just because the major banks of just two nations gambled away their credit facilities and created a global credit crisis knowing that their Bilderberg-controlled governments would bail them out with trillions of taxpayers money?

Anyway, here is how Peston ends his piece, with pure, unadulterated globalist bullshit;
If the unfettered movement of capital, goods and services is going to survive, if there’s not going to be a retreat into national fortresses that could impoverish all of us over the longer term, we’ll have to find a far better way of monitoring global risks and of bringing governments together to deal with these risks.

Some may see this as a threat to national sovereignty, as the thin end of an anti-democratic wedge that’ll see the world ruled by unaccountable bureaucrats. Reconciling our political traditions with the imperative of making safe the globalised world will be a challenge, to put it mildly. But it’s not a challenge we can shirk.

Thursday, December 18, 2008


Cheney in the dock.
Cheney in the dock.
Let's go, Cheney!
Sing! Sing! Cheney!
Cheney in the dock.

I wish April Gallop the very very best in her prosecution of warmongers and torturers Cheney and Rumsfeld, the first of many prosecutions for murder and fraud of members of the CFR, Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission.



A career Army officer who was injured in the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 is suing Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for failing to issue a warning that American Airlines Flight 77 was about to hit the building despite receiving knowledge of its approach some 20 minutes in advance.

Retired Army officer April Gallop, a ranking specialist with top secret clearance who began working at the Pentagon in 2000, has also filed suit against US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11.

Gallop was knocked unconscious when the roof collapsed in her office and her 2-month-old baby sustained a serious brain injury after suffering the consequences of what Gallop describes as "two explosions". Gallop does not believe that a Boeing 757 struck the building on 9/11. The lawsuit charges that the attack was "engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile," citing the lack of plane debris witnessed after the attack, along with evidence from the "black box" discovered at the scene, which indicated that the plane passed low over the building immediately before the fireball was observed, as well as the complete failure of ground and air defenses which protect the Pentagon.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008


David Cameron's Day of Reckoning speech, which has irked the Financial Times so much, sounds quite a powerful call to get the bankers in the dock.

He is absolutely correct that
1. our regulatory system was ineffectual.
2. as with 7/7, we need to know what happened so it does not happen again.
3. if people have done wrong they should be punished.

It is plain common sense.

So why is it not happening?

Why is the FT so against the pretender to the throne?

Millions of people will be thrown onto the dole queue next year. Why? Because the banks abused their position of creating money for a stable economy and instead gambled all the money they could create on "earning" a quick buck from derivatives.

Now to me that is an obvious violation of Section 4 of The Fraud Act 2006.

And that's why the FT is so riled by Cameron.

Sending bankers to jail is the only way they will learn they cannot and will not screw the ordinary British public again!



David Cameron: A day of reckoning
David Cameron MP, Monday, December 15 2008

When the financial crisis happened, I made it clear that the Conservative Party was ready to put aside party differences to help bring stability.

That's why we supported the recapitalisation of our banks.

I also said that we would not suspend our critical faculties over this Government's calamitous economic policy decisions - decisions that helped not only cause this crisis by encouraging government and personal debt to spiral out of control but could also make the recession deeper and last longer.

That's why we have set out a positive alternative, starting with immediate action to tackle the credit problems at the heart of the issue.

So, because the recapitalisation is failing, we've proposed a National Loan Guarantee Scheme to underwrite loans to businesses. The Government could and should take that action now, today. Every day it delays, the Government is making the recession longer and deeper.

We have also put forward a range of other measures that would help right away - including helping small businesses with their cash-flow by letting them defer their VAT bills. In the long term, we would take action to reduce debt - controlling future spending, making government live within its means and getting taxes down for good.

I am in no doubt that the greatest responsibility for this economic crisis lies with the Government. It is first and foremost a debt crisis and it was the Government that borrowed too much itself, and the Government that set the regulatory framework allowing others to borrow too much.

But this debt crisis is not just about the Government. Labour's economic policy mistakes were compounded by the irresponsible behaviour of individuals working in our financial services industry.
As I have argued many times, corporate responsibility and personal responsibility are essential components of my vision of greater social responsibility.

The financial services industry is a great industry and I want to do all I can to make sure the City of London recovers from the crisis and leads the world again. But that won't happen unless the world has confidence in the City. So because I want the City to succeed. Because of my belief in social responsibility. And, vitally, because part of our response to this crisis should be to stop the same thing happening again today I want to talk about the promise I made at our party conference in Birmingham a few months ago.

I said then that there should be a day of reckoning for those whose behaviour helped to bring about the financial crisis. A day when we would not flinch from spelling out the rightful consequences of irresponsible behaviour.

In part, this is a question of fairness. In the good times, some people working in the financial services industry paid themselves vast financial rewards - salaries and bonuses beyond the comprehension of most of us.

Now when it's all gone wrong, they have been bailed out by the taxpayer. Nurses and cleaners and teachers and many millions of others, working in every part of our economy they will foot this multi-billion pound bill.

Well: on behalf of the taxpayer, on behalf of the nurse on £20,000 a year, on behalf of the cleaner on the minimum wage, on behalf of working families worrying this Christmas like never before about what next year will bring I say it is fair and reasonable that those responsible are held to account for their behaviour and that we show clearly that in this country, there is not one rule for the rich and a different rule for everybody else.

Fairness also means understanding that the whole financial services industry has had its name blackened - and wrongly. Over a million people work in this industry, most of whom are honest and hard working. It's in their interests too that we make sure we root out any wrongdoing that may have happened, whoever is involved, however high or well-connected they may be.

That's what's happening in America. At the beginning of 2008 the chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission warned: "Any hedge fund or other large investor who thinks they'll get away with dishonest and unfair dealing in our markets will face the concentrated resources of a relentless SEC."

In October, members of Congress came together, across party lines, to demand from Attorney General Michael Mukasey that those responsible for financial wrongdoing are brought to book. So the SEC, the FBI and district prosecutors are right now actively investigating large financial institutions with a view to bringing about civil and even criminal actions.

No stone is being left unturned. The FBI has allocated 177 agents to this and has launched as many as 1,500 "mortgage related" investigations. The SEC has more than fifty pending subprime probes. No company has been immune. Washington Mutual, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG - some of the biggest names in America's financial industry are being investigated. And four executives, from Bear Stearns and Credit Suisse, have already been charged with fraud for misleading investors.

American investigations are focusing on three different types of fraudulent activity. Mortgage fraud - which typically involves misrepresentation or deceit to fund, purchase or insure a mortgage loan. Insider trading - where individuals have sold shares on the basis of inside information. And misinformation - the failure to disclose the value of mortgage-related securities and other investments.

In the home of capitalism, a sense of fair play is dramatically in evidence. Why aren't we doing the same in Britain?

Doctors who behave irresponsibly get struck off. Bankers who behave irresponsibly should face professional consequences. And, for sure, if anyone is found to have behaved criminally they must be prosecuted. Of course, this requires clear evidence of wrongdoing. But that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and say it's all a failure of regulation. Are the Government seriously saying that nothing untoward could have happened over here? How can anyone believe that in the worst financial crisis of our lifetime no proper and thorough investigation needs to happen? After all, we know the same things went on here as in America.

We know there is mortgage fraud. In March the Association of Chief Police Officers estimated that it resulted in annual losses of £700 million.

We know there is evidence of possible insider trading in the UK markets. The FSA have found evidence of "informed price movements" - which indicate possible market abuse - before nearly one-third of takeover announcements last year.

And we know companies invested in securities they didn't understand. Last month, leading QC Amanda Pinto said: "There are many cases of misconduct that the FSA has pursued as regulatory breaches where the evidence suggests that these offences are both substantial and criminal, such as fraud and misleading conduct. These cases could be prosecuted in the criminal courts, yet the FSA chooses to deal with them as if they were simply regulatory infringements."

So to send out the right message about our country's values to help stop this crisis from happening again and to help restore the City of London's reputation I believe it is now vital that investigations are vigorously pursued to their appropriate conclusion. And the fact that the Prime Minister has not been urging our authorities to pursue financial wrongdoing like in America is in my view, a failure of moral leadership.

I do not want this party to duck the issue. In 1980, it was the Conservative Government that made insider trading illegal. It was this party that first called on wealthy non-domiciles to pay their fair share in tax. And over the past few years it is this party that has consistently argued for greater corporate responsibility.

For me, responsibility is the most important value at the heart of Conservatism. But responsibility must be promoted, policed and enforced. That means clear rules of behaviour and the right incentives to create a culture of responsibility. It means effective policing of these rules. And it means that when the rules are broken, you must punish people - not just because it is right, but to help deter others.

That's what I have consistently argued for in our fight against crime and anti-social behaviour. I don't see why financial crime should be any different. We should treat the richest people in our society the same as everyone else.

So how should we go about promoting, policing and enforcing responsibility in the financial services industry?

The first step is to establish clear rules of behaviour and introduce the right incentives to create a culture of responsibility. We need real and substantial change here. In the past, losses were disguised, debts kept off balance sheet and loans offered to those who couldn't afford them.

To change this, government must introduce the right rules and frameworks. That's why I have asked Sir James Sassoon to undertake a comprehensive review of the tripartite regulatory structure. And that's why we will introduce a new Debt Responsibility Mechanism, plugging the hole left by Gordon Brown's disastrous decision of a decade ago to leave the overall level of debt in the economy completely unsupervised.

We will instruct the Bank of England to write regularly to the FSA, setting out its concerns about the sustainability of the level of debt in the economy. The FSA will then be obliged to take that view into account when setting the amount of capital individual banks must hold. If this had been in place over the last ten years our banks would not have become so fragile - and taxpayers' money would not have been needed to recapitalise them.

But creating the right culture of responsibility isn't just about more rules - it's also about creating the right incentives. For the past decade, the incentives have been distorted. The bonus culture encouraged short-term risk-taking instead of rewarding the long-term interests of shareholders and the public. Many bonuses were also calculated using return on equity rather than return on overall assets.

This created a massive incentive to borrow - by financing with debt rather than equity bankers could increase their returns on a small equity base and therefore increase their bonus. That's why at our Party Conference this year we set out proposals on reforming bonus structures, so the FSA has the power to make institutions that use massive bonuses to promote short-term and reckless gambles hold more capital to offset their higher risks. This would create strong incentives for managers and shareholders to design more responsible pay structures. And it should enable our institutional framework to help control excessively risky lending and dampen any future debt-fuelled asset price booms.

The second step in enforcing responsibility in the financial services is to give the principal policing agent - the FSA - the teeth to do its job properly. Despite their business models being completely unsustainable, the FSA appeared to stand by as Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley ran themselves into the ground. Of course, bankers devised such new and complex financial instruments that not even they - let alone anyone else - really knew what was going on.

I welcome the FSA's own internal review and the determination of its leadership to learn the lessons. But what about this Government? Gordon Brown now says he's " the behaviour of banks because we did not know what was actually happening behind the scenes." But he's the one who set up the FSA in the first place - what changes is he going to make?

Because surely, the main change has got to be this. The FSA needs the best possible staff at its disposal so it can keep up with the brightest minds in our financial services. So it's only right - and fair - that, as we have proposed, these FSA employees are paid for by an increased levy on the City. And we should also introduce a system similar to the Shareholder Executive, so that banks send their best people to the FSA on secondment.

The third and perhaps most important step we must take in enforcing responsibility in the City is to make sure that when rules are broken, and culprits are found, they are properly punished. That's only fair - because those responsible must be held to account. And it's only sensible - because we will never stop this from happening again if we send out a signal that you can take risks, bring banks down, be bailed out by the taxpayer and nothing much will happen.

Justice is only effective when it is seen to be done. For the thug locked up for mugging people on the streets. To the highest executive in the biggest firm who's been swindling the books.

Around the world, bankers sat up and took notice not when global finance ministers issued some new communiqué on unauthorized speculative trading - it was when Nick Leeson was caught and put behind bars. And corporate America really understood the consequences of dodgy accounting not just when Enron collapsed - but when Jeffrey Skilling was given a twenty-four year jail sentence.

The problem in Britain today is that there just doesn't seem to be the will to see appropriate justice done at the highest level. Not from the Government. And not much will evident in the FSA either. Despite the fact that the FSA itself admits: "that the prospect of criminal proceedings acts as a significantly greater deterrent to those contemplating misconduct than does a fine of almost any size" it still prefers fines and mediation to the full application of the law.

I welcome the recent comments by Jamie Symington of the FSA that they would "bring more criminal prosecutions in the future". But the truth remains that in the last twelve months, they have only brought four cases to trial. And only one of these has any connection to the current crisis - a mortgage advisor who lied and submitted forged documents in his application to become an FSA approved person.

The other three all involved incidences of insider dealing that occurred before the debt crisis. This is not, at root, about more legislation.The laws are already there. Rather, it's about implementation and law enforcement.

Of course, the Serious Fraud Office has an important part to play too. But its effectiveness was called into question earlier this year in a review conducted by American prosecutor Jessica de Grazia. This has to change. The FSA and the SFO should be following up every lead, investigating every suspect transaction. And the government should be urging them on, because we need to make it one hundred percent clear: those who break the law should face prosecution.

I have consistently made it clear that I will not pull my punches when it comes to holding this Government to account for their colossal failures in economic policy. But neither will I rein back from holding to account others who bear responsibility for our current economic difficulties.

We all know there was poor decision-making and some reckless activity in the City of London. But we do not know if there was wrong-doing and the nature of any wrong-doing, because we haven't examined the issue thoroughly in the way the Americans are doing.

The US response has been clear. To root out any wrongdoing, and punish it proportionately. Our response has not been so clear. There seems to be neither the will - nor the means - to bring those who may be responsible for wrongdoing to account, despite the fact that it is scarcely plausible that the things that happened in America did not happen here.

I believe that's wrong. If we're going to build a strong and fair society, individuals must carry the consequences of their own actions - regardless of who they are, where they come from, and what their background is. There cannot be one law for the rich and another for everyone else.

And our economy cannot prosper if neither the public nor investors have confidence in its integrity and honesty. That's why when I see young families and old pensioners, nurses and teachers, entreprenuers and factory workers who have not only been confused by this debt crisis but scared stiff about what it means for their homes, jobs and livelihoods, when I see working people paying through their taxes to bail out a banking industry which has imploded under the weight of its own irresponsibility, I believe we owe it to them to investigate thoroughly what exactly happened in this financial crisis, and to do all we can to stop it happening again.

Through new rules and incentives to create a new culture of responsibility. Through making sure these rules are enforced by regulators that not only have the power, but the will, to do the job. And through making sure that where any wrongdoing may have taken place, it is found and appropriately punished. That is a vital part of creating the conditions for the long-term prosperity we all want to see."


Today's editorial in the FT is an attack on David Cameron. Cameron yesterday called for a serious investigation of the City. And by that he also meant the regulatory system including the FSA, Treasury and the Bank of England. And by that he also meant sending bankers to jail!

So why is the FT so upset?

Bankers are not immune from prosecution.

Bankers can and should go to jail.

So I say, well said Mr Cameron. You may have destroyed your chances of becoming PM if Osborne's presence at Bilderberg is anything to go by, but it needed to be said.

And look at the response from the FT!



Day of reckoning

Published: December 16 2008 19:26 | Last updated: December 16 2008 19:26

In times of crisis, governments can act while opposition parties can only talk. Frustrating though this is, it makes it even more important that they choose their words well. The speech this week by David Cameron, leader of the UK’s Conservative party, sounded more like grandstanding than a genuine effort to explain how to revive confidence in financial services.

Mr Cameron’s call for a bankers’ “day of reckoning” after the credit crunch overshadowed the more reasonable elements of his remarks, as – presumably – it was meant to do. The Tory leader made some valid points about the need for a national loan guarantee scheme and for a banking bonus culture that does not distort incentives towards excessive risk-taking. He was also right to point out that the Financial Services Authority has brought few cases to trial in the past year.

Yet berating the FSA for not behaving as though it operated in the US is too shallow a critique. While UK authorities can sometimes be accused of lacking zeal in their pursuit of white-collar financial crime, it is no good pretending that Britain can import the whole US legal system into the City. Arguments about plea bargaining alone are a strong reminder of deep-rooted transatlantic differences.

Mr Cameron’s speech has deeper flaws too. He has certainly tapped into a vein of public ire against bankers. In doing so, he has raised expectations of a time when those responsible for the near-collapse of the banking system will be held to account. But we are not about to stage a parade of bank executives being marched in handcuffs around the City. And when those who feel most angry about the impact of the credit crunch recognise this, they will be even more enraged.

Against a background of headlines about an alleged $50bn fraud, it is unhelpful for the Tory leader’s speech to conflate poor decisions and possible criminal behaviour. There is a clear distinction, which his speech failed to recognise consistently. Those who may have broken the law should face proceedings. But this is a world away from fuelling the populist mood that favours jail for all bankers involved in bad decision-making.

So Mr Cameron’s speech was a missed opportunity. We have moved beyond needing to have the age of irresponsibility drawn to our attention. Instead, what we need are some thoughtful and constructive words giving a clearer and fuller picture of what an incoming Tory government would do to revive the financial services industry and the broader economy. We are still ­waiting.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Tuesday, December 16, 2008




Sing, sing, sing.


Yes, M'Lord.

M'Lord, I call Gideon Rachman.

[Rachman takes the stand, and swears on the holy bible that he will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth]

Mr Rachman, you recently wrote an article on your Financial Times blog calling for world government. The associate editor of the Financial Times, Martin Wolf CBE (awarded for services to financial journalism), has allowed you to publish that article. You began that article with some form of sarcasm regarding scepticism of conspiracy theories regarding world government, such as black helicopters. Yet you, along with Wolf, are a member of a very exclusive group of people called Bilderberg, whose aim is world government. We know this because one of the main powers of Bilderberg, David Rockefeller, has publicly stated in his memoirs his desire to control the world. You attended Bilderberg meetings in 2003 and 2004, did you not? David Rockefeller also attended both of those meetings. Could you tell the jury what Wolf said to you regarding the aforementioned article on your blog, what you said at those two Bilderberg meetings and also what David Rockefeller said during those two Bilderberg meetings?


The above is one of many potential encounters with Bilderbergers in the dock, under oath, singing about what was said at Bilderberg and the goal of world government controlled by a cabal of Moloch-worshipping, warmongering megalomaniacs.


Niall Ferguson almost revealed the scam last night in part 5 of The Ascent of Money.

He referred to Ronald Reagan signing a law that allowed the banks to lend out much more money than they had on deposit.

And that was it. A small component of one sentence, mentioned in passing, a sentence that was really about mortgages.

If the Federal Reserve, who owns it, how it was created by manipulation, and how it had financed all the misery and concentration of power into the hands of a small number of "things" is not mentioned next week then what can we deduce about Ferguson?


This Madoff geezer is really being hit for six.

When the multi-trillion dollar and pound bailouts were being announced a few months ago we weren't told what had happened exactly, how the regulators and the governments got it so wrong. The only thing we were told was that it was nothing to worry about, everything is OK, the banks have somehow run out of money and they need us to lend trillions to them so that they can lend it back to us to continue their lives of luxury while kicking taxpayers and their young families out of their homes.

It is a totally different story with this Madoff geezer.

We know every little detail of his scam, and his every victim (which includes some very interesting names).

The headlines scream that the banks have been a victim of Madoff, so therefore we should feel sorry for the banks for falling victim to a cruel and heartless fraudster who defrauded a few billions from the banks which has obviously led to the multi-trillion dollar bailout.

We're not fik.

We know how and why the banks and the regulators got us into this mess.

We've heard Brown and his ilk call for world government, global solutions to global (engineered) problems.

We see the growing (engineered) tensions between the nuclear-armed powers.

A global credt crisis will destabilise the whole world. Throw in a few small wars and terrorist attacks and the chance of a third and final world war increases.

But everything has failed.

A big red F.

Monday, December 15, 2008


The Serious Fraud Office has asked employees in The City to expose any wrongdoing by their employers. There is no need for those employees to risk being sacked. The City does wrong by simply existing.

It financed the expansion of the Brutish Empire, with all its degrading and nauseating slavery and brutal imperialism.

It then financed the expansion of the US Empire by creating The Federal Reserve, with similar but not as horrific consequences.

The City of London is an ugly puss-filled boil that needs treating, not with respect and awe but with total disdain and clinical professionalism.

Or to put it simply; The City is a shitty fraud.


Fraud investigators today called on City employees and shareholders to “whistleblow” and come forward with evidence of corporate wrongdoing in the wake of the credit crunch.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) — which has written to leading accounts and legal firms — wants workers, former staff and shareholders to step up with information over suspected fraud in the current financial turmoil.

Saturday, December 13, 2008


Dear Santa

what I want for Christmas is a flak jacket or some form of body armour to protect me from the killers of Jean Charles de Menezes who are to be unleashed onto the streets of the United Kingdom to kill, kill and kill again, and then lie, lie and lie again. As you know the killers of Jean Charles have been very, very bad men and women and I hope you will not be taking them any more presents any more.

Friday, December 12, 2008


If the jury in the inquest into the (UNLAWFUL) death of Jean Charles de Menezes reached a unanimous open verdict then that means Charles was unlawfully killed.

Just you wait until those (non-lethal?) Tasers are brought in en masse. The courts are going to be overwhelmed by inquests into many, many more suspected unlawful killings.

And a verdict of unlawful killing will not be banned from all of them.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008


Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money has been of some interest, but what I find interesting is that after four hours of the history of money I have yet to hear the following;
1. most of our money does not exist
2. that is because we have allowed a bunch of Moloch-worshipping warmongering megalomaniacs the power to create money out of nothing
3. the Federal Reserve is not Federal and has no reserves
4. without the Federal Reserve we would have had no world wars resulting in world government.

I would say that Ferguson has been an apologist for the work-shy freeloading Rothschilds and their ilk.


Sky will tonight show a man killing himself.

Sky was created by Bilderberger and CFR member Rupert Murdoch.

The Chairman of Sky is now Murdoch's son, James.

They want mercy killing.

They want death.

Kill yourself for Murdoch...NOW!

Kill yourself to save the planet.

You are life unworthy of life.

You are untermenschen.

They could very easily finance research into cures for all sorts of illness, but instead finance world wars and gambling in derivatives.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008


The FT has published a comment by Gideon Rachman in which Rachman proposes a world government is probably required and probably do-able.

The three reasons that provoke Rachman's call for WG are;
1. global warming,
2. a global financial crisis.
3. a "global war on terror".

We know, not suspect, know with 110% certainty, that all three of these "reasons" are manufactured by a group of "people" that our foolish and naive (to be very, very kind to them) Members of Parliament have given the god-like power to create virtually unlimited quantities of money out of nothing while we work our arses off just to survive. This group of beneficiaries of the benevolence of our corrupt House of Commons is called the Bedbug World Order.

Rachman has attended Bilderberg, the Bedbug World Order's annual meeting, at least THREE times.

Rachman has never commented on his attendance at these meetings of the greatest traitors to the human race, or on what was said at those meetings.

Yet he can publish calls for world government, the publicly stated aim of the Moloch-worshipping warmngering megalomaniacs, in a very influential newspaper without any trouble at all?!

Why was Rachman invited to Bilderberg?

Why has he never spoken of Bilderberg?

Why now, when the three reasons he listed are at the fore of most people's minds, does he publish a call for world government?

Rachman has a 1st class degree in History from Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge University, a piece of paper I wouldn't consider wiping my arse with after a spicy curry.

He has a blog at the FT;

There are already comments to the effect of "shove your world government up your Moloch-worshipping warmongering kiddi-fiddling arses!!"


I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A "world government" would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a "global war on terror".

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: "For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible." Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But - the third point - a change in the political atmosphere suggests that "global governance" could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America's president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration's disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope , he argued that: "When the world's sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following." The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America's ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama's transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America's talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, "responsible sovereignty" - when calling for international co-operation - rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, "shared sovereignty". It also talks about "global governance" rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: "Global governance is just a euphemism for global government." As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the "core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law".

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for "global governance" in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who - while they might like to talk about "a planet in peril" - are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this "problem" also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU - the heartland of law-based international government - the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for "ever closer union" have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians - and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world's most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen's political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Sunday, December 07, 2008


On the last New Year I suggested it was up to us.

If we wanted war we would have it.

Plan A, war on Iran, has been stopped.

They tried with Plan B with the tie-muncher in Georgia...and failed.

They're still trying, currently with Plan C in India, but I think the people that matter both in Pakistan and India know who is orchestrating the deliberate that too will fail.

Is there a Plan D?

If there is I doubt it is well planned and of little consequence, as it would be the fourth plan to be executed in an act of desperation.


In the Rumble in the Jungle, Muhammad Ali took a good beating from George Foreman, with Ali acting as a punch bag for Foreman, before Ali struck quickly and decisively in round 8. All it took was planning, patience, and one good strong punch to send the brutal and awesome Foreman onto the canvas.


They're not new. They're dying, decaying, rotting.

They are also bedbugs, feasting on you while you are mentally asleep, stupified with crap TV, ridiculous fiction and virtual reality games, probably violent.

So no more New.

New implies fresh, young, strong, ready for a fight.

They are none of these.

They are the decaying bedbug world order.

Thursday, December 04, 2008


The police lied, right from the very first minute they blew him away all the way to and in court in front of a jury.

They lied to the jury.

If they lied to the jury they lied to us.

They killed Jean Charles de Menezes.


He had not been identified.

He looked nothing like the suspect he was supposed to be.

He was not wearing a bulky jacket, as we were told the day he was blown away.

He did not vault the barriers, as we were told the day he was blown away.

The police did not issue warnings, as we were told the day he was blown away.

They just went up to him in silence and blew him away...UNLAWFULLY.

It doesn't matter if for now the blame cannot be pinned on just one person.


I'm right.

The coroner is wrong.

Get over it.



And as for that "it's OK for the police to lie in court to a jury..."?!

It's OK for the police to unlawfully kill anyone?

They'll soon be shooting you up just because you're NOT committing a crime...and they'll lie in court and everything will be OK. That's the direction in which this police state is going.

It's OK. They're protecting you from the terrorists they crea... BANG! BANG!

Monday, December 01, 2008


Not long to go now before the tie-munching murderer of children in their beds is kicked out of office. How can he admit to starting a senseless war, and lose that war, and stay in power?

In a normal democracy he wouldn't.

But Georgia isn't a normal democracy. It's got the fingerprints of George Soros and Lord Malloch-Brown all over it.


Hector Sants, CEO of the FSA, has today admitted to being a lot more than naive.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Sants said
"We are acknowledging that we could have challenged those business models more before they went into the downturn."

I think he was referring only to the collapse of Northern Rock. But what happened to Northern Rock has subsequently happened to other banks. So it is not just the collapse of Northern Rock but the collapse as a whole that Sants is guilty of.

Sants has been a Director at the FSA for over four and a half years. The current Chairman Lord Adair Turner has only been in that post and at the FSA for a few months, and can be absolved of any blame. Sants, on the other hand, came to the FSA directly from one of the prime gamblers who caused the credit crunch, Credit Suisse First Boston, in May 2004, where he was CEO of CSFB in Europe, Middle East and Africa, which is a very powerful position and exposed him to some of the deepest, darkest practices of a large international bank. With such experience he should have had a hunch about what was going on and seen what was coming.

While I’m on the subject of the corrupt and incompetent FSA, the Fraud Act 2006 can be used to reinforce the use of the FSMA 2000 against the banks and the FSA. The Fraud Act 2006 Section 3 states

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

As you should now know, the FSA with the collusion of the banks are withholding very important from you which has not been given an exemption and that information gives the banks several very significant advantages contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008


The law.

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

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

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

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

But deep down they know it's all bullshit.

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

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

But it's not.

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

We are supposed to live by the law.

But so too are they.

Learning how to use the law against them is crucial.

And it's dead easy. Honest.

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

And it can be done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's dead easy. Honest.


(or how to get Bilderberg in the dock).

Section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 states;

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

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

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



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

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

Tuesday, November 25, 2008




They are wide open to many violations of this act!

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

And how about this one; ABUSE OF POSITION!

Section 4: Fraud by abuse of position

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

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

Is that fraud?

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


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

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

See your share price plunge.

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

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

It's dead easy.

That's what Citigroup did.

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

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

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


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

Not change, but continuity.

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


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

Every one be happy.

Come on.

Blow your blowout.

Clap your hands.

It's time to part-ee!

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

There is something seriously, seriously wrong with this world.

Monday, November 24, 2008


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

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

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

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

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

And "a deadly virus" would do it.

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

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

Sunday, November 23, 2008


Or simple harmonic motion?

Or momentum and collision in vector form?

There is no law.

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

This is not part of the GCSE Economics syllabus.

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

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

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

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

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

The FSA is a complete corrupt failure.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, November 22, 2008


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

My suggestion is this;

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

I would argue undoubtedly yes.

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

But it is definitely unjust.

And it is definitely enrichment.

Most queries are coming from New York and London.


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

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

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



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

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

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