Monday, April 28, 2008


It has now been well over a month, and is fast approaching two months, since my initial inquiries to H M Treasury about the implications of a particular law.

They are supposed to reply within 15 days.

I have still not received any reply.


Is someone blocking the inquiry?

Is someone afraid of the consequences of confirming my suspicions, which would result in all UK loan and mortgage contracts being anulled?

Is someone wanting me to try my argument in court without the correct answer, knowing my argument would fail and I would then be liable to defence costs?

Monday, April 21, 2008


If we 'lend' the banks £50 billion, can they lend out, through the magic of fractional reserve banking, £500 billion?

Do we borrow from banks for public sector finance, when we can create £50 billion to 'lend' to banks so they can lend that to the general public?

If either of these is true, this country, and in particular Members of Parliament, have totally lost the plot.


At least, repeat, at least £50 billion will be 'loaned' by us via The Bank of England to the greedy, parasitic banks to help them to get themselves out of the mess they put themselves and us in.

The Bank of England should have seen this coming anyway because one of its roles is market awareness and gathering market intelligence, so not all blame lies with the FSA.

The BBC described the bonds as 'almost equivalent to cash' this morning.

We have recently bought our own bank, Northern Rock, only to be told by the likes of Anatole Koletsky at The Times that we should not use the powers we have as bank owners, act as a normal high street bank such HSBC, create 'new money' and lend it to ordinary members of the public to put a roof over their heads. Oh no. That power is reserved for a select few people who want to stamp their boots on our faces forever. Hence many customers of Northen Rock are now being 'encouraged' to take their mortgages elsewhere, and new mortgages will be much harder to arrange with them. But where will those ex-NR go for their mortgages?

The banks are currently crying they can't lend any more non-existent money. So where can they get it to absorb the ex-NR customers, and others?

Now that the banks have no money to lend, they now want us via the Bank of England to create 'new money' (a power we can't use at NR) to lend to them in exchange for junk mortgages so that they can lend that 'new money' to ex-NR customers and us in general to make a profit for themselves and have many more people in debt slavery to them!!!

So in case you haven't understood the situation;
1. as owners of NR we can't create 'new money' to lend to ourselves.
2. but we can create 'new money' in government bonds, and lend that to the other high street banks for them to make a profit and enslave more of us, and in return we get a load of their junk mortgages.


This country has totally lost the plot.

Is there a law that forbids the government creating 'new money' and lending that directly to the very people who voted it into power?

Sunday, April 20, 2008


So Putin has divorced his wife and ditched her for a younger, more flexible model?

Or was it a psy-op in the "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster" category?

I think the fact it was the warmongering Daily Telegraph who first published the story here gives the game away.

I tried to find some info on Moskovski Korrespondent. No website. No nothing. I guess it was a small, gossipmongering publication, pouncing on some (dis)info. Whether the party-planner was real or not, or the (dis)info? I dunno.

But some people over here, and across Europe too, sure pounced on the gossip real quick...a bit too quick.

As if the President of Russia could divorce his wife without anyone knowing?

And that his alleged new bride wouldn't tell her father she was about to marry Putin?

A disinformation psychological operation, that has backfired big-time.


Films are shown on TV.

Before they are shown on TV those films are released into cinemas.

Have you noticed a trend in films recently?

Torture-porn it's called.

Imagine one of those being shown after the Queen's speech on Christmas day?

I doubt that will happen, but such films will be trasmitted into your house after a certain time period, and after a certain time of the day, e.g. 9pm

I wonder what the mass psychological effect of that will be?

And if it was planned? (hint; of course it was! it is designed to turn us, or rather your children, into the satanist thugs of the world.)


That is the implication in an article by David Litchfield in The Mail on Sunday today, entitled "Flaming sambucas and a lapdancer called Gigi: What REALLY happened on Wills and Harry's 72-hour stag party for Peter Phillips", which contains the following;

"The mystery guests arrived last Friday week with their own mini-bar in the form of magnums of the eye-wateringly fashionable Snow Leopard vodka, single malt whisky and grand cru wines.

Presumably, apart from the Princes, that was why they needed William's RAF Chinook – their precious cargo being far too valuable for the vagaries of a public ferry.

...The Princes undoubtedly endeared themselves to Cowes despite doing little more than promoting binge drinking, much of the fuel for which they appeared to have brought from the mainland. Presumably because they had a means of procurement, which avoided payment.

The least they could have done was to pay the going rate for a chartered Chinook, six police minders at weekend rates and two Range Rovers plus fuel.

Sometimes it is difficult to see much that qualifies the Princes as members of the Royal Family. They certainly spent most of their stay behaving more like rich squaddies than the Queen's military officers. "

What is worse; using a RAF Chinook to transport booze for a stag party, or using your girlfriend's back garden for training in how to land a Chinook?

Saturday, April 19, 2008


We've just bought our own bank, Northern Rock, and been told (by the banks, the media and the EU) that we can't use it as a bank for the public, creating our own money and lending it to hard-working members of the public.

We've issued even more billions to the banks who were supposed to use that to lend out to hard-working members of the public, but they didn't. (what has it been used for instead?)

And now the Bank of England, OUR BANK, decides to tell us on a Saturday that it is going to issue £50 billion in bonds to the parasites!

What is the difference between a pound and a bond?

I'll let Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, tell you;



In December 1921, the American industrialist Henry Ford and the inventor Thomas Edison visited the Muscle Shoals nitrate and water power projects near Florence, Alabama. They used the opportunity to articulate at length upon their alternative money theories, which were published in 2 reports which appeared in The New York Times on December 4, 1921 and December 6, 1921.

Objecting to the fact that the Government planned, as usual, to raise the money by issuing bonds which would be bought by the banking and non-banking sector -- which would then have to be paid back with money raised from taxes, and with interest added -- they proposed instead that the Government simply create the currency it required and spend it into society through this public project.

This is also the Prosperity proposal.

Thomas Edison made it plain in the following excerpt from The New York Times, December 6, 1921 issue ("Ford Sees Wealth In Muscle Shoals"). Here, the reporter is quoting Edison:

"That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

"Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 -- that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

"But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

" ... if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt.

"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.

"Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interest-bearing bonds?"


Any bond the Bank of England creates is essentially money, because the people know it is sound. The banks know it is sound otherwise they wouldn't accept them. So by creating the bond the government will have created money.

So why do we continue to borrow money from the parasites when we can create our own money, and have no need to repay with interest, and be told we can't do this, that and the other but we must do this, that and the other otherwise we won't get to borrow the money in the first place?

Because our politicians are corrupt.

But this is corruption on a global scale.

Yes, we've known that for a long time, but what is at stake here is the that we are continually empowering the very people who sent our fathers and grandfathers into world war so that global governing institutions could be created to control us, their children and grandchildren.

So why should we save the banks?

We shouldn't.

They've shown themselves to be deceitful, selfish, arrogant, greedy and eager to finance genocidal world wars.

I urge you to write to the Governor of the Bank of England and tell him that as a public employee he is failing in his duty if he issues those £50 billion bonds to the banks.

I have no problem if he issues the £50 billion in bonds and spends them himself or by appointed proxies into the economy, possibly creating a new bank to distribute that money among the hard-working members of the public to keep a roof over their families heads.



The Bank of England is preparing to unveil a plan to inject £50bn of funds into the financial system next week in an attempt to breathe life into the moribund mortgage market, it was reported last night.

The scheme, which the Bank of England has been working on for more than six weeks, follows pleas by mortgage lenders to help unfreeze money markets paralysed by the credit crunch.

Under the scheme, the government is expected to issue bonds which lenders will be able to exchange for packages of mortgages lodged with the Bank as collateral.

Friday, April 18, 2008


and then we can see how those questions were filtered out and then ask why.

The Financial Times is arranging a Q&A session with CFR leader Richard Haas (pronounced H-arse).

Monday, April 14, 2008


We know for a fact that the news is controlled by the New World Order.

But who is it exactly that makes the decisions as to what is reported or referred to? What are their names and addresses? How are they paid? Who appoints them? What are they like? Are they nasty, beyond-redemption, self-loathing little bastards without any emotion?

Or are they really kind, caring people who are really just a little paranoid and fearful of losing their own jobs, and all they want is a little cuddle from their boss to reassure them that their job is safe?

Take for instance today on

There is this article. "Are you about to get fired? Know your redundancy rights" which takes you to

Why would someone put that up on such a widely accessed webpage?

Are they trying to instill fear in you, making you feel very insecure so you work even harder to pay back money that doesn't even exist to a bunch of warmongering bankers?

Or are they perhaps fearful of losing their own job, for lack of results perhaps?

Does anyone know who decides what kinds of news articles are published?

Who has the power to find out, and what is the process?

Sunday, April 13, 2008


First the MPC cut the BoE rate, so they raised theirs, laughing their heads off.

And today, they had another opportunity to laugh their heads off, this time at the London Marathon. Tens of thousands of people training very hard all year to raise a few hundred, maybe a few thousand pounds for a charity, when all the bankers have to do is get their chauffeur to drive them down to London from their mansion in Oxfordshire or Surrey in their luxury executive car, enter a few numbers into their bank's computer system, and then distribute that 'money' to all the charities nominated by today's runners.

Saturday, April 12, 2008


I believe there exists in our law a loophole as wide as the universe that I think will anull all financial contracts between lender and borrower.

I have asked H M Treasury for clarification. I asked them nearly four weeks ago now. They are supposed to answer within 15 days.

Below is a panorama of a portion of our galaxy, the Milky Way. As large and as spectacular as it is, it is only a very tiny fraction of our universe.

Friday, April 11, 2008


A few months ago the OFT took several banks to court over ridiculous bank charges.

Can you remember what their defence was?


They believe that they don't have to be fair.

We entrust them with the God-like power to create virtually unlimitied quantities of money, our wages have to go straight into their bank accounts, we entrust them with our savings.

And what do they use as a legal argument when they are obviously robbing us blind?


Now with the third rate cut this year, mortgage costs are still going up and up.

Some would call this profiteering.

I call it taking the limeade!

I can just imagine this scene in the Bankers Club; in the members lounge are several screens, with live feeds from CCTV cameras based around the country; St Helens, Taunton, South Shields, Carlisle, Dover. The bankers are all standing in a large group around the screens, some smoking big, fat cigars, some with a large glass of neat 20 year old single malt, some with young whores illegally smuggled in from remote villages in the Balkans.


They can't believe what mugs the British people are.

If you all stop for a second or two, you may be able to hear them laughing.


Listen very carefully.

Can you hear them laughing at you?

And don't be surprised if you hear a few sniggers from MPs too.

Thursday, April 10, 2008


The Bank of England cuts its rate.

The banks raise their rate.

A listener to BBC Radio 5 Live (not me, honest) texted into the Drive show, why don't we abolish private banks, and get our money, much cheaper, directly from the Bank of England?

Exactly, my friend! WTF do we need the banks?

Our money is electronic now. That's why our wages go straight into bank accounts and not into an envelope full of cash.


We aren't supposed to see the money.

And yet the banks are turfing out hard-working families, over what?



For that's what our money is.


Thin air.

Numbers on a computer.

Members of Parliament should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for allowing the monetary system we have to first develop and then be sustained.

When it first came into being, c. 1690, MPs were generally from the wealthier classes.

That is not the case now.

Sure, we've got Eton Cameron, and all the Oxbridgers.

They think because they have degrees from these 'elite' universities, frequently in law, that they can hide behind the media that the warmongers own, believing we don't want to know anything, either getting pissed and shagging around, or sitting with our horlicks watching Emmerdale.

But they have left a loophole as wide as the universe regarding money. I don't think they realise what they've done.

Their problem is that the biggest secret regarding money creation is oh so secret that it is rarely ever referred to in law. So when someone asks about the legal implications regarding fractional reserve banking, they don't know any. Why? Because most lawyers and solicitors don't know it is used. You look at the syllabus of any law degree, and that includes Masters and PhD. Fractional reserve banking is not one of the subjects studied.

Why? Because only a very small number of lawyers are supposed to know the biggest secret.

Write to your MP about it. Ask them if they know, where they got their knowledge, and why they think it is right that such power should be in the hands of warmongers when they are turfing out families into the street over thin air!



Mortgage lenders accused of raising deals just hours before Bank of England trims interest rates to 5%
Last updated at 18:09pm on 10th April 2008

Comments Comments (49)

The Bank of England today cut its base rate by 0.25 per cent to 5 per cent to stop the economy's slide towards recession.

But relief for home owners was instantly undermined by a new wave of mortgage rate increases from Britain's biggest lenders


And so it continues.

The next batch of humans to be 'chipped are the Police Officers of the London Metropolitan Force, apparently for 'improving officer safety'.

That is, of course, absolute bollocks. They want us all 'chipped.



Met Police officers to be 'microchipped' by top brass in Big Brother style tracking scheme
Last updated at 10:46am on 10th April 2008

Met Chief Sir Ian Blair could be among 31,000 officers to receive the new electronic tracking device

Every single Metropolitan police officer will be 'microchipped' so top brass can monitor their movements on a Big Brother style tracking scheme, it can be revealed today.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008


Let's strip away the spin of the media that we know for a fact are controlled by military intelligence, and look at the text of the verdict itself as read by the jury foreman.



The deceased is Diana, Princess of Wales.
24 The cause of death is chest injury, laceration within
25 the left pulmonary vein and the immediate adjacent


1 portion of the left atrium of the heart.
2 Diana, Princess of Wales, died La Pitie-Salpetriere
3 Hospital in Paris at around 4 am on 31st August 1997 as
4 a result of a motor crash which occurred in the Alma
5 Underpass in Paris on 31st August 1997 at around
6 12.22 am. The crash was caused or contributed to by
7 the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes,
8 the speed and manner of driving of the following
9 vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver
10 of the Mercedes through alcohol. Nine of us are agreed
11 on those points, sir.
12 In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or
13 contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not
14 wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck
15 the pillar in the Alma Tunnel, rather than colliding
16 with something else, and we are unanimously agreed on
17 that.


"The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol."

Why use the term "following vehicles"?

Why have the media immediately taken this to read "paparazzi"?

"following vehicles" is a very vague term, and should not have been accepted in an inquest of this importance, considering that one of the witnesses testified that he saw a bright, white flash and a high-speed motorcycle arrive at the scene of the crash to check the carnage well before the rest of the "following vehicles".

Why didn't Scott Baker ask for a more accurate description of what the jury believed constituted the "following vehicles"?

This is what Katherine Witty, al Fayed's spokeswoman, referred to when she said, as quoted by The Guardian,
"The jury have found that it wasn't just the paparazzi who caused the crash, but identified following vehicles. Who they are and what they were doing in Paris is still a mystery."

And as for the leader of The Guardian, entitled "Let it be";

"Lord Justice Scott Baker has done his best" - Knight Scott Baker refused to have Phil and Liz as witnesses, even though Liz talked about 'dark forces'. Evidence from the NSA and other intelligence services gathered from surveillance, legal and illegal, admitted and denied, has not been allowed or remained secret.

"The system bent over backwards to allow him to have the process on his own terms." - the inquest was going to be held in private, but al Fayed had to fight to get it heard in public. Plus, al Fayed has been fighting for an inquest for over TEN YEARS.

The cost of all the investigations etc could have been saved if an inquest had been heard within days of the deaths of Dodi and Diana, as it is with 99.99% of deaths.

But no, not in this special case. TEN YEARS it took.

TEN YEARS for witnesses to be 'suicided' (Andanson), and for evidence to 'disappear' (boxes and letters).

It wasn't al Fayed who decided it would take TEN YEARS to get an inquest held in public.

There are only a very small number of people who can arrange that. And guess who they work for.

I feel really sorry for the princes too. They are being used, and they obviously have no idea as to the warmongering and all the other crimes their ancestors have been involved in and fronted for in order that they live such priviliged lives.

Monday, April 07, 2008


Good old British Justice.

Birmingham Six.

Guildford Four.

Neither Phil or Liz were asked any questions; was she going to abdicate? who are/were the dark forces? why did it take so long for a flag to be flown half-mast over Buckingham Palace?

Over ten years after their deaths, the inquest jury has returned a majority verdict that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed by the reckless driving of Henri Paul and the paparazzi.

9 to 2. What did the other two think?

If I had the resources I would check out all white people who were in South Africa during the middle of October last year, particularly those whose ISP was Telkom SA Limited. Of course it may be a hotel, so check the residents.

Its just that I had a very strange reaction from someone in South Africa to my post, "SO THAT'S HOW THEY KILLED DIANA". And just in the last week too, something strange occured following my posts about Knight Scott Baker's summing up and commandments.

It may be nothing, wishful thinking. But I woke up last Friday with the same force that wrote 9/11 was an inside job. Call it automatic writing if you want.

South Africa does seem like a country that an assassin would come from and/or live in, the ex-South-African-military-intel-turned-criminal type.

I can just imagine Francois Levistre hearing a muffled South African voice when the motorbike stopped and the passenger got off to check the carnage, before they sped off.

How would a South African say, "She's dead. Let's go!"?

It may also be worth checking out the morgues, if my hunch is right.

Sunday, April 06, 2008


I may have found a legal argument that will nullify all financial contracts between individuals and financial bodies, in the UK that is.

I am asking for clarification from a number of concerned organizations, and the enquiries are either being ignored (by The Law Society for several months), or passed to other bodies (FSA passing the buck to H M Treasury) who have so far remained silent (for three weeks now).

I am not divulging my argument here for fear an unscrupulous lawyer will use it to enrich him or her self, instead of using the potentially astronomical financial gain for the common good, by for example financing research into our real modern history, financing advertising campaigns to increase awareness of our situation, and financing distribution of free literature.

Saturday, April 05, 2008


You are slaves.

I am an unslave.

But we all use unmoney.

We all eat unfood.

We all drink unwater.

We all unlove unhumanity.

This is an unworld, full of slaves, and a few unslaves who have broken unfree.

If more don't break unfree then the unhuman race will have a boot stamping on its face forever.

Friday, April 04, 2008


Nkosi sikelel' iAfrika
Maluphakanyisw' uphondo lwayo,
Yizwa imithandazo yethu,
Nkosi sikelela, thina lusapho lwayo.

Morena boloka setjhaba sa heso,
O fedise dintwa la matshwenyeho,
O se boloke, O se boloke setjhaba sa heso,
Setjhaba sa South Afrika - South Afrika.

Uit die blou van onse hemel,
Uit die diepte van ons see,
Oor ons ewige gebergtes,
Waar die kranse antwoord gee,

Sounds the call to come together,
And united we shall stand,
Let us live and strive for freedom,
In South Africa our land.


'Coincidentally', Phil's been rushed to hospital.



Ron Paul gave this speech before the US House of Representatives as they voted on House Con Res 154 “expressing concern” over Russian involvement in Alexander Litvinenko’s murder.


Ron Paul Expresses Concern Over Alexander Litvinenko’s murder
Published 04/03/2008 - 11:27 a.m. GMT (PressMediaWire) April 01, 2008 Congressman Ron Paul reacted to the motion stating - Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived resolution. The US House of Representatives has no business speculating on guilt or innocence in a crime that may have been committed thousands of miles outside US territory. It is arrogant, to say the least, that we presume to pass judgment on crimes committed overseas about which we have seen no evidence.

The resolution purports to express concern over the apparent murder in London of a shadowy former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander Litvinenko, but let us not kid ourselves. The real purpose is to attack the Russian government by suggesting that Russia is involved in the murder. There is little evidence of this beyond the feverish accusations of interested parties. In fact, we may ultimately discover that Litvinenko’s death by radiation poisoning was the result of his involvement in an international nuclear smuggling operation, as some investigative reporters have claimed. The point is that we do not know. The House of Representatives has no business inserting itself in disputes about which we lack information and jurisdiction.

At a time when we should be seeking good relations and expanded trade with Russia , what is the benefit in passing such provocative resolutions? There is none.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record a very thought-provoking article by Edward Jay Epstein published recently in the New York Sun, which convincingly calls into question many of the assumptions and accusations made in this legislation. I would encourage my colleagues to read this article and carefully consider the wisdom of what we are doing.

Article insert here:



According to the CIA Factbook, 9.6% of the South African population are White. So with a population of 44 million, that implies about four million Whites.

That's quite a lot of Whites, but not a massive amount.

And 8.6% speak English.

And only 5 million of the 44 million population use the internet.

South Africa is slightly less than twice the size of Texas, so it is not small.

4 million Whites living in a country twice the size of Texas.

I wonder what they all do for a living?

Wouldn't it be interesting to find that out.



Their catchphrase? "It's possible."

It certainly is possible.

It's possible that Diana's murderers were there around mid-October last year.

Why not? Parts of it are really nice, bathed in sunshine in a pleasant climate.

Of course there are other parts of the world they could have been.

But I was struck by the phrase; It's possible.

Not that I have any evidence or anything.

It's just a wild stab, or should I say, flash in the dark.

Thursday, April 03, 2008



Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we can not dedicate--we can not consecrate--we can not hallow-- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Source: "Lincoln at Gettysburg" by Garry Wills


I remember trying to watch the film "Gettysburg" shortly after it came out. Something at the time told me that it was a very good and informative film, and that I should watch it very carefully, but the first time I watched it (about 1995) it really bored me. It all seemed like two lots of violent idiots standing facing each other and blasting and shooting the hell out of each other, particularly in the woods of Little Round Hill.

But that was 1995.

Now, with a more accurate sense of history, I find Gettysburg is a fascinating, well-made film, with several interesting and revealing associations and relationships, and I place it in my top five favourite films.

There are several heroes, but the one hero of the film who stands out for me is Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.

The US Civil War was crucial in the modern history of mankind. Britain and its allies in France, Austria, were prepared to break the USA into two, using slavery as the issue. If the South had won I believe mankind would be in a much worse situation that it is in now. The progress of the New World Order was delayed by around 50 years by the victory of the North, and Gettysburg was the pivotal battle in the US Civil War.

The links between the South, slavery and Great Britain are both interesting but also repulsive. It is beyond doubt that elements in Great Britain promoted slavery in the USA through the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, a fact that the Scottish Rite is desperate to conceal, for the associations lead all the way back to The City of London, and possibly Buckingham Palace (Great Britain was at one time the greatest slave trading nation on earth, and our royal family was the main beneficiary with a monopoly via a number of corporations).

Gettysburg also addresses the tactical decisions taken over a period of four days by the Generals in charge of the Armies, and sympathises with Longstreet, who argued that the Confederacy should not have fought at Gettysburg.

But they did. And they lost.

Yet another blow against the New World Order, and victory for mankind.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008


Thou shalt not reach a verdict of murder.

BBC Radio 5 Live has been repeating that 250 witnesses have been called to give evidence, as if only 250 witnesses could have been called.

That number should have been 252, the extra 2 being Phil and Liz.

How the Jury is supposed to reach a verdict without the full evidence is...good old British justice.