Thursday, October 30, 2008


These are not words shouted by the assassins of Jean Charles de Menezes just before they shot him point blank in the head seven times.

The good ol' British copper strikes again in the name of justice (assuming they were coppers). Just pull the gun out and shoot.

I can't wait until they're all armed with those non-lethal tasers (that are causing many unreported deaths). One headline we'll be hearing very often will be "Police have killed a man..."


BP's profits were sickening.

Shell and Exxon have also posted sickening profits.

BP's Chairman Sir Peter Sutherland has been at Bilderberg nearly every year since the early 1990's. And when he wasn't there this year another member of the board of BP, Sir Tom McKillop, was there.

Shell's Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer is yet another regular fixture at Bilderberg.

And as for Exxon? Well that's Rockefeller, with our Dave yet another regular fixture at Bilderberg.

A few years ago one stated aim of Bilderberg was to have oil at $200 a barrel. They tried, and had the clout to do so.


This Brand/Ross story is taking the piss!

Did you know that 5000 children will die today from lack of clean water alone?

That's the estimate of the charity Wateraid.

Wateraid tries to bring clean water to billions of people across the world.

Yes, in this world of violent games, war and the system of legalised fraud called banking, there are apparently billions of people who still haven't figured out how to 'live properly'.

According to Wateraid 2/5ths of the world's population do not have clean water, that's 2.5 billion people.

Yet the UK alone was suddenly able to find £500 billion for gamblers-in-The-City Anonymous!!

And globally £2 trillion is suddenly being made available to save the bankers.

And we're still talking about a phone call made by a junkie sex-addict to an old man about having sex with his Satanic Slut granddaughter!

There's only one group of 'people' getting off on this;

Wednesday, October 29, 2008


I cannot believe the media manipulation of this Brand/Ross phone call. There are far more important topics to discuss, such as why £500 billion of taxpayers money is being offered to bail out gambling banks, and how they and thus we got into such a state!

A few days ago the USA entered Syria and killed eight civilians. That was another blatant provocation, and Syria almost fell for it, with statements that it reserves the right to retaliate. Syria has always been a secondary target, but because the Iran plan is failing, Plan B, i.e. Syria, was brought forward. Syria with Iran was named with Iraq as targets in A Clean Break.

Colin Powell's statement a week ago that something big is going to happen quite soon after the election next week indicates he knows something. This was backed up by Obama's running mate Joe Biden.

Something big is going to happen. And that will be so big it will dominate governments across the globe, so much so that ours will use that as an excuse to not investigate the bailout and its cause.

That's why we need to know now, because if we don't we will never know.

That's why the Brand/Ross debacle, though distasteful, is still headline news.

Sunday, October 26, 2008


The News of the World has published a story about George Osborne, but the story is more interesting for the references to Rothschild and the rest of the Bullingdon Bullies. I actually felt a little sympathy for Oik Osborne, but he didn't have to hang around with that crowd.

To show that it's "them and us" the story about the striptease at Rothschilds' stately home Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire, which descended into a cocaine-fuelled disturbing orgy, for which some of the very wealthy attendees refused to pay! At other times there was racist abuse.

As the interviewee says;
“They thought they could do what they wanted. They had money and arrogance. They thought there were no consequences, anything goes.”

It is still the case; anything goes, including ripping taxayers off for £500 billion to pay off their gambling debts to keep them in luxury.


Natalie was this week intrigued how, given their once close friendship, the damaging claims that today threaten Osborne’s political future actually came from financier Nat Rothschild, heir to a family baronetcy and a £500 million banking fortune. She recalled how the two students and their band of pals would head to the country for wild weekends.

“The Bullingdon Club thought they were untouchable,” she said. “They thought they could do what they wanted. They had money and arrogance. They thought there were no consequences, anything goes.”

She said the group’s bad behaviour came to a head in March 1994 at the Rothschilds’ stately home, Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire. She thinks both Nat and Osborne were among the 40-strong party.

Natalie sent three strippers and was asked to make sure the women were “tall, dark and slim and with figures like Naomi Campbell.”

Around six grams of cocaine were also provided for the club members to snort. As well as stripping, it was made clear that the girls’ services would extend to “extras”—sex with guests.

But Natalie claims the party degenerated into a humiliating experience for the girls who were abused by some braying Bullingdon boys.

“The girls were made to feel like they were nothing,” she said. “They climbed on to the bar or a table and started to strip and gyrate. But the guests were mauling them and jeering. It was horrendous. The guys were trying to touch them and shouting abuse, throwing champagne and spitting.

“There was nothing decent in the way they treated the girls.

“Then it got down to who would sleep with who. Who was going to have the girls first.”

The woman were left shaken by the experience and enraged when one wealthy punter refused to pay the agreed £350 for his sex session.

Saturday, October 25, 2008


Bankers-in-need day is the day before Children-in-need day, so that the bankers get their money first, before the children who they've turfed out into the street.

£500 billion is not enough, apparently.

And why do we always still have a Children-in-need day every year? You would have thought we'd have eradicated child poverty by now, particularly after 11 years of "Labour".


Little gobshite Nat Rothschild has allowed the light of truth to briefly shine onto the interface between our leading politicians and the elite financiers and industrialists.

Rothschild's letter to The Times was bound to open a can of worms...and it has.

It has since emerged that Lord Peter Mandelson has frequently stayed at Rothschild's chalet in Switzerland, and that Mandelson met Deripaska in 2004, not 2006, as the little weasel would have us believe. Mandelson is one of those slimy creatures who time after time somehow slithers back into the corridors of power. Is it his talents? Or is it Rothschild?

And it has also been reported that arrogant Rothschild has over the years also financed Osborne's office. Perhaps this explains why Osborne has been at Bilderberg for the last few years, on the recommendation of Nat. Has Osborne reported to Rothschild what was said and by whom at Bilderberg, giving Rothschild intelligence on future world events that Rothschild could use for his hedge fund?

And it has also been reported that Rothschild has, in this sordid and ridiculous falling out, acted on the advice of his father, Lord Jacob Rothschild. It was Lord Jacob Rothschild to whom Mikhail Khodorkovsky gave his shares in Yukos.

But what irks me is, if The Times and the other British media are so interested in a handful of small private meetings of two senior politicians, a banker/gambler and a Russian oligarch, then why do they not report on Bilderberg at which over one hundred of the most influential and powerful bankers, politicians and industrialists of the time gather every year in semi-secrecy in a posh hotel for a few days to discuss world government, war, massive financial bailouts, GM, oil, the cashless society, microchip implants and Moloch worship, and we don't get to read one word of it in "our" media?

Friday, October 24, 2008


Sir Alan Greenspan was awarded his knighthood in 2002 for his alleged "contribution to global economic stability."



Sir Alan Greenspan expressed his shock and disbelief at the financial crisis he engineered while Chairman of the Board of The Federal Reserve.

Greenspan has his own consultancy, Greenspan Associates LLC (whose website is not that easy to find, if it exists at all).

One of his clients is Deutsche Bank, which has Josef Ackerman as its Chairman of the Board.

Greenspan and Ackerman were regularly at Bilderberg.

As far as I know Deutsche Bank is not in any financial trouble, and far less than most banks, and advised Brown and Darling to bail out the banks.

Another of Greenspan's clients is the hedge fund Paulson & Co., which apparently has done exceptionally well out of the housing bubble.

And yet another of Greenspan's clients has been H M Treasury!!

That's a nice little web that Greenspan weaved.


We have just offered the banks £500 billion to keep them afloat, and what do we get in return?

They are not prepared to be lenient with mortgage arrears and will turf kids out onto the street during repossessions.

And now Angela Knight of the BBA says that banks should not keep businesses afloat during the coming recession!!!!!!!

I'll bet quite of few of those businesses who are allowed to fail have been paying loads of all sorts of taxes that Darling and Brown have now reallocated from schools and hospitals to the vaults of the gambling banks.

Cheezus, they make me sick.

One week it's "please can we have hundreds of billions of your taxpayers money to save us from bankruptcy", the next it's "I'm alright now so fuck you".


The British Bankers' Association said it would support small businesses through the downturn, but added that the onus was not on banks to keep businesses afloat. "We have to be clear that as talk turns to recession it seems inevitable that some businesses will not survive, even with the best assistance that banks, government and voluntary agencies can give them," said BBA chief executive Angela Knight.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


Why is that?

Does this front page and very public Osborne/Rothschild falling out show that Bilderberg is extremely important to them?

Is Osborne being punished so publicly because he has attended Bilderberg several times, a meeting at which secrets are supposed to remain secrets, yet Osborne is blabbering secrets from a private Rothschild meeting, so can he really be trusted with Bilderberg secrets?

That Nat Rothschild wrote a letter to The Times also indicates to me that he is not of "the right stuff" either, dragging his name and others into the public arena, threatening court cases over such trivial matters, when compared to the shit his family has dumped onto the planet.

Cheezus, we just bailed the banks out for £500 billion with little questioning from the media, yet the same media which is so silent on Bilderberg is going crazy over the minor and comaparatively trivial details of this one Rothschild private meeting.

We have to ask why.

Monday, October 20, 2008


It appears that after all we've done for them the banks are still holding out on easing their attitude to house repossessions.

We've offered them £500 billion to bail them out from the gambling and they still want to kick kids out onto the streets.

They make me sick.

We don't need 'em.


The lot of 'em.


London Crossrail, London Olympics and Trident, i.e. London first, and WMD.

He has just offered upto £500 billion to support the banking sector, and yet will spend around a tenth of that to save a tiny proportion of the rest of the economy?

And who are we borrowing from for the PSBR? Please don't tell me it's the bailed out banks.

Priorities are all wrong.

Put banks into bankruptcy, but guarantee deposits.

Write off all derivatives trades.

Do not replace Trident.

Build schools and hospitals ACROSS THE UK, and pay much better wages to teachers and nurses (not so sure about the police after what they did to the miners and the plan to take our DNA from our teacups).

It's dead easy.


And there'll be plenty left over to buy everyone a cod and chips.

Everyone's a winner.

One example is, better educated children = more respectable and productive children = less crime = saving on police bill.

But better educated children = more knowledgable children = potential for trouble when they learn what has really happened and what is really planned.

Oh, I see what you're doing now...

Sunday, October 19, 2008


The Lives of Others won an Oscar in 2007 as Best Foreign Film. Set in East Germany during the autumn years of The Cold War and the Fall of the Berlin Wall, The Lives of Others shows what life was like under the East German tyranny, and the abuse of surveillance powers.

Today I read that it is being proposed that MI5 and the police should be able to secretly collect DNA samples of law-abiding British citizens...and share them with other governments!

This is a very sinister proposal, and shows the desperation to get a DNA database created.

This then raises the question as to why they want a DNA database.

They created anti-terrorism laws to catch terrorists, but the laws were instead used to spy on children.

They said there were WMDs in Iraq ready to strike Britain in 45 minutes and that after Saddam Iraqi oil would go to the Iraqis, but instead they found rusting, useless grenades and Iraqi oil is going to Anglo-American oil corporations.

They have been fascinated by DNA and social engineering. They financed the early eugenics movement in Great Britain and the USA. They financed Hitler's racial hygiene program.

And they were able to finance all that because we gave them the power to create money.

Whatever it is, it always comes back to that; they have the power to create money.

We don't.

BTW read the comments. Not one is in favour of this proposal. Every comment shows how savvy the public are becoming to the plan. They are not just against this one proposal. They know for a fact what's going down, and are not afraid to say so.


New law to allow police to collect DNA in secret from teacups

By Jason Lewis
Last updated at 12:33 AM on 19th October 2008

MI5 and the police may be allowed to secretly collect genetic samples from items such as cigarette butts and teacups under new laws that could massively expand the national DNA database.

The powers would allow investigators to break in to suspects’ homes to collect DNA which could then be shared with foreign governments to check for links to crime and terrorism.

The new law, being discussed by Parliament, would mean the ‘stolen’ samples – thousands of which have already been taken by the security services – would be admissible in court and at a stroke hugely expand the Government’s controversial DNA database.

Saturday, October 18, 2008


They knew what they were doing.

That's why they are being paid off with sickening bonuses.

If they don't get paid, they sing.

It started with deregulation and very, very easy credit.

The resulting debt bubble was gambled on derivatives, and oil was one of the main products that was gambled on.

The price of oil was inflated by this speculation, and the presence of US military in the Middle East as a result of 9/11 also contributed.

Someone in the know could have, and probably did, literally make a killing.

And now the threat of global recession is being used to call for a new global financial architecture which will give them more power.

"Give me control of a planet's currency and I care not who makes the laws." - ???

Blessed are the gamblers, for they shall be bailed out and empowered further by their minions who are placed into power for that very reason.

Friday, October 17, 2008



Lord Adair Turner has today been quoted by a few newspapers that the FSA didn’t know the scale of the mess the banks got us into. He said the FSA was ineffective and it would now regulate the City of London more firmly and effectively by increasing salaries to attract brighter individuals.

He should not have to do this. The financial services industry should not be hiding their activities from the regulator. It should not be the case that the regulator has to find out what the City is doing. The City should tell the regulator. However, for whatever reason, the City did not do this.

The FSA website states that the financial services industry finances the FSA, i.e. the firms it regulates. Therefore the lack of finance from the financial services industry contributed to the mess because if the financial services industry had financed the FSA more then the FSA could have offered larger salaries to attract brighter individuals to regulate the City. However, for whatever reason, the financial services industry did not do this either.

Whether the FSA complained to the financial services industry about this before I don’t know, and is perhaps the subject of a FOI request.

The FSA website also states that, although the financial services industry finances the FSA, the board of the FSA is appointed by the Treasury.

Therefore the Treasury bears some responsibility in appointing ineffective board members.

The current board members include;

Chairman of the FSA, Lord Adair Turner – long time member of the board of Standard Chartered, and from 2000 to 2006 he was Vice-Chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe.

Deputy Chairman of the FSA, Sir James Crosby – former Rothschild senior employee, and later Chief Executive of HBOS.

Chief Executive Officer of the FSA, Hector Sants – former CEO of Credit Suisse first Boston, who advised on the bailout plan and who are accused of creating the Mortgage Backed Security that financed the derivatives that got us into this mess.

These kind of people do not inspire me with confidence. In fact the words “fox” and “chicken” come to mind.

These people, coming from so high up in the financial world must know the money creation scam, and yet fail to tell you on the FSA website.

I remind you again, the FSA by law should educate you on the financial system and also protect you.

It has done neither.

So despite Adair's claim of FSA ignorance, the FSA, the Treasury and arguably even more so the banks, still stand accused of conspiring to screw you for every penny the banks can get, keeping you in ignorance of the mechanics of the financial system and not protecting you from the beasts and predators banks.


The Bilderberg Washington Post has finally thrown its support behind Barak Obama.

This was not unexpected.

In todays editorial it, i.e. permanent Bilderberger Donald Graham, tells us that it thinks McCain was ineffectual and that Obama has the stuff of Presidents.



Barack Obama for President

Friday, October 17, 2008; Page A24

THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

Thursday, October 16, 2008


UBS was one of the banks that drew up the plan for the British taxpayer to bail out City of London banks. It has now accepted a similar bail out from Swizz taxpayers.

Did these banks know what they were doing, and knew they would have to be bailed out with such large sums of taxpayers money? If so, "bring forth the guillotine" (released by Silver Bullet 1989).



Switzerland unveils bank bail-out plan
• UBS hit by 'massive' outflows of clients' money
• Analysts said today's moves made the Swiss banks the best capitalised in the world

* David Gow
* Thursday October 16 2008 17.15 BST
* Article history

The Swiss authorities today moved belatedly to shore up their two biggest banks, taking a near-10% stake in UBS and forcing it and Credit Suisse to increase their capital base.

The government and central bank denied UBS had stood on the brink of catastrophe but Europe's biggest casualty of the sub-prime crisis admitted it had seen a "massive" withdrawal of funds from its wealthy customers and had been drawing on its cash reserves.

UBS, which had written down some $44bn (£25bn) of toxic assets and raised $27bn in fresh capital, saw almost $75bn of assets in wealth and asset management withdrawn in the third quarter.

The process accelerated last month after the US government allowed Lehman Brothers to go bust and investors, worried about the Swiss bank's damaged reputation, panicked.

The surprise Swiss move is the latest by the authorities in the west to bail out their banking sectors in the face of the unprecedented credit crunch but UBS insisted it was a "normal commercial operation " and it was now "clean".

In a deal coordinated by ministers, the Swiss National Bank and federal banking commission, the government effectively pumped $60bn into UBS, taking virtually the last $50bn of its toxic assets into a special purpose vehicle off its books and owned by the SNB.

The government is temporarily taking a 9.3% stake in UBS with a Sfr6bn (£3bn) capital injection. Credit Suisse, the country's second-biggest bank, turned down the offer of state aid but has raised Sfr10bn from sovereign wealth fund Qatar Investment Authority and a group of private investors, including Israeli firm Koor Industries.

These moves will drive up the capital ratios of Switzerland's two biggest banks, with CS at 13.7% and UBS, whose ratio stood at 10.8% at the end of September, climbing higher towards tough new rules due from 2013.

At the core of the tripartite Swiss operation is the decision to take on $49bn of toxic UBS assets — $31bn in the US and $18bn of non-US debt — into the new entity. This will be funded by $6bn of UBS equity acquired via the government and $54bn from the SNB.


British Olympians are parading through the streets of London today, on their "Walk of Fame", to say thank you for the financial and emotional support they received for the Olympic Games this year.

They recieved a very tiny fraction of the amount the banks have received and will receive.

Will a similar thank you parade, but instead a "Walk of Shame", be made by the bankers?

If so, how would it be greeted?

With rotten eggs, rotten tomatoes, anything rotten. You would be able to smell the stench in New Zealand.


For the last two days our hero Prime Minister has been protrayed as the saviour of the universe, the implication being that as Prime Minister the ordinary British taxpayer had a say in the plan that has been adopted.

The Daily Telegraph is today reporting that it was not our hero Gordon Brown who dreamed up the bank bail out plan, but it was in fact two members of the board of Standard Chartered, Peter Sands and Richard Meddings.

But the same report tells us that JP Morgan Cazenove, UBS, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank also helped to draw up the bail out.

The Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee of Deutsche Bank is Josef Ackermann, a permanent fixture at Bilderberg. DB is usually at Bilderberg every year.

JP Morgan Cazenove is part of the J P Morgan empire.

UBS has a minor relationship with the Warburg empire.

Credit Suisse First Boston is accused of creating the monster that caused the credit crunch, the mortgage backed security used to finance derivatives. CS is also usually at Bilderberg every year. The current Chairman of the Board of Directors of Credit Suisse is Walter Kielholz, Bilderberg 2003.

The ordinary British taxpayer did not have a single word of input, but did put up all the money.

Absolutely disgraceful.

A similar event took place on Jekyll Island when the Federal Reserve plan was finalised, at which a central bank for the bankers was planned but to be portrayed as the people's bank.


The FT is reporting that two US banks which are to receive $25 billion EACH made ridiculous profits in the third quarter alone.

Apparently Wells Fargo made $1.6 billion, while JP Morgan Chase (booo, hssss, get off) made just a half billion dollars.


Source: "Three big US banks unveil $2.6bn in profits", Financial Times 16/10/2008

Wednesday, October 15, 2008


The power to issue credit is too important to be in private hands!

If the "our" financial and banking system cannot be allowed to fail then it is more powerful than government itself. That governments across the world can suddenly find £2 TRILLION to save the "our" financial and banking system shows how important it is, and is something I find extremely sickening.

Such power in the hands of private individuals is extremely dangerous...and they have shown themselves unworthy of such power.

They engineered and financed world wars 1 and 2 to get global institutions created.

Those global institutions have since kept Africa and Asia and South America undeveloped.

And they gambled what credit they could issue by offering very unsafe mortgages to raise debt instruments to gamble on the stock market.

Now they want bailing out for TRILLIONS, without one the f***ers coming on TV to say thanks and offer their apologies, the ungrateful, genocidal f***ers.

Bilderberg Brown has served his masters well.

He saved "their" system with our money, and in a year or two it will be screwing the public business as usual.

"Our" system would work for us not them.

"Our" system would issue credit for massive developments in public infrastrucure, not on weapons can that incinerate millions in a millionth of a second.

"Our" system would issue credit to develop the economy and for housing, not for technologies to spy on and enslave us.

These are very sweeping statements.

But in "their" system, we now borrow money from them that we gave them in the first place...and get charged interest for the privilege!!

How absolutely and totally insane is that?

Tuesday, October 14, 2008


Do you know how "our financial system" failed "us"?

I thought not.

Despite it being "our financial system" now that the banks need bailing out, they have not tried to educate us on how "our financial system" works to their great benefit, even though the FSMA 2000 Section 4 states it is the law that the FSA should be educating us.

Ah, you may say, but is it really the responsibility of the banks to do that?


Have another good read of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Schedule 2, sections (i) and (q). These state a contract should not bind the consumer to terms he or she had no chance of understanding, and that the seller, i.e. the bank, should not unduly restrict the evidence available to the consumer which according to the applicable law, i.e. the FSMA 2000 Section 4, should lie with another party to the contract, i.e. the FSA.

I would argue it is the legal duty of any bank regulated by the FSA to make sure the FSA is fulfilling its legal duty under the FSMA 2000 section 4, the failure of which gives the banks a significant and unfair advantage to the benefit of the banks and to the detriment of the consumer.

Monday, October 13, 2008


Gordon Brown's speech today at The Reuters Building, Canary Wharf, London, was more of a beg for global governance than an explanation of what he and Darling are doing to get us out of the mess that he effectively created years ago as Chancellor.

Throughout the speech Brown all too frequently refers to "global solutions to global problems", little realising that the architects of the current crisis, as well as the financial architects of WW1 and WW2, who reside in Wall Street and The City of London, want exactly that as soon as possible (because they know you are realising the plan very quickly, too quickly for their comfort).

Or perhaps Brown knows that, for we do not know all that goes on behind Bilderberg doors.

WW1 was a global problem engineered by Freemasonry. The solution? The League of Nations, which failed when the USA voted out.

So an organization called The Council on Foreign Relations was created to control American politics. WW2 was engineered from Wall Street and The City of London, and the USA had to be embroiled in that, to suffer many more casualties than it did in WW1 (which it eventually joined for the finale suffering relativey few casualties) for it to be 'persuaded' that a world government was required to solve 'global problems'. So FDR obliged, engineered Pearl Harbour and we know the rest. As a result the UN, World Bank, IMF etc were formed, staffed and controlled from behind the scenes by you know who.

Since then the climate has been identified by The Club of Rome as a key to peddle the myth that we need 'global solutions for global problems'.

And in the last week this current credit crunch, engineered by the abuse of credit to create debt instruments for gambling in derivatives, has led to more calls for 'global solutions for global problems'. Bilderberg Brown has today joined those calls to create a new financial architecture so that it must never happen again.

But I have news for Brown.

I know for a fact that the banks and financial speculation houses are planning on continuing the derivative lust, because they are upgrading their computers to rinky dinky super duper hi-tech near-speed-of-light systems to do all their derivative calculations. Scientific research institutes in the UK who have been awarded high performance computers supposedly for scientific simulations, have been allowing JP Morgan Chase to use them for derivatives gambling!

And these banks and financial speculation houses will be fed by the ever increasing number of graduates in a branch of maths called Financial Mathematics, often funded by the government.

A bank never changes its spots (a spot is a form of derivative).

So what would I do?

I would do something very similar to what Lyndon Larouche is proposing;
1. we do indeed need a new financial architecture, but one that does not allow the derivative speculation that got us into this mess. Brown and Darling will allow this speculation to continue, but it will apparently be 'regulated', as it was so incompetently by the corrupt FSA
2. currency speculation should also be illegal. It does not create common wealth, and is simply another form of gambling (and according to the Rothschilds is how they engineered their first fortune through market rigging, something the whole world regrets and should be avoided at all costs).
3. credit to be issued by government only by accountable and elected officials with two goals; economic stability and long term growth. Banks as we know them will accept deposits only with some small investment in local industry and commerce permitted.
4. start a massive public awareness campaign to educate the public on how the financial and banking system really works, something the FSA should have been doing since 2000 instead of colluding with the banks to screw you all for every penny they can get.

Saturday, October 11, 2008



1. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) was created by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) to regulate the financial markets, to protect the consumer and to educate the consumer on the financial system in the UK.
2. The FSA, through its webpage MoneyMadeClear (yes, that’s name!:-)), attempts to explain what a loan, a credit card, a mortgage etc, is, but goes no further than that, i.e. it does not explain exactly how such products are financed, or to be more exact where the money comes from.
3. This cut-off in the information provided by the FSA MoneyMadeClear website hides the more important and unfair aspects of our financial system from the very consumer it is supposed to protect and educate. Who made the decision as to what information was to be related by the FSA, and why?
4. After exhaustive enquiries to the FSA, H M Treasury and The Bank of England, I have been told by them that there is no exemption on the following information, and I believe it should therefore be related by the FSA on for example its MoneyMadeClear website (the name suggests that too);
4.1. the money for such financial products does not physically exist, and is merely numbers on a computer, and can therefore be created very, very easily by the bank while the consumer works very hard for the equivalent, i.e. the repayment.
4.2. the money for such financial products does not ‘exist’ on the computer until the loan/mortgage/credit is actually issued
4.3. upon repayment the money is not destroyed (this is important, and is explained in point 10).
5. The banks offering such financial products are regulated by, and actually finance, the FSA, and should therefore have some influence over and contact with the FSA.
6. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Section 5 (1) state;
“5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”
7. All financial contracts issued since the FSMA 2000 was passed are unfair because the banks issuing such contracts have not, even after 8 years, ensured that the FSA has fulfilled its duty under Section 4 of the FSMA 2000, thus leading to a significant imbalance in obligations to the detriment of the consumer.
8. Schedule 2 (1) (o) of the UTCCR 1999 states that an unfair term is;
“(o) obliging the consumer to fulfill all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his”.
The banks are not fulfilling their obligations by ensuring that under the FSMA 2000 Section 4 the FSA is educating the consumer on the full and unfair truth of our financial system, thus giving the banks a very significant advantage through unfair contracts. Thus all financial contracts issued since the FSMA 2000 was passed are unfair, and should therefore be annulled.
9. Section 5 (1) of the FSMA 2000 states;
“(1) The protection of consumers objective is: securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers.”.
The FSA is seriously failing in this duty because the financial system that it is hiding from the consumer, by its failure to fulfill its duty under the FSMA 2000 Section 4, is allowing a small cabal of people to take control of the world. They and their ancestors engineered and financed the two world wars of last century, which led to the creation of such global organizations as the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc, which can direct sovereign nations in their affairs. This cabal continue to exercise significant control of our political system through such semi-secret organizations as Bilderberg, The Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission, at which our political leaders are vetted either before they enter, or during their tenure in, high office. One such member of this cabal has openly stated in his memoirs their ambition to control the world, when he wrote,
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
This man partly owns and controls several financial organizations that are regulated by the FSA, i.e. the FSA is not protecting the consumer from being ruled by this bunch of Moloch-worshipping, warmongering megalomaniacs intent on global conquest. One other telling quote from this cabal comes from James Paul Warburg;
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
10. Furthermore, the principle of unjust enrichment states that one party should not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another party. As I understand the financial system, banks can lend out many, many times the amount they have on deposit in a system called Fractional Reserve. This means that from a deposit base of £X the banks can lend out, for example £10X. The unwitting borrower may believe that when a bank issues a loan then the bank has effectively transferred control of the money for that loan to the borrower. That is not the case. The bank is giving the impression that such a transaction has taken place, when in fact the bank can issue several loans based on the same piece of money, giving several borrowers claim to the same piece of money while keeping the money. But the borrower believes and accepts that the issuing bank only makes its profit from the interest charged on the loan. However, in reality, the bank is in most cases making profit from the full amount of the loan itself as well as the interest, because the money for that loan did not exist until the loan was issued. This is possible due to the nature of the Fractional Reserve system, in which as explained above, £10X can be ‘created’ from £X. Thus from £X the bank can make a total profit of £9X + interest, when the borrowers believe the bank makes a profit through interest only. If the bank destroyed most of the repayments, giving itself profit from the interest from one loan only, then there is no argument. But the banks do not destroy all the repayments, and keep them so that they make profit from the full loan as well as the interest. That is surely unjust enrichment, if not unadulterated fraud and dishonesty.
11. The FSA has been shown to be incompetent during this current credit crunch when it should have been monitoring the derivatives market, which has subsequently led to bailouts of several banks for hundreds of billions of pounds, which is yet another example of the FSA failing in its duty to protect the taxpaying consumer. But I am suggesting something further, a deliberate collusion between the FSA and the banks to keep hidden from the taxpaying British public the real, fraudulent, unfair and unjust nature of our financial system to benefit of the banks and to the detriment of the British taxpaying consumer.

Friday, October 10, 2008



Let’s ask David Attenborough.

David, we have recently bailed out, to the tune of £500 billion, a sub-species of the human race called “the banker”, but we have yet to see one show some humility on TV or radio to at least thank us and explain how they fucked up big time. What does a banker look like?

David: Well, here in the jungle of The City of London, the normally shy and retiring banker can still be found in his usual watering holes getting pissed on champagne and going to lap dancing clubs for some light entertainment…at your expense. This intelligent but evil creature has no desire to be seen in public, particularly at times like these during which he can screw the human race for hundreds of billions while hundreds of thousands of malnourished dehydrated kids die every year of despair, hunger, thirst, and very easily curable diseases. They can frequently be heard laughing and saying to each other, “fuck ‘em, the morons”, but one has to listen very carefully to filter out this mating call from the noise and din of the jungle which he calls home, The City of London.

Thursday, October 09, 2008


Get them in the dock!

As I pointed out a few months ago, the FSA was created for a number of reasons, one of which was to "protect the consumer", though what the consumer was being protected from is not stated (but we all know that now...the banks).

One aim of the FSA, as stated in Section 4 (1) is "promoting public understanding of the financial system."

I doubt if more than 5% of the MPs in the house of commons fully understand the financial system.

But it is that section that I would use together with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (which refers to a requirement that contracts be issued in 'good faith'), and the principle of unjust enrichment to anull a financial contract.

But back to the FSA.

Section 3 of the FSMA 2000 states;
3 Market confidence
(1) The market confidence objective is: maintaining confidence in the financial system.
(2) “The financial system” means the financial system operating in the United Kingdom and includes—
(a) financial markets and exchanges;
(b) regulated activities; and
(c) other activities connected with financial markets and exchanges.

Over the last two weeks I have heard that word "confidence" 500 billion times.

Was the FSA given all the information it was supposed to by law in order for it to maintain market confidence?

If so, was the information supplied accurate? If the information was not accurate who has been prosecuted for such misdemeanours.

If not, why did it not chase up and prosecute those financial organizations that had not supplied the necessary data?

The FSA has failed us all... BIG TIME!!

It has not told you how the financial system works, contrary to Section 4 of the FSMA 2000, and it has not maintained market confidence, contrary to Section 3 of the FSMA 2000.

Get the FSA in the dock...NOW!

Nick Clegg, along with Cameron and Brown, have been avoiding apportioning blame.

Well I've done it for them.

Blame the FSA, which is actually financed by the same organizations it is supposed to oversee (hence the reason why the real, fraudulent, unfair and unjust nature of our financial system is not available on the FSA website).

Wednesday, October 08, 2008


That's what the banks get away with.

Literally murder.

And they know they can get away with it.

That's why they do it.

Because they and their agents can peddle the myth that we need them for our money, or else!

That's why they vet our banksucking leaders at Bilderberg before they're elected by us in sham elections.


Listening to BBC Radio 5 Live again this morning, the debate was on...the bailout, asking listeners, what do you think?

Well, the first few callers were all "well somethings gotta be dun, so what the heck?".

But then a financial adviser from Northern Ireland came on. And he knew his stuff!

He called the system spot on.

Today, here is what Bilderberger Gordon Brown did with your money; because the banks have reached their credit limits by issuing dodgy mortgages to jobless no-hopers so that they can gamble the resulting debt away in the form of derivatives, and the banks are now effectively bankrupt because the gambling didn't work out, Brown has given the banks your hard-earned tax money, supposedly for schools, hospitals etc, so that they can then lend it back to you...AND AT INTEREST!

This financial adviser explained all that on radio, and within seconds the show host Victoria Darbyshire started to shut him up, but not before this guy let it out that the banks lend out 20 to 30 times they amount have on deposit.

So onto the next caller, a well spoken well educated gentleman from South East England. He too was on the same (war)path, and got the same treatment; SHUT THAT GUY UP!

If you didn't laugh you'd cry.


We are bailing out the banks for trillions (not hundreds of billions).

We have inquiries into why Gordon Brown's farts smell so eggy and other very, very minor events.

So why can't we have an inquiry into how the banks got it so bloody wrong that every taxpayer in the UK is giving them £2000 (at least) to bail them out?!

They've already had £200 billion from the Special Liquidity Scheme. Where's all that gone?

Get them in the dock...NOW!

Take them into bankruptcy.

Strip them of their power to create money, and let's get 100% control over our money...NOW!

Saturday, October 04, 2008


The financial rescue plan bailout, plainly engineered by Bilderbergers, is so unjust and unfair that any lawyer with a clear head, who can think outside of the box and think independently, and has a working knowledge of the NWO, could rip their financial contracts to pieces.

Any lawyer should
1. understand how the debts/mortgages were generated, and why
2. understand who owns and controls the banks who created the loans
3. understand what those bankers have done, including the recent bailout and the events leading up to it, and all the wars engineered and financed by Wall Street and The City of London and the resulting centralization of power via UN, IMF etc
4. use unjust enrichment, the FSMA 2000, referring to the incompetence and complicity of the FSA, and laws governing unfair contracts, citing 1, 2 and 3 to prove the unfairness.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008


What’s it like to be screwed from behind without knowing it? We should all know that now.

The current financial crisis is a result of the traitors to the human race in Wall Street and City of London screwing us all and without us knowing it.

In the first half of this decade we had cheap credit available and saw many home improvement programmes on TV. This encouraged a property boom resulting in a rapid rise in house prices, and thus ever increasing mortgages. People felt the good times were here to stay and remortgaged to release some equity in their house for nice holidays, nice cars and anything else nice.

It all resulted in massive borrowing by us from the banks in the form of large mortgages.

Now, the beauty of our financial system is that debt, be it a loan or mortgage, is counted as an asset.

Even though the money for that debt doesn’t exist and is simply numbers on a computer, that debt counts as something physical to be traded or sold or used as collateral for some other financial transaction.

Another beautiful aspect of our financial system is that it is run by crooks who can steer the economy this way and that way to their benefit, i.e. they know the future. They generally know which sectors of the economy will rise or fall, and when, as on 9/11 when certain stocks in airlines were expected to fall and certain stocks in banks were expected to rise, and someone knew, bet on it through the dreaded derivatives and made a small fortune.

So how do you use this foreknowledge for maximum benefit to yourself?

You gamble.

If you know the future outcome of an event or series of events, if you place a bet that a stock will rise or fall due to that event then you can win...big time!

And the more you gamble the more you can win.

But how do you raise such massive quantities of finance for this gambling in order to win big time? As a bank, even though you have the power to do so, you cannot simply create money out of nothing. A demand has to be made for the credit to be created. So as a bank you encourage people to borrow, particularly mortgages because they involve several hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pounds each. The cheap credit and TV programmes encouraged this. The debts created by this borrowing count as assets which can be used as mortgage backed securities for gambling on the stock markets in the form of derivatives.

This explains the rise in self-certification mortgages, NINJA mortgages, sub-prime mortgages etc. They are very good ways to quickly raise large quantities of finance in the form of mortgage debt, which is accepted as collateral, which can then be gambled as derivatives. The hope is that the gambling in derivatives will cover any loss from lending money as mortgages to people who had zero possibility of repaying. Why else would you lend hundreds of thousands to a jobless no-hoper?

But the law states that only a certain amount of debt can be generated in this way.

So the credit that could and should have been used for investment in long term and economically sound companies, economies and industries for the general benefit of society has instead been used for large short term gain by gambling with derivatives.

Hence the lack of credit. They’ve gambled it all away.

Now some banks have been found out. Some banks were not on the inside and did not know the outcomes, or the desired outcome could not be engineered, and they lost...big time!

And now they want bailing out with taxpayers money, to "grease the wheels of industry and commerce", something they should have been doing in the first place instead of gambling on making a quick massive profit.

So where has all the money gone?

It has gone somewhere, but those who know aren’t saying where it’s gone.

But they are screaming, "the sky is falling down, the sky is falling down".

Yeah, the sky is falling down, because they made it fall down, and knew that we, not they, would have to stop it.

We don’t need this.

We don’t need them.

There are alternatives.