Thursday, July 30, 2009


Absolutely. Without a doubt.

And here's the proof.

Watch this video about the Nazi T4 program and you'll understand the reason why assisted suicide is being pushed both here (Dr Death and his suicide kits touring the country) and in the USA (with Obama's Zionazi advisers advocating a very similar system to T4), and why documentaries, articles and photographs on people demanding their right to assisted suicide have been in the media so much recently.

Hitler's T-4

About 9 minutes 20 seconds in there is mention of a propaganda film called Ich Klage an (I Accuse) in which a woman is shown demanding a lethal injection from her doctor.

Sound familiar?

Ich Klage an was proposed by Professor Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal doctor and head of the Nazi euthansia program, who was found guilty of crimes against humanity at Nuremberg and hung.

One current sponsor of the mercy killing movement is self-confessed Nazi collaborator and Bilderberger George Soros who financed Obama into the White House.


Qu'elle F'in surprise!

Josef Ackermann, the Bilderberger who runs Deutsche Bank which has just posted massive profits along with other Bilderberg banks, has been able to have a comment of his published in The Financial Times today in which he argues for even bigger international banks.

Despite the fact that such big international banks have just tanked the global economy due to their greedy reckless gambling and have been bailed out with trillions of public money, he wants such big international banks to grow even bigger, to facilitate wider and faster globalisation.

He addresses the debate about banks being too big to fail by arguing that the big banks are currently too interconnected and that they should somehow be disconnected.

Eh? Say what?

I don't understand that argument because even if such big international banks could be disconnected they would still be too big to fail, and still connected by Bilderberg, and Ackermann does not use that B word.

I can think of one popular word beginning with B that could describe Ackermann but I don't use such foul language.

And look at Ackermann's mates at the IFF; the usual suspects, Bilderberg CFR Nazis!



Smaller banks will not make us safer

By Josef Ackermann

Published: July 29 2009 21:37 | Last updated: July 29 2009 21:37

Two years into the financial crisis, the longer-term repercussions for the global financial system are becoming more discernible. Progress is being made on the implementation of the Group of 20 action plan and we must not let up in our efforts. Industry as well as political leaders must ensure that arrangements found deficient, instruments found wanting and industry practices found inappropriate are not re-established. It is equally important that the cumulative effect of the various proposals is kept under consideration. For instance, a number of regulatory changes will lead to higher capital requirements, and care should be taken that the aggregate effect does not exceed levels deemed sufficient in the interest of an appropriate balance between stability and the ability of the financial system to raise the funds necessary for global growth.

It is also vital to maintain an internationally harmonised approach. There is a danger that changes in the regulatory environment will, by accident or design, lead to a refragmentation of markets. It is understandable that national regulators and governments, chastened by the experience of having to clean up after banking failures, try to limit the potential costs to their jurisdictions. But the proposal that large, internationally active financial institutions should essentially be reduced to holding companies of national operations that are organised as stand-alone units is not the right answer.

In fact, such a structure would enhance rather than reduce risks to financial stability, as it would create trapped pools of liquidity and capital. Banks would not be able to manage their risk, capital and liquidity on a consolidated basis. This would make the allocation of capital in the economy less efficient in normal times and render an efficient response more difficult in times of tension. It would also have severe implications for the growth prospects of smaller countries with a limited deposit base.

Consequently, we should not seek answers in the perceived safety of nation-based structures, but rather establish effective processes for cross-border crisis management. It is not the existence of global financial institutions that creates unnecessary economic costs for our societies in a crisis situation, but the lack of internationally co-ordinated crisis management. Thus, we need to develop an internationally consistent intervention and resolution scheme for complex global financial institutions.

Apart from the danger of market refragmentation, there is another intense debate on banks’ size. A new doctrine is taking hold: if banks are considered too big to fail, then they are too big – and should, hence, be downsized. In line with this thinking, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) was the first authority to explicitly suggest that a leverage ratio of over 20 was “not prudent and undesirable in good times”. Undoubtedly, the excessive leverage of some institutions aggravated the crisis. That said, I feel that the focus of the discussion on banks’ size has shifted away from what the issue actually involves: it is not size as such that is the problem but the interconnectedness of banks. Neither Lehman Brothers nor Hypo Real Estate were big, but their interconnectedness with the rest of the financial system turned their respective failures into a problem.

So what we need to look for are not limits to the size of banks but mechanisms to reduce interconnectedness. To be fair, this approach, rather than a cap on leverage, is indeed what the SNB suggests as the superior solution: large banks should hold capital and liquidity buffers that account for the systemic risk they pose and, most importantly, market structures and the organisational structure of large banks must be changed so as to enable an orderly winding-down that does not cause a systemic crisis.

These structures must not result in banks having a pre-determined breaking point along national lines. Rather, the key issue here is to design market infrastructures in a way that allows them to be insulated from the failure of any single participant, especially that of systemically important institutions. System designs that rely on central counterparties are one example. It may also be useful to make business lines such as payment systems bankruptcy-remote, so that their insolvency would not affect the groups of which they are part. This does not mean that they must be run as public utilities, but rather that they must be organised so as to prevent negative spillover from unrelated market segments into the vital infrastructure of the financial system.

It has been reassuring to see that the response to the crisis has been an unprecedented effort, both among officials and in the financial industry, to forge a global consensus on the measures needed to make the financial system more resilient. We have, thus far, wisely avoided the temptation to resort to national answers. This attitude reflects the conviction that market integration, if pursued in an adequate regulatory framework, is beneficial to our economies. As evidenced in the period prior to the outbreak of the crisis, market integration can harness the world’s financial resources to fight poverty and raise growth rates, while it also allows for a quicker transfer of financial expertise as well as for asset and risk diversification.

It is equally important to recall that large banks are useful to the economy and business. They finance and hedge risk for companies that are active globally. They have the capacity to finance, arrange and handle the complexity of large deals. Moreover, large banks can better afford the increasingly expensive investments in information technology, risk management and market infrastructure that are also conducive to enhancing financial stability. As we move forward in our quest to make the global financial system less prone to crises, we would be well advised to bear this in mind.

The writer is chief executive of Deutsche Bank and chairman of the Institute of International Finance


This is the tactic that the 'shit happens'-mongers are using to stop criticism of the Meteorological Office's very public failures of their long-term weather forecasts.

They say, with great pride, that weather is different from climate, so because the weather was not predicted correctly does not mean that the climate predictions are wrong too.

OK, let's look at this again.

I've saved the link to The Meteorological Office website in my favourites/bookmarks, and when I open the favourites/bookmarks it says Met Office : Weather and Climate Change.

So the Meteorological Office is making a clear link between the two.

But which is easier to predict? The weather over a small portion of the planet over a period of several months, or the climate over the whole planet over a period of several decades?

In the former the timescale is smaller, the physics is less complex and the computational domain considered is smaller.

In the latter, the timescale is much larger, there is much more complex physics to consider, e.g. solar effects, and the computational domain is much larger.

I am researching much smaller scale fluid flow and am aware of the physics, the computational methods and computer systems used in these calculations, and I'm telling you that weather and climate prediction are not an exact science. Even in my research, in which I deal with fluid flow in a volume of say 20 metres cubed, I am having to use approximate methods on a very fast computer with limited precision, and previous research has never been able to agree with experimental results. Even in such a small computational domain we don't have the methods to calculate exactly the behaviour of the fluids involved. As a simulation runs the initial errors build up and up and up.... There are only a very, very small number of situations in which exact solutions to the governing equations can be found, and weather and climate do not belong to that tiny subset.

It does not fill me with confidence in the long range predictions of climate when our weather over the UK alone cannot be predicted accurately over a period of a week, never mind months. I've been doing this for a while now and the initial predictions are never correct. On The Meteorological Office website I look at the weather prediction for my area six days in advance. It's sometimes fun to watch the prediction change over those six days from glorious sunshine to shower to dark rain to sunshine again. It's often correct only the day before when a large region of high pressure is sitting directly over the UK and the nearest clouds are over the North Atlantic and it's obvious that there ain't going to be any rain.

There is always the probability that the military has the methods and computational resources to predict the weather and climate to a high degree of accuracy, but why would they tell us? The military is probably 40 to 50 years ahead of what's in the public domain.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009


Ruth Lea has been able to publish a comment in The Times today about bank-bashers.

They're wrong, she claims.

They're hypocrites, she cries.

Ruth is correct when she states that it was Labour, and particularly Bilderberger Brown, who encouraged and allowed The City to go on its reckless gambling spree and fuck us left, right and sideways for every penny they could.

But she is wrong to side with the banks with their argument that they must build up their balance sheets first.

1. They've been bailed us...with our money. People are going to die unnecessarily, people are going to lose their homes unnecessarily, people are going to lose their jobs, their families, their dignity, unnecessarily. They owe us big time. We can very easily ask for it all back and start a new system that benefits us, the British people, instead of a cabal of warmongering, reckless megalomaniacs (but our whimpy leaders don't want to lose their cushy post-Government careers in The City or Academia).

2. Here's what I don't get : the banks create our money out of nothing. If they all created money to stimulate the economy, a few billion here and a few billion there for British businesses, then where will those customers deposit their business loans? Probably in a British bank. Those business customers pay their employees wages. And where will those employees deposit their wages? In a British bank; take your pick from HSBC to NatWest to Coop. And once they are deposited in a British bank then they can be used to create even more money in the credit pyramid for more business loans for jobs, and more mortgages so people can buy or stay in their homes.

What is wrong with that?

The banks were perfetly happy to inflate a housing credit bubble to create debt instruments to gamble with, but not happy to help drag the British economy out of the shithole they threw us into.

Why is that? Hmm?

Are the banks deliberately withholding credit from the economy to cause or deepen a global crisis, one that requires a global solution?

I'm reading and hearing that something major is going to happen around the end of September/start of October. Something very, very big. And it is to do with finance and will start a second and more severe depression.

Something big is going to happen...and quite soon. And the banks know it.



From The Times
July 29, 2009
Big-bank bashing is pure political hypocrisy
The days of easy lending are emphatically over, as the Chancellor well knows. It was his Government that let debt run wild
Ruth Lea

Alistair Darling made it clear this week that the Government had not rescued the banking sector “out of some charitable act”, so the banks had a duty to get lending. At the meeting with the chief executives of seven of Britain’s biggest banks he effectively threatened them with a competition inquiry if they failed to increase cheap lending to mortgage borrowers and small businesses.

Without wishing to act as an apologist for the banks — and goodness knows there have been shocking failures of governance and supervision — the Chancellor’s stance suggests little more than political grandstanding. He surely already knows why the banks are behaving as they are. He knows that they need to raise margins to rebuild battered balance sheets.

The Bank of England’s Financial Stability Report, though it may not be everyone’s idea of a ripping yarn, contains some excellent explanatory material about the state of Britain’s banks. It does not make for very happy reading. In fact, it makes for very grim reading.

Briefly, the Bank makes it very clear that banks’ balance sheets remain weak and are vulnerable to any setbacks in the recovery of the financial markets or the wider economy. If business’s bad debts rise or mortgage defaults accelerate significantly, such losses, on top of their current holdings of “toxic assets”, would further impair their balance sheets and curtail their ability to lend. But even if this does not happen on any great scale, given the economic uncertainties, banks may still wish to reduce their total lending compared with capital from the current high levels. Indeed, the regulators are likely to insist on this, especially for the big banks.

Banks have little choice but to behave cautiously. The heady pre-crunch days of cheap and plentiful credit, which so distorted the economy and people’s perceptions of financial normality and left such a toxic legacy of indebtedness, are demonstrably and emphatically over. We had the party, the party is over and now we have the hangover.

The Bank’s report makes some very pertinent points about the cost of raising funds. British banks have a huge, £800 billion “customer lending gap” — the difference between customer loans and deposits. This means that they are overdependent on the wholesale financial markets in which costs to the banks have risen significantly over the past year.

In addition, the Bank states that the withdrawal of overseas funding, as foreign banks display “home bias” and desert British customers, and the stiff competition for domestic deposits have added to the banks’ funding pressures and costs. The bank rate may indeed have fallen to historically low levels, but the costs to the banks of raising much of their funding have actually increased.

The Financial Stability Report concludes that “there is a risk that — in the event of further adverse macroeconomic or financial sector developments — banks may not supply sufficient credit to support growth in the economy”. In other words, another financial shock or a prolonged recession could result in their being unable to support adequately economic recovery. This is a serious point, and one that has been made by the Governor of the Bank on several occasions.

So Chancellor, you must surely know what the banking sector’s problems are. The Bank of England’s report could not be clearer. The casual observer can, therefore, only conclude that this latest outbreak of big-bank bashing is a political distraction, an attempt to find a scapegoat for the continuing problems of the economy. Of course, there is still considerable anger at the way that the senior directors of some of the big banks behaved in recent years and their insouciance as they pocketed large sums of money for staggeringly spectacular failure. They are easy targets.

But the Chancellor’s criticism would seem less hypocritical if his Government had not allowed the party to run for so long and so much debt to be accumulated by so many. It was no secret, for example, that Northern Rock was promoting 125 per cent mortgages and, more generally, that overgenerous lending was leading to an unsustainable housing market bubble that would have to “correct” itself at some point.

Yet when he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown and his creation the Financial Services Authority made few moves to restrain the wilder excesses of capitalism and the Bank was scarcely in a position to do so: its main job was to hit the Chancellor’s inflation target, which it did.

Politically, the party was good box office and the banks contributed to it. Metaphorically, they bought the drinks. And Mr Brown, as Chancellor, exploited politically the apparent buoyancy of the economy many, many times.

This is, however, no consolation to businesses as they struggle for funding in these difficult times. Some businesses, notably large businesses, can bypass the banking sector and raise equity or issue corporate bonds. And many businesses will rely on retained profits to see them through the worst.

But many small and medium-sized enterprises rely on bank capital, and banks’ lending decisions can prove to be a life or death matter for them. Unfortunately many businesses are closing and will continue to close, and some may be tempted to treat their banks as scapegoats if they refused to lend to them when they were in distress, even if their business was probably no longer viable in our straitened times.

Banks have to be cautious in the present economic climate. The Financial Stability Report explains in all too graphic detail why this is the case. If I wanted to go to Limerick, no, I would not start from here.

But, Chancellor, we are here and you know it.

Ruth Lea is economic adviser to Arbuthnot Banking Group and a former director of the Centre for Policy Studies


They can't make successful long range weather forecasts.

They got winter completely wrong, and I remember the reason they gave for their prediction of a BBQ summer was not based on science but on the law of probability!

So how can we accept taxes take our hard-earned money from us and laws that intrude on every aspect of our lives that are based on such long range weather forecasts that predict weather not months but decades in advance?

This and the recent statements from Jonathan Porritt that the government is nowhere near as green as it portrays itself show that the there is far more to the green agenda than we are being told.

And it is that the green agenda is bogus and is being pushed to terrify us into
1. ceding more and more power to a world government
2. paying more taxes for a bogus green economy
3. accepting the over-populated world idea leading to a cult of death, in the form of allowing people in the 3rd world to die and eventually to assisted and forced suicide of people who are considered too old or considered as having a poor quality of life.

You would all do well to take this quote and recite it to everyone you know because it shows how the climate is being used as an example of the 'global solutions to global problems' trick to install a world government;

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."
--The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome, by Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider



For barbecue summer, read wellies washout

By Martin King

Wednesday, 29 July 2009

The Met Office is today telling us what every Briton knows: it was wrong to raise summertime hopes.

A revised forecast will point to more unsettled weather well into next month.

Meanwhile tourists and "staycation" Britons can only deride the Met Office predictions back in April, when it said the odds of a scorching summer were 65 per cent.

Unfortunately for the forecasters - and for us - the 35 per cent won through - with less sunshine, more rain, and the experts blaming the jet stream's whims.

The weather folk will point out there was hot weather in June, and that Wimbledon barely needed its new Centre Court roof.

And at least we've avoided widespread summer floods - so far.

But another year for below-par holiday weather will raise questions about the accuracy - and even the point - of long-range forecasts.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009


Following the success that J P Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs have experienced, yet another Bilderberg bank has reported bumper profits.

Deutsche Bank, run by Bilderberger Josef Ackermann, has just reported a profit of over 1 billion euros in the second quarter alone! Most of that profit came from its corporate and investment banking division, which implies to me that someone knew what sort of things to invest in.

The following article tries to suggest that 'stable' markets and better conditions are the cause of such a massive profit. If so, why are only a few select banks reaping vast rewards from everyone else's misery and concern?


Deutsche Bank profits soar on 'stable' markets
Rebecca O'Connor

Better conditions in the financial markets boosted profits at Deutsche Bank by 67 per cent in the second quarter to €1.1 billion (£950 million).

The German bank earned net revenue of €7.9 billion, up 46 per cent on the same period in 2008.

Revenue at the bank's corporate and investment banking division accounted for two thirds of this income and were up 84 per cent to €5.3 billion on a year ago.

The results were ahead of analysts' expectations of a profit of €985 million.

Josef Ackermann, chairman of Deutsche Bank, described the second quarter figures as "very satisfactory". He said that while there was still uncertainty in the global economy: "We have witnessed stabilisation of the world's banking industry and financial markets. Increased liquidity and lower volatility in financial markets are both supportive for our business".

Sunday, July 26, 2009


A comment posted on Craig Murray's blog regarding Craig's disappointing result in the Norwich North by-election.

Did UKIP and the BNP receive more coverage than Craig?

Ah well, there's a general election next year. Start working towards it now. This recent campaign was rushed and stitched together in a hurry, but still did OK considering the resources.



You weren't rubbish. I think you put a brilliant effort into it.

But I don't think you understand where the power lies and how desperate that power is to maintain the illusion that the UK is a democracy. Having someone like you in Parliament who is honest, brave, not subservient or afraid to speak out would create cracks in the illusion and people would start to see that the country they live in is possibly the most corrupt and evil country in the world.

Posted by: Ruth at July 24, 2009 7:01 PM

Saturday, July 25, 2009


Of course it is.

The bombardment with pro-suicide propaganda and the suspicious visit of Dr Death and his jolly suicide kits indicates that some in the government want assisted suicide legalised.

Once assisted suicide is legalised then the next step is to work for is forced suicide.

We along with the USA are casually and blindly walking into a Hitler-T4 agenda, to save money because the banks fucked us all good and proper and our -1000% trustworthy and very creepy leaders bailed out the banks instead of telling them to F off!



Royal College of Nursing drops opposition to assisted suicide
The Royal College of Nursing has become the only major medical insistutions to withdraw its opposition to assisted dying to neutral meaning it will neither support nor oppose a change in the law.

by Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Published: 4:45PM BST 24 Jul 2009

The College, which represents 400,000 members, has now adopted a neutral stance after a three month consultation.

The deaths of Sir Edward Downes and his wife Lady Downes at Dignitas clinic in Switzerland reignited the debate over the so-called right-to-die.

The case was particularly controversial as although Lady Downes, 74, was suffering from terminal illness, Sir Edward was not, 85.

Earlier this month an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill proposed by Lord Falconer to allow people to help a terminally ill person travel abroad to a country where assisted suicide is legal was defeated by the House of Lords.

Currently aiding and abetting suicide is a crime punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment.

At least 115 people from the UK have travelled abroad to die since 2002 with the rate increasing every year, figures show.

The Royal College of Nursing is the largest of the medical institutions so far to have adopted a neutral position.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists,The Royal College of Anaesthetists and the The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh are also all neutral on the matter.

The British Medical Association dropped its opposition to assisted suicide after a debate at its annual representatives meeting in 2005 but switched back the following year after a backlash.

The RCN consultation reached 175,000 of its members and of the 1,200 responses, although the majority supported assisted suicide the margin was very narrow so after discussion the Council switched to a neutral position.

Nine per cent of respondents were neutral, 40 per cent opposed assisted suicide and 49 per cent supported it, with one per cent not recording a position.

Dr Peter Carter, RCN chief executive, said: “Assisted suicide is a complicated issue and this was reflected in the range and variety of responses that we received to our consultation.

"The split in responses shows that there is no overwhelming support among nurses for either opposing or supporting a change in the law on assisted suicide. We fully support the common themes that came through the consultation, namely maintaining the nurse-patient relationship, protecting vulnerable patients and making sure there is adequate investment in end of life care."


After the complete balls up in the Norwich North by-election Ed Balls, the man who has attended Bilderberg even more times than Mandelson has apparently opened his campaign for leadership.

Brown is doomed, that's for sure.

But how can the UK not be governed by a Bilderberger? The answer is simple; it can't. That's why Mandelson was parachuted in last August with the agreement of Bilderberger Brown (allegedly Mandelson's enemy) and Bilderberger Barosso of the EU.

Balls will become leader, and soon. His Bilderberg credentials, and his willingness to foster the greed in The City that has led us into this financial mess, will I believe guarantee this.

Maybe Cameron's anti-EU politics will lead to his downfall and Balls will save the EU.

We'll have to wait and see.

The EU is essential to the rapidly unfolding agenda. If Ireland votes YES then there are only a few people who can stop the EU and one of them is Cameron. If he becomes PM then we could be in for some fun!



Ed Balls attacks Labour leadership rival James Purnell
Ed Balls has signalled the start of the contest to succeed Gordon Brown with a thinly veiled attack on a potential rival for the Labour leadership.

By Andrew Porter and Mary Riddell
Published: 10:04PM BST 24 Jul 2009
Ed Balls: Ed Balls urges professionals to become social workers
Asked about Mr Purnell?s decision to quit, Mr Balls says it is a matter for the former minister to explain Photo: BLOOMBERG

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the Schools Secretary suggests that James Purnell, a leading Blairite who walked out of the Cabinet last month, had suffered a “midlife crisis”.

The strength of the remarks about a fellow Labour MP is unusual and, in the context of the Norwich by-election defeat, will be seen as a direct shot across the bows of a potential challenger to replace Mr Brown.

Asked about Mr Purnell’s decision to quit, Mr Balls says it is a matter for the former minister to explain.

But speaking of the need for the party unity he adds: “There are times when individuals in their early 40s have crises. They buy motorbikes or go off and travel round the world and have a gap year. Sometimes people do that. I don’t think for political parties to have those kinds of moments is very sensible, especially when you are at your moment of greatest clarity and vision.”

Mr Balls can hardly hide his disdain for Mr Purnell’s latest career move, joining a Left-wing think tank.

He says now is not the time “to be going off to think tanks to find out what your identity really is”.

In a reference to Cabinet colleagues such as David Miliband, who did not follow Mr Purnell out, Mr Balls says: “A lot of people looked into themselves… and said, 'What’s the right thing to do?’ They made decisions which were right for them, right for the country and right for the Labour Party.”

Friday, July 24, 2009


This little 13 minute video documents visually the source of funds for 9/11, and explains why the investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal was shut down.

Tut, tut.

As suggested in the video, we can argue until the cows come home over how the 9/11 operation was executed on the day, but behind the operation was years of planning and thus years of finance and logistics.

Where did the money for 9/11 come from? The Al-Yamamah deal looks like a highly probable source.

Thursday, July 23, 2009


The way David Aaronovitch writes in The Times implies to me that he is ready to sign up and get out to Afghanistan. So somebody, please, give him a gun and fly him over there as soon as possible and save us from this classic warmonger.

He is like the writers who on or immediately after 11th September 2001 all cried war.

Send our boys now!

We need to kill the X, Y and Z who did this!

Such writers were the Kagans and the Kristols of this world, all proclaiming war and vowing revenge without any serious investigation but nowhere to be found when the uniforms and guns were being handed out.

Mr A believes, apparently, the usual bollocks;

this enemy came out of nowhere
they are evil
they need to be stopped

I'll repeat that again but with some fun.

this enemy came out of nowhere (they were financed by the CIA via the Pakistan ISI and everything they did was watched and recorded).
they are evil (they were taught a radical version of Islam derived from a British agent Hempher)
they need to be stopped (they almost eradicated the opium harvests and asked too much in the way of tribute for fossil fuel pipelines across their turf)

All these people like Mr A, the Kagans, Kristol etc. They can't wait to send us to war and can find all sorts of excuses to support war but suddenly become invisible when the volunteers are required, and all you see is a cloud of dust as they run for their lives.

So David get out there now as a private and save us from the monsters (that our beloved intelligence agencies created for the purpose of war in the area of the world containing the largest known fossil fuel reserves).

Here's what I would do instead of spending hundreds of billions every year on a military conflict overseas and a police state at home;
1. follow the money - stop all British, American and Israeli covert financing of the Taliban and their supporters
2. pay double what opium farmers are paid for their crop and and then pay them to grow pomegranates and other fruit and veg they can sell
3. put on public trial any western agent collaborating with the Taliban and others
4. inform the British, American an Isreali public of the PNAC/Clean Break agenda.

This is something that Mr A could support doesn't involve him flying out there with nothing but a helmet and gun to save him from heaven (or hell).



From The Times
July 24, 2009
The troops leave. And then the horrors begin
Opponents of the war in Afghanistan ignore the consequences of withdrawal. We supporters live with the price of staying
David Aaronovitch

Almost exactly 30 years ago, in the summer of 1979, an IRA double ambush killed 18 British soldiers near the town of Warrenpoint in Northern Ireland. Among them was the commanding officer of the Queens Own Highlanders, Lieutenant-Colonel David Blair. It was the worst single incident during a campaign that lasted nearly two decades and cost more than 700 military lives.

Yet, despite the occasional opinion poll suggesting that the Irish should be left to sort things out for themselves, and a desultory Troops Out campaign waged by the Daily Mirror, there was never any great public movement for withdrawal.

Three years later, though still mired in Ulster, British Forces travelled thousands of miles to liberate some barely populated islands from Argentina, at a cost of 258 Service personnel. The call for the troops to be brought home, or for Mrs Thatcher somehow subsequently to account for the losses, hardly registered.

Why are things so different now, in Afghanistan, where the increase in military deaths seems to have prompted a widespread public unease? It could be linked, one supposes, to the myth that somehow Britain is alone in this battle or taking the lion’s miserable share of the dying. How many people know that, in relation to population size Canada has lost a third more soldiers than we have and Denmark has lost 50 per cent more? Perhaps they too have their debates about helicopters, and imagine wars in which none of their soldiers dies.

It was easier, it seems to me, for pro-warriors in the past. They’d talk up their wars, censorship would keep the worst of it from filtering back home at least for a while, and they could always deploy the language of patriotism against those who demurred. Defeatists, they called them, giving succour to the enemy. Soldiers know they risk their lives, and you the doubters put them doubly at risk.

I’m glad that this form of bullying cannot be done any more. I’m glad that every life we lose or whose loss we inflict has to be argued over and explained, from root to crown of the whole tree of conflict. The onus is on those of us who believe that we are right to be in Afghanistan constantly to re-explain why.

Maybe we’ve done too little of it. With some important exceptions (here I recommend my colleague, Matthew Parris) I am struck by the paucity of the case against our involvement, by the failure of many opponents to engage with even the most basic and obvious objections to their proposals for withdrawal.

Here is a paraphrase of a typical withdrawalist prospectus: failure is inevitable, intervention was historically pre-doomed, the idea of “Western-style democracy” in Afghanistan is a delusion, in any case there is mission creep, we are only there to please the Americans, sooner or later the Taleban will win, better to get out. And that’s it. As for what happens next, let’s not go there.

Because, of course, we’ve been there. The New Statesman magazine a week ago reminded its readers that it had opposed the invasion of Afghanistan back in the autumn of 2001, but failed to remind them of what it had advocated instead.

Perhaps a mythical surgical strike to take out bin Laden somehow but otherwise leaving Taleban-ruled Afghanistan alone? Perhaps nothing at all other than a change in Western policy is sufficient — as if by magic — to placate the forces now rising in the region?

For others the implication is that we could have gone in, done for al-Qaeda and come out again — almost precisely mirroring the policy of neglect that followed the Soviet defeat, when we countenanced the country’s descent into warlordism, followed by the Taleban, followed by al-Qaeda.

These were the same days when “we” — as represented by pre-9/11 George Bush — certainly did not believe in nation-building. If the lessons of history tell us of the dangers of intervention, they also tell us something just as important about hit-and-run — something visible in the lost statues of Bamiyan, the executed of the Kabul football stadium, the murder of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the reduction of women to the status of slaves — no, lower than slaves — the spread of jihadism and the fall of the twin towers.

So, going in, we couldn’t just run out. That’s mission creep for you: the mission changes. Of course it does; ask the shade of Abraham Lincoln. Once there, we could hardly have had no view of what came after, even if we most certainly have not insisted on the “perfect” democracy of the sneering caricature.

And if we were to pull out now (and forget here the question of relationships with our allies, and imagine that they do the same), what then? Happy, peaceful Taleban, alone to do what they will with their statues and women, free to find their own way to God and content to allow everyone else to do the same? Happy fundamentalists of Swat, uninflamed by trans-border bombings, taking their part in a peaceful Pakistan? What fanciful rubbish! If, pace Lord Malloch-Brown, Afghanistan is not a big external security threat right now, that is precisely because our young men and women are fighting and dying in Helmand.

Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) the troops that I have heard interviewed seem to grasp this point better than many back home. They have few illusions about the Taleban, seeing them at closer quarters; they seem to know that the return of the Taleban is not what Afghans want; they envisage what might happen in Pakistan after a Taleban victory; and, unlike some observers on the Left whose insouciance on this point is literally sickening, they comprehend the damage done to a society by the enslavement of its women. Our young soldiers seem to realise that a people cannot advance if half its number — the half that brings the children into the world — is, in effect, held in ignorant, violent and unhealthy servitude.

So the difference between those who advocate staying and those who argue for leaving is this: the goers refuse to spell out the consequences of their advocacy, while the stayers must live with the constant price exacted by theirs. On the whole I don’t believe that we do retreat into the dopey bubble of magical thinking, of thinking that 20 more helicopters will mean no more dead teenagers. We know it’s hard and we may not succeed. But we have to do it. And we have to keep explaining why.


Oh, say can you see the Zionazi
who runs the White House and the Military?
He creates bogus wars to fight overseas
for oil and for land and a big new embassy.
From the shadows he tries to corrupt you with lies
‘bout a new Pearl Harbour to control the great prize.
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the fleeced and the home of the microwaved?

Wednesday, July 22, 2009


They blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing and wounding nearly 140 in total, many of whom were British.

All heil ZOG, for he is glorious and loving and tender, and his love knows no bounds.

All heil ZOG, for his love shall fill the world with a blinding light, from an explosion of a bomb or a missile made from depleted uranium.

All heil ZOG, for he cares for us, and loves us, and he shall rain death and destruction upon us.

All heil ZOG.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009


Damn it!

I'm most sincerely sorry, but I've forgotten to heil ZOG. So here goes (again)...

Ready? Have you got the CCTV and audio tapes to record this?

OK? I'm ready. Are you? Right.

[pause and focus, got to make this a good one, one for the TV and papers]

Heil ZOG!


Look, I know it's nearly August and most peeps are off on their hols and are less vigilant and aware of events, but for the love of the Zioniazis, start stopping starting wars.

It ain't gonna work.

We know.

You know we know.

And we know you know we know.

So just start stopping starting wars.

You're only making it worse for yourself.


From The Life of Brian

CROWD OF WOMEN: [yelling]
JEWISH OFFICIAL: Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath.
MATTHIAS: Do I say 'yes'?
OFFICIAL: You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering
the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...
CROWD: Ooooh!
OFFICIAL: are to be stoned to death.
MATTHIAS: Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was,
'That piece of halibut was good enough for the Zionazis.'
CROWD: Oooooh!
OFFICIAL: Blasphemy! He's said it again!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, he did! He did!...
OFFICIAL: Did you hear him?!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, we did! We did!...
WOMAN #1: Really!
OFFICIAL: Are there any women here today?
CROWD: No. No. No. No...
OFFICIAL: Very well. By virtue of the authority vested in me--
MATTHIAS: Oww! Lay off! We haven't started yet!
OFFICIAL: Come on! Who threw that? Who threw that stone? Come on.
CROWD: She did! She did! He did! He! He. He. Him. Him. Him. Him.
He did.
CULPRIT WOMAN: Sorry. I thought we'd started.
OFFICIAL: Go to the back.
OFFICIAL: Always one, isn't there? Now, where were we?
MATTHIAS: Look. I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying
CROWD: Oooh! He said it again! Oooh!...
OFFICIAL: You're only making it worse for yourself!
MATTHIAS: Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Zionazi! Zionazi!
CROWD: Oooooh!...
OFFICIAL: I'm warning you. If you say 'Zionazi' once more--
[MRS. A. stones OFFICIAL]
Right. Who threw that?
MATTHIAS: [laughing]
OFFICIAL: Come on. Who threw that?
CROWD: She did! It was her! He! He. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him.
OFFICIAL: Was it you?
MRS. A.: Yes.
MRS. A.: Well, you did say 'Zionazi'.
CROWD: Ah! Ooooh!...
[CROWD stones MRS. A.]
OFFICIAL: Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one
is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even,
and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Zionazi'.
CROWD: Ooooooh!...
WOMAN #1: Good shot!
[clap clap clap]

Monday, July 20, 2009


That's supposed to be a joke.

A Zionazi is always a Zionazi, no matter how they try to suppress the fact.

If the use of such a word would be taken to court and the user prosecuted for its use what defence could such a user have?

Well let's ask ourselves one simple question, the clue to which is actually in the word itself;

Did the Nazis and Zionists ever collaborate?

The answer to that question is absolutely, positively, undeniably, irrefutably YES!!

And when did that collaboration begin in earnest?

Almost immediately after the Jewish nemesis Adolph Hitler became supreme leader of Nazi Germany.

And is this collaboration documented?

Absolutely, positively, undeniably, irrefutably YES!!

If any ignorant traitor-to-the-human-race MP even suggests banning the use of the word 'Zionazi' they will not only be denying history, they will also be denying you the beauty of the English language.

Zionism and Nazism were a match made in heaven.


Because the two had virtually identical aims and were ultimately financed by the same Zionist family; THE ROTHSCHILDS!

Why? Because the Rothschilds were and still are followers of a totally FUBAR pervert called Jacob Frank.

No book burning can erase that fact from history.

No more murders of Palestinians can erase that fact from history.

No more harassment or even murder of revisionist historians can erase that fact from history.

No more placement of members of their family in academia to push the 'shit happens' version of history can erase that fact from history.

What's done is done.

And the people on the street know it!

It's time to run and hide.

The Rothschilds, Warburgs and other Zionists, true and false, murdered Jews one way or another and I am prepared stand in court and argue that FACT.

So I'll see you all in court, you murdering warmongering megalomaniac ZIONAZI scum!


Last year particular allegations were made against former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, which were gradually built up and built up so that Olmert had to stand down and defend himself.

I predicted he would be found innocent of the charges made against him, and some minor charges in comparison would be made, charges for which Olmert could be charged and possibly found guilty or innocent.

Well, today the Israeli Attorney General has rejected the major charges against Olmert citing lack of evidence (despite months of allegations in the media) but that evidence exists to possibly charge Olmert on some relatively minor charges; EXACTLY AS I SAID!

So what was Olmert discussing before he was ousted? I believe he was opening up peace talks with Syria and others following the disastrous Lebanon war of 2006 that he was tricked into (but later realised that he didn't have to fight).


(NB the following paragraph is the FOURTH in the article; why?)


...Meanwhile, the Justice Ministry announced on Monday that Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has decided to close the corruption case against Olmert over the purchase of a home on Cremieux Street in Jerusalem, citing lack of evidence.


It appears that after months of protest against Georgian tie-muncher President Saakashivili that he is to offer to share power and become more democratic.

This is Saakashvili, ZOG puppet installed by Bilderberg Nazi collaborator George Soros.



Georgia's President Vows Changes


TBILISI, Georgia -- Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is expected to unveil Monday moves to share more power and make elections more democratic in an attempt to mollify his critics and begin a comeback.

The address, before the country's parliament just days before a morale-boosting visit from U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, follows three months of street protests by the president's political opponents, who continue to demand his resignation after losing a disastrous war against Russia last summer. His critics accuse him of increasing authoritarianism, of monopolizing the state media for his own ends and of using the police to repress protesters.

Saturday, July 18, 2009


Comments on an article in The Daily Mail today regarding the flash floods and heavy rain are very skeptical of global warming.

If you can remember The Meteorological Office predicted a glorious BBQ summer.

I can remember just one week of very hot and humid weather when Wimbledon was on. Last night it was that cool that I sat in my living room watching TV in a T-shirt AND jumper. It feels like it's been a disappointingly cool grey summer so far.

But still, a war in August might warm things up...



What happened to the BBQ summer we were promised?

Although to be honest I prefer this to that heatwave.

When oh when are people going to stop trying to predict our weather far in advance, nature is nature and she's going to be a little put out by the solar minimum, the shift in axis and the configuration of the planetary bodies in our solar system.

But still our government needs to green tax us on everything to pay for the fact they built over our flood plains. DOH.

This weather reminds me of the summers growing up in the 70's, nothing wrong with a bit of rain, that is, after all, what England is known for.

- Michelle, hertfordshire, 18/7/2009 11:50
Click to rate Rating 23

Report abuse

Whatever happened to the great summer that was predicted for this year? Lets face it, the weather forecasters haven't a clue when it comes to predicting more than a few days in advance. The third consecutive wet summer is really getting me down now.

- Paul, Shopshire, 18/7/2009 11:39
Click to rate Rating 16

Report abuse

What you mean put an end to the summer??/
There are still some weeks left isnt there/

Or has this been changed without us noticing?

- carol, Wales, 18/7/2009 11:25
Click to rate Rating 10

Report abuse

"..End to the summer..". Summer? Did we have one then? I must have blinked! Bit like Global Warming really. Everybody talking about it, nobody sure it is there.

- Anon, UK, 18/7/2009 11:17
Click to rate Rating 11

Report abuse

What ever happened to the 'BBQ' summer predicted by the Met Office some months back?
If they can't forecast a few months hence how come they are so sure about global warming over the next 40 years?

- JohnD, Kingsbridge, UK, 18/7/2009 11:07
Click to rate Rating 25

Report abuse

But all the ex-spurts reckoned we were to have a LONG, HOT summer. If they can't get that right, or even tell what it will really be like tomorrow, how dare they tell us how the world will be in fifty years or a century and spend MILLIONS of pounds of OUR money in advertising how we should all be "improving our carbon footprint"?

- ANon, UK, 18/7/2009 10:31
Click to rate Rating 25


Last year they tried with Georgia and Russia.

Maybe this year they might go for the jugular. Things are getting awfully tricky. The masses are really pissed off at the banks. Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Bill is very close to being enacted. And people are generally asking more and more questions, about money, about 9/11, about 7/7, about wars, about politicians.

So is it just coincidence that as we begin to prepare for the August holidays that
1. Israel has sent several warships into the Persian Gulf,
2. Iran, the last piece in the Clean Break jigsaw, has recently been the focus of civil unrest,
3. a human rights acitivist in Chechnya was murdered and blame immediately laid at the feet of Putin

These are not concrete pieces of evidence that prove something is going down, but...

Wednesday, July 15, 2009


It's been going on for centuries.

The kind of people who drive around in Porsches and Aston Martins attending a masked ball and indulging in sex.

But what of sort of jobs do they have?

Who can finance a Porsche?

Porsches are linked to...BANKERS!

It all sounds very Eyes Wide Shut.

By day they rip you off and get you to bail them out. By night they indulge themselves in orgies.

In earlier times they would be sending you off to wars, but now they just gamble with trillions and get you to bail their unfair and corrupt system out.


The BBCs attempt to explain the causes of the financial crisis was shown last night, not in a documentary but in a drama called Freefall. It was emotional. It was somewhere near the truth. And at least one of the perps jumped.

But I felt disappointed. The BBC tried to explain the largest financial crisis in decades in a drama that lasted one and a half hours. That time could have been much better spent distributing much more accurate and revealing information about the crisis.

Today Lord Peter Mandelson told us that we can expect 10 years of cuts in public services to pay for the bailouts while the perps of the crisis at Government Sachs are predicted to get billions in bonuses. In the USA, and probably here if we can understand why Dr Death and his suicide kits were allowed into the UK, euthanasia will be implemented to some degree.

Freefall didn't explain why this is so.

Somewhere in The City of London and Wall Street is a cabal of financial engineers directing the global economy into becoming a one world tyranny. They financed Nazism and Communism, and we know what these two isms did; THEY KILLED LOTS AND LOTS PEOPLE.

And others.

All murdered.

And that's excluding the world wars!!

Freefall only scratched the surface, allowing the real perps, the ones who should hire a commercial Hercules aircraft, fly to 30000 feet and jump without a parachute, to get away with it and get you to pay for their greed...FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS AND WITH THE UNNECESSARY DEATH OF AN AGED FAMILY MEMBER OR TWO THROWN IN FOR GOOD MEASURE, JUST IN CASE YOU DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION.


That's what they are.

They believe that man is a greedy lustful beast and are creating conditions that they think will trick man into believing that that is just what he is.

But man is unaware of the true history.

The pseudo satanists don't tell you they created Hitler and Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and all the other mass genocidalists.

The pseudo satanists don't tell you they engineered world wars 1 and 2.

The pseudo satanists don't tell you they engineered the holocaust.

The pseudo satanists don't tell you they engineered 9/11.


They are creating a pseudo reality for you to believe in.


Because they know that if you knew the real reality then you wouldn't fall for their bullshit but would in instead immediately reject it with extreme prejudice and probable violence against them.

So how is this pseudo reality constructed in your mind?

Let's take the news (because you pay for it).

There are over six billion people on the planet and every day something happens to everyone. But all you hear on the news is stuff like "a child died today in pathetic circumstances" (i.e. where was that God you believe in?) or "a man killed another man today" (i.e. you can't trust anyone) or "a man killed himself because he was blind" (i.e. why don't you do the same to save us money).

You don't hear stuff like "a team of medical staff under extreme pressure and severe lack of resources saved a man's life today" or "Mrs Joan Smith spent an hour training for the London Marathon today hoping to eventually raise over one thousand pounds for Cancer Research".

Real, proper satanists would stand up and shout in your face, "hey! you! we engineered all the murder and destruction of last century, and are still doing so today, because you stupid bunch of dickheads gave us the power to create as much money as we want for whatever we want, so what are you going to do about it?".

But they don't.

Instead they cower like little mice in their mansions hiding from us all because they don't really believe in what they think they believe in.

They really don't believe in it, otherwise they would tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and let us decide. Like in one of FDRs fireside chats one of their leaders would appear on TV in his or her Satanist robes with inverted, incomplete and irregular pentagrams all over the show.
"Hello viewers. Today I'm going to tell you how we found and moulded Adolf Hitler into our puppet to wage years of war in Europe to drive governments particularly the USA massively into our debt and to kill millions of Jews in order to force Judaism into accepting our idea that they should live in Palestine and nowhere but Palestine so that they can cause anger and war and terrorism giving us excuses to introduce a global police state and enslave you all. So sit down with a nice cup of tea and a packet of custard creams. Are you ready? Then I'll begin. One sunny day in Spring time in Germany one of our agents listened to a young angry man rant on and on and on about Jews. Hmm, we thought. He could be useful to our plans for installing a tyrannical world dictatorship in which all humans are microchipped and those we don't like or trust can be easily harassed and/or killed and any woman or child we want to rape we can..."


The banks gamble trillions of Pounds/Dollars/Euros away and it all goes wrong.
We bail them out.
They make billions in profit from our bailouts.
We face ten years of cuts in public services.

There's something wrong with this but I just can't seem to put my finger on it.

Can you help me?

It's doing my nut in. What's wrong? What is so wrong that I just can't see it?

Tuesday, July 14, 2009


Two revelations in the last week support the thesis that in the near future all children (though perhaps not those of the elite) will be conceived in laboratories.

The first of these revelations was the claim made last week that human sperm had been maufactured in a laboratory.

The second of these revelations consists of two very disturbing facts.
1. that Obama's (or whatever his name is) top science dude John Holdren proposed mass sterilization in the 1970's.
2. large quantities of gender-bending chemicals called Antiandrogens have mysteriously appeared in our water over the years.

The second of these revelations, seems very advanced and one wonders when it was actually implemented and under whose authority. The first revelation is the result of a large UK government research grant.

The results of a recent survey financed by The Optimum Population Trust have been published. Apparently large percentages of the UK population want limits on the number of children couples can have, with a large minority wanting this limit to be one child per couple, though mass immigration was thought to be the most popular reason for over-population in the UK.
[source : ]

There are several benefits to the NWO for conceiving children in laboratories;
1. the DNA landcape of the human race can be much more controlled. This explains why there is so much research into DNA and the rush to establish a DNA database, so that desirable genes such as servility and docility can be discovered for retention and genes that enhance intelligence and compassion can be weeded out.
2. members of the human race can have sex with whoever they like as often as they like without any consequences. This explains the pressure to accept homosexuality (and their desire to have children with each other provides the opportunity to introduce this new children-conceived-in-labs-with-synthetic-sperm technology), and paedophilia (hence the very lenient sentences for paedophiles and sexualization children through for example the Playboy products) so that sex with children will be considered normal (hence the recent NHS leaflet telling kids to have sex). There will also be pressure to have sex all the time so that you never, ever, ever find out about the engineering of WW1, WW2 and all the other global governing institutions.

We are about to go through a highly significant period of human engineering during which society will be forced or tricked into accepting sexual practices it has heretofore found morally repugnant, and told that it cannot be trusted to produce the quantity or quality of children for the future and they must be conceived in labs (and not forgetting yet another large scale war to quickly reduce population levels and the amalgamation of continental governments such as the EU into a one world government).

If this all sounds like a mixture of Nazism and Communism that should come as no surprise because the same families who financed Nazism and Communism are alive and well in The City of London and Wall Street and are financing this agenda today.

So what do you think?

Do you even realise the question being asked of you?

Sunday, July 12, 2009


The following is yet another nail in the coffin of the official story of 9/11.



9/11 Cover Is Blown
by Jeffrey Steinberg
July 10, 2009

July 10--In the report that follows, you will discover that some of the most fundamental assumptions that you have been clinging to since Sept. 11, 2001--assumptions that Lyndon LaRouche warned against--have been a total fraud. Much of what you have been told about the events of 9/11 have been a hoax. The truth, which is clearly revealed in newly declassified documents, available through the National Archives, is that two leading presumed U.S. allies--Saudi Arabia and Great Britain--were up to their eyeballs in the attacks on New York City and Washington. The United States was betrayed by leading elements within the Saudi Arabian Royal Family and intelligence services, in league with the British Empire. And top officials of the Bush-Cheney White House, the Justice Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were both aware of, and fully complicit in the coverup of the crime of the century.

The Anglo-Saudi alliance behind the 9/11 atrocity is represented, most graphically, by a 25-year-old secret intelligence arrangement, concealed beneath a lucrative arms-for-oil barter deal called ``al-Yamamah.'' There is now sufficient, credible evidence that funds from the offshore al-Yamamah accounts were funneled to at least two of the 9/11 hijackers, to warrant a high-profile Justice Department probe, without delay.

The newly released documents, when cross-gridded with other evidence already in the public domain, confirm the Anglo-Saudi hand behind 9/11, and debunk nearly eight years of conspiracy rubbish, that portrayed the attacks as a scheme by cave-dwellers and ``under the floorboard'' mysterious forces. The writings of a former LaRouche associate, Webster Tarpley, more or less typify the kind of off-course conspiracy mongering that is now thoroughly discredited by the new material and the larger picture assembled by EIR researchers.

Elements of the story have already been reported in EIR, and LaRouche instinctively pointed to the true nature of the operation, in a now-famous radio interview that he gave to the Salt Lake City-based syndicated radio host Dr. Jack Stockwell, as the hijacked planes were crashing into the Twin Towers and the Pentagonon the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

If the full implications of the new, confirming evidence of the Anglo-Saudi hand in the 9/11 attack are comprehended and acted on, by the appropriate U.S. and other government services, one of the root sources of global asymmetric warfare can be wiped out--with many other side benefits as well.

- The New Evidence -

Early this year, the National Archives released documents from the files of the 9/11 Commission, which were previously classified. Three of those documents, recently obtained by EIR, provide the ``smoking gun,'' proving the central role of Saudi intelligence, and the critical support role of British intelligence in the preparation, execution, and coverup of 9/11. The most significant of the documents, still partly classified, is a ``Memorandum for the Record,'' summarizing an April 23, 2004 interview with a Southern California-based FBI informant, who rented a room in his home to two of the 9/11 hijackers during 2000. Although the memorandum redacted the informant's name, other public sources have identified the man as Abdussattar Shaikh. His FBI handler has also been publicly named as Steven Butler.

In the interview, Shaikh provided a detailed account of his first encounter with the two 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. In April 2000, Shaikh posted an announcement on the bulletin board at the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD), offering to rent rooms in his home to ``devout Muslims.'' At the time he posted the ad, Shaikh was already acting as a paid informant for the FBI. According to his account to 9/11 Commission investigators Quinn John Tamm, Jr. and Dietrich Snell, Shaikh was approached after Friday prayers by al-Hazmi, who said he and al-Mihdhar urgently needed housing. By Shaikh's account, the two men moved into his home on May 10, 2000. Al-Mihdhar left after six weeks, claiming that he was returning to Saudi Arabia to visit his wife and young child. Al-Hazmi lived in the room until Dec. 10, 2000, when he moved out to attend pilot school in Arizona.

At one point in the interview, the 9/11 investigators asked Dr. Shaikh about another Saudi, Omar al-Bayoumi. From the Commission document: ``Dr. Xxxxxx[Shaikh] noted that Omar al-Bayoumi also visited al-Hazmi at his house. Dr. Xxxxxx knew al-Bayoumi as a Saudi national who Dr. Xxxxxx met at the ICSD. Al-Bayoumi stated to Dr. Xxxxxx when he visited, that `I referred them (al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar) to you.' Dr. Xxxxxx restated that his was not the case and that he met the two in the hallway of the ICSD after the Friday prayer service.''

The report continued: ``Al-Hazmi did not like al-Bayoumi and told Dr. Xxxxxx that al-Bayoumi was `an agent for the Saudis.' Al-Hazmi complained to Dr. Xxxxxx that al-Bayoumi video taped people associated with the ICSD constantly. Dr. Xxxxxx noted that was his experience when he attended events at the ICSD. Dr. Xxxxxx said that al-Bayoumi always had his videotape recorder and sought comment to the open mike on the videotape recorder. Dr. Xxxxxx stated that, `I have heard that al-Bayoumi is an agent (of the Saudis).''

Dr. Shaikh's candid description of Omar al-Bayoumi as a Saudi intelligence agent, in regular contact with one of the 9/11 hijackers, is stunning in its own right. The fact that Dr. Shaikh was an FBI informant, who, according to several U.S. intelligence sources, regularly received payments from the Bureau to keep tabs on the Muslim community in the San Diego area, and hosted two of the hijackers, is equally stunning. But the full extent of the al-Bayoumi dossier, as known to the FBI and other U.S. government agencies, goes well beyond the surface scandal.

Al-Bayoumi was far more than a ``frequent visitor'' to Dr. Shaikh's home, while al-Hazmi was living there. The essential facts are as follows.

On Jan. 15, 2000, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, where they had attended a meeting of number of al-Qaeda members and allies. The two men were met at the airport by al-Bayoumi, who brought them to San Diego, rented them an apartment, co-signed the lease, and even put down $1,500 in deposit and rent. Al-Bayoumi would later arrange for the two men to enroll in flight training school.

Al-Bayoumi's links to three of the 9/11 hijackers (he hosted a third hijacker, Hani Hanjour, at his apartment on a number of occasions in the Spring of 2000, according to FBI and Congressional documents) prompted one Federal government source to tell reporters, ``Some Federal investigators suspect that al-Bayoumi could have been an advance man for the 9/11 hijackers.''

But al-Bayoumi was also, undisputedly, an agent of Saudi intelligence! According to the FBI and CIA dossier on him, and records from both the House-Senate joint intelligence probe and the 9/11 Commission, al-Bayoumi came to the United States in August 1994. He was previously employed by the Saudi Ministry of Defense, and continued to draw a salary of $3,000 a month from the Ministry after he moved to the United States, through 2002. In the U.S., he was formally listed as an employee of Dallah Avco, a Saudi defense company that held lucrative contracts with the Ministry of Defense and Aviation, and was owned by members of the Saudi Royal Family. According to U.S. Federal investigators, al-Bayoumi never actually did any work for Dallah Avco. However, his monthly salary from the firm increased to $3,500 right after al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar arrived in the U.S.A.

Further adding to al-Bayoumi's considerable personal finances, in June 1998, an anonymous contribution arrived from Saudi Arabia. The $500,000 was a down-payment on a new mosque, to be built in San Diego--with the proviso that Omar al-Bayoumi be appointed as director of maintenance, with an office and a guaranteed salary. Eyewitnesses told the FBI and the 9/11 Commission that al-Bayoumi was rarely seen at the mosque.

Al-Bayoumi was, however, in constant communication with top Saudi government officials in the United States and in Riyadh. According to the records of the joint Congressional investigation and the 9/11 Commission, between January 2000--when al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar arrived in California--and May 2000, al-Bayoumi made 32 calls to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., 37 calls to the Saudi Cultural Mission in Washington, and 24 calls to the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles. His contact at the Consulate was Fahad Thumairy, who held diplomatic credentials, but was one of the most virulently anti-American imams in the area. He would be deported from the United States after 9/11.

In late June or early July 2001, al-Bayoumi and his wife, Manal Ahmed Bagader, suddenly left San Diego, and moved to England, where al-Bayoumi ostensibly entered business school at Aston University. Within days after the 9/11 attacks, he was detained by Scotland Yard and held for one week. However, he was released for lack of evidence, and he immediately left England for Saudi Arabia.

Osama Basnan -

Omar al-Bayoumi was not alone in his liaison work between Saudi intelligence and some of the 9/11 hijackers. He worked closely with another Saudi intelligence officer, Osama Basnan, who entered the United States in 1980 on a short-term tourist visa, but remained in the country until October 2002, when he and his wife were deported as illegal aliens.

An FBI report, written shortly after 9/11, warned that evidence gathered on Osama Basnan ``could indicate that he succeeded Omar al-Bayoumi and may be undertaking activities on behalf of the Government of Saudi Arabia.'' An FBI classified report, dated Oct. 3, 2001, noted that Basnan was in contact with members of the bin Laden family, living in the United States. In the days immediately following 9/11, members of the bin Laden family in the United States, along with other top Saudis, were quietly flown home--at a time when no other non-military flights were being allowed.

Basnan was a subject of FBI interest long before Sept. 11. In 1992, according to news accounts, Basnan was investigated by the Bureau for ties to Eritrean Islamic Jihad (EIJ), an organization that was closely linked to al-Qaeda by no later than 1996. On Oct. 17, 1992, Basnan, then living in Washington, D.C., hosted a party at his home for Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the so-called ``blind sheikh'' now in jail for plotting terrorist attacks in New York City. At the time, according to U.S. intelligence sources, the FBI produced a still-classified report, detailing Basnan's work for the Saudi government, despite his ties to Islamic radicals.

Indeed, U.S. intelligence sources report that Basnan was arrested on drug charges in the Los Angeles area, but the charges were dropped, after intensive pressure from the Saudi Embassy.

- The Ambassador and the Princess -

If Omar al-Bayoumi's ties to the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation are firmly established, his personal ties to the former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and his wife, Princess Haifa, are even less in dispute. In April 1998, Prince Bandar, who is also the son of the Saudi Defense Minister, Prince Sultan, sent a check to Basnan in the amount of $15,000. Bandar claims that the check was an ``act of charity,'' in response to a written appeal by Basnan for help in paying medical bills for his wife. Beginning in November 1999, just weeks before the two 9/11 hijackers arrived at the Los Angeles Airport, Princess Haifa began sending monthly cashiers checks, from her account at Riggs National Bank in Washington, to Basnan's wife, Majida Ibrahim Ahmad Dweikat. The checks continued until May 2002. The royal couple sent a total of $53-72,000 to Basnan and his wife. According to the House-Senate joint investigation, many of the cashier checks from Princess Haifa to Basnan's wife were signed over to the wife of Omar al-Bayoumi. Most of these transactions took place while Basnan and al-Bayoumi were ``handling'' the financial affairs of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. And the pair of Saudi intelligence officers also had some, as yet not-fully-known ties to a third hijacker, Hani Hanjour.

- Prince Bandar's BAE Bounty -

At the time that Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa were making their ``charitable'' contributions to Basnan and al-Bayoumi, the then-Saudi Ambassador to the United States was on the receiving end of at least $2 billion in kickbacks from Great Britain's premier defense firm, BAE Systems. The BAE scandal exploded into the public view several years ago, when BBC, the London {Guardian}, and other publications revealed that BAE was making tens of billions of dollars in payouts to Saudi Defense Ministry officials, and other members of the Saudi Royal Family, in return for arms contracts worth a fortune.

The BAE-Saudi scandal dated all the way back to 1985, when Prince Bandar personally brokered a deal with then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to sell an initial $40 billion in BAE military hardware and services to Saudi Arabia, in return for Saudi crude oil. The deal, cynically known as ``al-Yamamah'' (``the Dove'') was far more than a barter arrangement. BAE padded the costs of the fighter jets, training planes, air defense systems and support services by an estimated one-third, to launder payoffs to top Saudis--including Prince Bandar. In return, Saudi Arabia delivered the equivalent of one super-tanker of oil {per day} (on average) to BAE, which had a contract with British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, to immediately sell the oil on the spot market. For the Saudis, it was a lucrative deal. Even aside from the kickbacks that lined the pockets of many a Saudi prince and ministry official, the crude oil cost the Saudis under $5 a barrel. BP and Royal Dutch Shell sold the oil at fantastic markups.

As the result of this unique arrangement, an offshore Anglo-Saudi intelligence slush fund was amassed, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, starting in 1985. In a semi-official biography of Prince Bandar, published several years ago, author William Simpson candidly wrote that al-Yamamah was, first and foremost, a geo-strategic partnership between London and Riyadh, which funneled money covertly to the Afghan mujahideen who were battling the Soviet Army in the 1980s; funded Chad in its border war with Libya; and bypassed the U.S. Congress to deliver American military hardware to the Saudi Air Force.

Some senior U.S. intelligence officials insist that a full investigation of Prince Bandar's role in the al-Yamamah scheme would reveal that some of the BAE payoffs went from the Bank of England, to Bandar's account at Riggs National Bank--into the hands of Basnan, al-Bayoumi, and the California 9/11 hijackers cell. By Aug. 2, 2003, so many questions had been raised about the Bandar payoffs to Basnan, that the Ambassador was forced to issue a personal statement, through the Saudi Embassy, branding the allegations ``baseless and not true,'' nothing more than ``rumor, innuendo, and untruths.'' He cited President George W. Bush, who ``praised the Saudi commitment to fighting terrorism.''

Bandar's efforts to cover up the Saudi government hand in 9/11 by invoking the words of President Bush only served to further infuriate those U.S. officials who were actually trying to get to the bottom of the Sept. 11 plot. House and Senate intelligence committee investigators knew, for example, that when their final ``Report of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001'' was submitted to the White House for final review before publication, the entire text of a 28-page chapter, documenting evidence of Saudi government support for the hijackers--including the Bandar payments to Basnan--was blocked from publication and remains classified to this day. In a recent meeting with the families of the 9/11 victims, President Barack Obama was pressed to declassify the chapter.

Both Presidents Bush were so close to Prince Bandar that the longtime Saudi Ambassador was widely referred to as an ``honorary member of the Bush family.'' The G.W. Bush White House commitment to brutally suppress the evidence of the Anglo-Saudi hand in 9/11 was so deep that Osama Basnan, the Saudi intelligence officer, felt confident enough to be in Houston, Texas, on April 24-25, 2002, when then-Saudi Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah, along with Prince Bandar, visited President Bush at his Crawford, Texas ranch. The Crown Prince's entourage was massive--eight planeloads of aides and hangers-on. Among the crowd were three Saudi officials suspected of ties to al-Qaeda. The ``embarrassing'' incident was suppressed, along with Basnan's presence in nearby Houston, where he was reportedly meeting with a billionaire Saudi prince who was part of the Crawford entourage.

Four months later, Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which conducted the joint Congressional 9/11 probe along with the House Intelligence Committee, declared that, to his knowledge, the CIA had ``incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government.'' Hewould later emphasize the point in his book on the joint Congressional probe, Intelligence Matters.

- Britain: State Sponsor of Terrorism -

In December 2000, the Editors of EI submitted a lengthy memorandum to then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, seeking an investigation of British government sponsorship of international terrorism. The memo, prepared with the assistance of State Department attorneys, who provided EIR with the official criteria for placing a nation on the list of ``state sponsors of terrorism,'' relied exclusively on official government documents, from no fewer than nine nations, that had formally protested British government protection, and, in some cases, financing of active terrorist cells on British soil. The EIR memo was triggered by a rash of asymmetric warfare attacks, many by groups spawned out of the 1979-89 Afghanistan War against the Soviets, a war covertly bankrolled and logistically backed by British, French, American, Saudi, and Israeli intelligence services.

The British government's protection was extended to such terror groups as the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which had a radio transmitter in Britain that beamed marching orders for terrorist attacks into eastern Turkey; the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which carried out a brutal 1997 attack on Japanese tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and had earlier assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat; the Indian terrorist group Lashkar e-Taibi, which carried out assassinations and hijackings in 1999; and Chechen terrorists, who were recruited out of mosques in England.

Among the charges against the British government: British intelligence had looked the other way, throughout the 1990s, as Osama bin Laden moved between Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, and England. The London Times admitted that, throughout the second half of 1996, bin Laden made frequent trips to London, ''clearly under the protection of British authorities.'' The Times had spotted bin Laden, earlier in the 1990s, at the London estate of Khalid bin Mahfouz, a wealthy Saudi banker who was a leading Muslim Brotherhood funder of a wide array of Jihadi groups, and was a majorshareholder in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). In 1994, the French and Algerian governments filed diplomatic demarches with the British Foreign Office, charging that Osama bin Laden had met with leaders of the Islamic Group of Algeria (GIA), which was then in the middle of a blind terror bombing campaign in both countries. French intelligence tracked the bin Laden/GIA meetings to a bin Laden-owned estate in Wembley. For three months in 1994, according to other French sources, including investigator Roland Jacquard, Osama bin Laden lived on Harrow Road in London. Even after he left the country, bin Laden's leading propagandists operated out of London.

According to ``conventional wisdom,'' the British protection of a worldwide nexus of terrorist organizations was based on an understanding that the groups would not operate on British soil, or target British interests abroad. But, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history of the British Empire, from the early days of the British East India Company, through Lord Palmerston's sponsorship of the Young Europe, Young America, and Young Turk operations of the 19th Century, realizes immediately that this is a fraud. Sponsorship of asymmetric warfare is at the very heart of the British/Venetian method. And the Anglo-Saudi al-Yamamah project is the 20th- and 21st-Century equivalent of the British East India Company's sponsorship of legions of ethnic and religious separatist groups, assuring a ready stable of political assassins and perpetrators of ``chaos on demand'' around the globe.

- Will the Bush League Coverup End? -

Even as investigators for the joint Congressional inquiry and the 9/11 Commission attempted to get at the role of Saudi intelligence in 9/11, a vicious coverup was being imposed directly from the White House, and with full complicity of elements within the FBI and Department of Justice. It became so blatant, that three 9/11 Commission investigators--Kevin Scheid, Col. Lorry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman--drafted a memo to their staff supervisors, Dan Marcus and Steve Dunne, proposing guidelines for FBI and other ``minders.'' The memo bitterly complained that FBI and other ``minders'' sitting in on interviews with Commission witnesses, interfered in the questioning and intimidated the witnesses:

``Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses . Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses' statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the next effect of minders' conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses.''

The memo concluded with a plea: ``We request that you raise the subject of minders' conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from comporting themselves in these ways in the future.''

Attached to the memo were ten proposed rules of conduct, to block the intimidation. Apart from the fact that the memorandum was declassified and released at the National Archive earlier this year, no action was taken and the Bush White House coverup--typified by the suppression of the Congressional report section dealing with Saudi government complicity in 9/11--continued to the end.

- Condoleezza Rice Lied -

The coverup, in at least one case, may have involved contempt of Congress. When a battle erupted between the 9/11 Commission and the White House over the public disclosure of segments of a Presidential Daily Briefing from August 2001, in which President Bush was explicitly warned about a high-probability al-Qaeda attack against the continental United States, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified before Congress that there was no ``actionable intelligence'' provided by the intelligence community, and that no one could have anticipated the events of 9/11.

In stark contrast to Rice's sworn testimony, U.S. intelligence had strong indications that, not only was al-Qaeda planning to hijack planes, but was planning to use them as weapons. According to the third document released this year by the 9/11 Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) conducted a series of exercises, as early as October 1998--shortly after the attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--involving hijackings. The last of the exercises, ``Vigilant Guardian I,'' took place between Sept. 6-10, 2001. In one of the scenarios, described in a 9/11 Commission summary chronology, a London-to-New York flight is hijacked by ``terrorists with explosives who plan to detonate them over NYC.'' Clearly, the idea that terrorists were planning to use aircraft as a weapon against New York City, was on the minds of some Federal counter-terror officials prior to 9/11.

Basnan's Free Ride Home -

On Oct. 21, 2002, a Federal judge in California ordered Osama Yousef Basnan and his wife, Majida Ibrahim Ahmad Dweikat, to be deported from the United States--for immigration violations! The Saudi intelligence officer who had been in the country illegally since the early 1980s, who had bankrolled, along with Omar al-Bayoumi, at least two of the 9/11 hijackers, was so pleased with the judge's order to send him back to Saudi Arabia, that he walked up to the Federal prosecutor at the end of the hearing and shook his hand, thanking him profusely for the free ride home.

The message delivered that day in court could not have been clearer: The Anglo-Saudi terror nexus was off limits. The idea that two of America's most trusted so-called allies--Great Britain and Saudi Arabia--had betrayed the United States, and played an indispensible role in the worst terrorist atrocity in history on American soil, was to be buried.


President Obama has today written in The Bilderberg Washington Post about how great he is.

He reports that the US economy has been saved and that costs will be cut (but does not mention that this will involve killing many American people) and workers will be given training and skills for future employment.

You might, just might, have heard this somewhere before. And you have, for it is exactly what politicians have been saying for centuries and will continue to say, because it is exactly what we want to hear.

But what we should really be told is that a bunch of selfish, reckless, warmongering megolmaniacs have control over our money supply, have completely wrecked the global economy and should be locked up in prison with Josef Friztl, but will, thanks to Obama and Brown and the rest, retain that control to drive the global economy into any direction they want.

Obama can't seem to grasp this very simple fact.

If the power to create money was in the hands of the general public then we would have much better public services and no world wars, because that is what 99.9% of the general public want. That remaining 0.1% of the general public is the tiny fraction of the population who create our money and send the other 99.9% into war against each other. Instead we would create that money and use it for what ever we wanted, not for the private benefit of a handful of parasites. The same banks who financed Obama's campaign were the same banks who bankrolled the Nazis and the Communists because they could create that money and the resulting wars and friction were very profitable to them, financially and in the creation of global institutions that they control from behind the scenes.

Those banks make up the Federal Reserve.

There is only one way to rebuild something better; KILL THE FED!

Anything else means trouble, not just for America but for the whole world.



Rebuilding Something Better

By Barack Obama
Sunday, July 12, 2009

Nearly six months ago, my administration took office amid the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. At the time, we were losing, on average, 700,000 jobs a month. And many feared that our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

The swift and aggressive action we took in those first few months has helped pull our financial system and our economy back from the brink. We took steps to restart lending to families and businesses, stabilize our major financial institutions, and help homeowners stay in their homes and pay their mortgages. We also passed the most sweeping economic recovery plan in our nation's history.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was not expected to restore the economy to full health on its own but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall. So far, it has done that. It was, from the start, a two-year program, and it will steadily save and create jobs as it ramps up over this summer and fall. We must let it work the way it's supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity.

I am confident that the United States of America will weather this economic storm. But once we clear away the wreckage, the real question is what we will build in its place. Even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, I have insisted that we must rebuild it better than before. For if we do not seize this moment to confront the weaknesses that have plagued our economy for decades, we will consign ourselves and our children to future crises, sluggish growth, or both.

There are some who say we must wait to meet our greatest challenges. They favor an incremental approach or believe that doing nothing is somehow an answer. But that is exactly the thinking that led us to this predicament. Ignoring big challenges and deferring tough decisions is what Washington has done for decades, and it's exactly what I sought to change by running for president.

Now is the time to build a firmer, stronger foundation for growth that not only will withstand future economic storms but that helps us thrive and compete in a global economy. To build that foundation, we must lower the health-care costs that are driving us into debt, create the jobs of the future within our borders, give our workers the skills and training they need to compete for those jobs, and make the tough choices necessary to bring down our deficit in the long run.

Already, we're making progress on health-care reform that controls costs while ensuring choice and quality, as well as energy legislation that will make clean energy the profitable kind of energy, leading to whole new industries and jobs that cannot be outsourced.

And this week, I'll be talking about how we give our workers the skills they need to compete for these jobs of the future. In an economy where jobs requiring at least an associate's degree are projected to grow twice as fast as jobs requiring no college experience, it's never been more essential to continue education and training after high school. That's why we've set a goal of leading the world in college degrees by 2020. Part of this goal will be met by helping Americans better afford a college education. But part of it will also be strengthening our network of community colleges.

We believe it's time to reform our community colleges so that they provide Americans of all ages a chance to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to compete for the jobs of the future. Our community colleges can serve as 21st-century job training centers, working with local businesses to help workers learn the skills they need to fill the jobs of the future. We can reallocate funding to help them modernize their facilities, increase the quality of online courses and ultimately meet the goal of graduating 5 million more Americans from community colleges by 2020.

Providing all Americans with the skills they need to compete is a pillar of a stronger economic foundation, and, like health care or energy, we cannot wait to make the necessary changes. We must continue to clean up the wreckage of this recession, but it is time to rebuild something better in its place. It won't be easy, and there will continue to be those who argue that we have to put off hard decisions that we have already deferred for far too long. But earlier generations of Americans didn't build this great country by fearing the future and shrinking our dreams. This generation has to show that same courage and determination. I believe we will.

The writer is president of the United States.

Friday, July 10, 2009


"Yes, dear." replies Tony halfway through his fourth glass of Montepulciano d'Abruzzo while sat on his favourite comfy chair with his feet up and his hands behind his head and watching the IDF bomb the shit out of Gaza on the TV news.


Many in politics and the media relentlessly proclaim our version of democracy to be glorious and worth sending "our boys" to fight and die overseas to spread it across the globe.

A supreme example of our glorious democracy is the treatment of Craig Murray contesting the Norwich North seat. Banned from gaining access to public buildings, banned from speaking at public meetings, and banned from the BBC coverage, Craig is exposing the fallacy of our glorious democracy as the sham that it is.

And to think that my grandfather fought in WW2 against the Nazis for this!



July 9, 2009
Ministry of Justice Blocks My Electoral Address: BBC Changes The Rules: UCU Bars Me From Candidates' Debate


With grateful thanks to famous human rights lawyers Birnberg Peirce, (who advised I had a complete legal right) the Royal Mail have now at the last possible second relented and accepted that I can send out a DVD as an Electoral Communication. So we are going full blast to get it out!!

This has so far been a rollocking campaign of small victories, all achieved because of the friends I have made in my civil rights work over the years. I am both buoyed and humbled.

Every candidate in a parliamentary election has the right to have one "election communication" delivered free of charge by the Post Office.

These are normally rather dull leaflets, so I decided to put my election address on a DVD. It's rather picturesque and entitled "A Norfolk Journey". 80,000 copies are being made.

The Post Office is so far refusing to deliver it. The "election communication" must meet the Post Office's "Reasonable Terms And Conditions" for such communications. These are published. The main ones are that it:

Must weigh less than 60gm - mine is less than 40gm
Must be less than 5mm thick - mine is 2mm thick
Must meet length and width criteria - mine is well inside
Must be securely folded or in a sealed envelope - mine is the latter
Must marked "electoral communication" amd carry printed and published info - mine does
Must be sorted by postcode and address - mine is.

Extraordinarily, the Post Office must also vet the content for libel, incitement to violence or incitement to racial hatred. That is a strange bit of censorship - they don't check the content of normal mail theydeliver - but my DVD passes that test too.

There is nothing in the criteria at all that says the communication must be in the 14th century medium of printed ink on paper. The regulations are silent on the medium of communication. If you took a DVD in an envelope to any Post Office, you would have no difficulty posting it as a letter.

Yet the Post Office refuses to give permission for the delivery, apparently on the grounds that nobody has ever sent a DVD before as their election communication. They have not actually refused, but have delayed beyond the stage where it is logistically possible to get it out.

They are acting, they say, on legal advice from the Ministry of Justice - prop. Jack Straw! The man who brought you the dodgy dossier on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction.

At the moment, it looks like the voters of Norwich North will be denied my electoral address before they vote - unless we can get a real flood of volunteers in to deliver them ourselves.

Even more sleazy is the BBC's response to the many complaints about their decision to exclude me from all election coverage. They have started to send out standard replies saying:

one of the key factors they look for is "evidence of past and/or current electoral support" in that electoral area.

Note the BBC's own quotation marks within that quote. They have tacked on "In that area" to their formal criterion.

When the BBC banned me from all coverage at the last General Election when I stood in Blackburn against Jack Straw, who is blocking my electoral address now, the BBC explained it was because I had no "evidence of past and/or current electoral support".

I gained 5% in that election - which is a lot better than the 3% the Greens got in the same election in Norwich North. That 5% may have been modest, but it does meet the BBC's criterion. So the BBC have now moved the goalposts to exclude me, by adding a brand new stipulation "in that area" to their criterion, so the electoral support in Blackburn does not count - despite the fact I might reasonably expect to do a lot better in my own county.

Finally, despite numerous representations from within their own union, the Universities and Colleges Union have still banned me from this evenings candidates' education debate, despite the fact that I am the Rector of a Univeristy and a great deal more interesting on the subject than the rest of the candidates put together.