The banks fcukt us gud n proper.
They thought, that by discussing it behind Bilderberg doors, that nobody would find out.
They thought, that by discussing it behind Bilderberg doors, that everybody would think it would simply be accepted as greed and incompetence.
They thought, that by discussing it behind Bilderberg doors, that they wouldn't have to take legal advice (because if they did then this would show intent).
Unfortunately The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 Fraud by Abuse of Position IS applicable.
We get our money from the banks, not the Bank of England (only in exceptional circumstances, like now).
The banks have a responsibility to create money for a growing and stable economy for us all.
Instead they deliberately and greedily inflated a housing bubble to create the money required to gamble on exotic and potentially very lucrative derivatives.
They literally threw money at us. Every morning you would receive a letter from this or that credit issuing organisation offering loadsa interest-free credit for this, that and the other. Simply sign the form and return it asap and you too could have that dream house/holiday/car etc etc
But they could only lend to a certain number of creditworthy people.
So they started to lend to jobless no-hopers to feed the derivatives monster...and then expressed surprise when those loans and mortgages issued to such people were not repaid.
So, once this practice was introduced, inevitably it was doomed to fail.
And we know that some expected it to fail, and wanted it to fail, knowing that they would be given tens if not hundreds of billions in bailouts from their Bilderberg buddies to buy up their competitors and increase their market share.
But a predictable effect of such a sneaky operation would mean that the bailouts would inevitably be dropped on us, the muggins taxpayer, and that it is we who would have to pay for the bailout.
And how do we know?
Because BEFORE it all went wrong certain people had introduced a measure to kill little old granny at the first signs that she was not well. Killing ill old people saves money because
1. murdered little old granny doesn't need a pension, the largest sector of UK public spending
2. murdered little old granny doesn't need healthcare, the second largest sector of UK public spending
This is the cold-blooded greedy logic of the most evil.
But it has been identified.
And is not appreciated one fucking bit!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
GEORGIA STARTED THE WAR
The 1000+ page report by the EU has finally been released.
The prime conclusion is that Georgia, i.e. Bilderberg stooge Saakashvili, started it.
In case you have forgotten, on the eve of the Olympic Games in 2008 Saakashvili ordered the indiscrimiate bombing of South Ossetian civilians as they slept in their beds.
Why Saakashvili did this is still unknown, and the report, although recognising that Saakashvili did indeed start the war, does not apparently address the motive for such barbaric aggression that is akin to the bombing of Gaza by Israel at the New Year, another event supported by Bilderbergers.
Bilderbergers and their minions then crawled out of the woodwork to defend Saakashvili.
The prime conclusion is that Georgia, i.e. Bilderberg stooge Saakashvili, started it.
In case you have forgotten, on the eve of the Olympic Games in 2008 Saakashvili ordered the indiscrimiate bombing of South Ossetian civilians as they slept in their beds.
Why Saakashvili did this is still unknown, and the report, although recognising that Saakashvili did indeed start the war, does not apparently address the motive for such barbaric aggression that is akin to the bombing of Gaza by Israel at the New Year, another event supported by Bilderbergers.
Bilderbergers and their minions then crawled out of the woodwork to defend Saakashvili.
ONLY HALF OF BANK LOSSES HAVE BEEN REVEALED
A report in the FT suggests that only half the losses made by the banks have been revealed! This is astonishing.
They're telling us the crisis is all over, but there is still a very good chance that it's all going to go down hill again.
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d7b9bde-ad44-11de-9caf-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
IMF warns of further recession risks
By Chris Giles in Istanbul
Published: September 30 2009 07:49 | Last updated: September 30 2009 07:49
Banks round the world have still to reveal about half of their likely losses resulting from the financial and economic crisis, the International Monetary Fund said on Wednesday, warning that there was still a “significant” risk of another downward lurch in the global recession.
..., the IMF warned that much still needed to be done to secure a recovery and to ensure that renewed stresses in the financial system did not restart the vicious spiral of banking losses, rationed credit, deeper recession, increased defaults and further banking losses.
They're telling us the crisis is all over, but there is still a very good chance that it's all going to go down hill again.
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d7b9bde-ad44-11de-9caf-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
IMF warns of further recession risks
By Chris Giles in Istanbul
Published: September 30 2009 07:49 | Last updated: September 30 2009 07:49
Banks round the world have still to reveal about half of their likely losses resulting from the financial and economic crisis, the International Monetary Fund said on Wednesday, warning that there was still a “significant” risk of another downward lurch in the global recession.
..., the IMF warned that much still needed to be done to secure a recovery and to ensure that renewed stresses in the financial system did not restart the vicious spiral of banking losses, rationed credit, deeper recession, increased defaults and further banking losses.
IS GORDON A MORON?
The first thought that came into my head when I first heard the headline in The Sun today, Labour's Lost It, was the song by Jilted John
Why could Gordon be a moron?
Well, despite
1. supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq,
2. selling our gold at bargain basement prices to support the gold price conspiracy identified by Reginald Howe,
3. raiding our pensions,
4. signing us over to Europe via the treasonous Treaty of Lisbon,
5. and then bailing out the banks with trillions after causing the crisis, with Ed Balls, in the first place,
he is apparently now being kicked in his balls and told to get back into his pit along with the rest of us.
But hang on a minute.
In 1991 Bailout Brown attended a semi-secret meeting with some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet.
An (I assume) intelligent man such as Bailout would have asked questions, such as
is this a one off meeting?
has anyone I know attended before?
what is the point of the meeting?
who is running this meeting?
etc
etc
etc
His first class travel and luxury accommodation would have been paid for. He may well have shared a sherry and a joke with Peter Sutherland of RBS, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Sophia of Spain, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Robert Zoellick of The World Bank.
He may well have been informed of subsequent meetings, attendees and speeches through friends and acquaintances made there and then.
And all the while, in public he has remained silent on this matter.
Why would an alleged Labour Socialist remain silent on his meeting with these people?
Why would an alleged Labour Socialist cause a global financial crisis and then bailout the conspirators with trillions to be paid for by the working class and the dead class killed by the Liverpool Care Pathway?
Indeed, is Bailout's silence golden?
I can predict with some degree of confidence that Bailout, like the Butcher of Baghdad Blair, will be offered some cushy consultancy or directorship of a New World Order flagship business.
But if he wants to redeem himself he could write a book entitled Memoirs of Bilderberg in which disillusioned Bilderbergers each write a chapter detailing their experiences of Bilderberg, and Bailout can write the first devastating chapter.
Gordon is a moron
Gordon is a moron
yeah yeah
it's not fair
Why could Gordon be a moron?
Well, despite
1. supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq,
2. selling our gold at bargain basement prices to support the gold price conspiracy identified by Reginald Howe,
3. raiding our pensions,
4. signing us over to Europe via the treasonous Treaty of Lisbon,
5. and then bailing out the banks with trillions after causing the crisis, with Ed Balls, in the first place,
he is apparently now being kicked in his balls and told to get back into his pit along with the rest of us.
But hang on a minute.
In 1991 Bailout Brown attended a semi-secret meeting with some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet.
An (I assume) intelligent man such as Bailout would have asked questions, such as
is this a one off meeting?
has anyone I know attended before?
what is the point of the meeting?
who is running this meeting?
etc
etc
etc
His first class travel and luxury accommodation would have been paid for. He may well have shared a sherry and a joke with Peter Sutherland of RBS, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Sophia of Spain, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Robert Zoellick of The World Bank.
He may well have been informed of subsequent meetings, attendees and speeches through friends and acquaintances made there and then.
And all the while, in public he has remained silent on this matter.
Why would an alleged Labour Socialist remain silent on his meeting with these people?
Why would an alleged Labour Socialist cause a global financial crisis and then bailout the conspirators with trillions to be paid for by the working class and the dead class killed by the Liverpool Care Pathway?
Indeed, is Bailout's silence golden?
I can predict with some degree of confidence that Bailout, like the Butcher of Baghdad Blair, will be offered some cushy consultancy or directorship of a New World Order flagship business.
But if he wants to redeem himself he could write a book entitled Memoirs of Bilderberg in which disillusioned Bilderbergers each write a chapter detailing their experiences of Bilderberg, and Bailout can write the first devastating chapter.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
EU TO DECLARE THAT GEORGIA STARTED WAR
Just before the Olympics started last year a war started in South Ossetia. Immediately the Bilderberg press went into overdrive;
Russia started it! Russia started it!
TheBilderberg Post ran two pieces by senior Bilderberger Richard Holbrooke in which Holbrooke challenged Russia to war. Bilderbergers crawled out of the woodwork and squeaked their minion voices, baying in falsetto voices for Russian blood to be spilled. Not to be outdone, our then Foreign Secretary David Miliband also threatened Russia with military consequences for its aggression.
None of these warmongers ever mentioned that the bloodthirsty tie-munching President of Georgia had been installed by another senior Bilderberger George Soros and Foreign Office agent Lord Malloch-Brown.
But now, a year after the event, the EU is to issue its report. It will blame Georgia for starting the war, but will also criticise Russia.
Hmm. What would you do if your allies and neighbours were being bombed in their beds?
The War in South Ossetia was a blatant provocation of Russia by Bilderberg-installed Saakashvili.
It may well have been to deflect attention from the financial crisis, a dry run for later this year, perhaps.
======================================
from http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/28/eu-report-to-conclude-georgia-started-2008-war-with-russia/
EU Report to Conclude Georgia Started 2008 War with Russia
Also Going to Criticize Russia for 'Exploiting' Conflict
by Jason Ditz, September 28, 2009
The oft-delayed European Union report on the August 2008 Russo-Georgian War is finally nearing release, according to officials, and it will conclude what a myriad of other reports in the interim have already concluded: that Georgia indeed fired the first shot.
In an effort to make the report more palatable to the eastern EU member states which have an axe to grind against Russia, the report will also accuse Russia of “exploiting” the conflict and will criticize them for distributing Russian passports to residents of the separatist enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which declared independence after the conflict.
Georgia has officially reacted with outrage at every report regarding the war, insisting that Russia actually started it. But even former Georgian officials acknowledge that President Mikheil Saakashvili was “itching” to do battle over South Ossetia, and test the high-tech military which was largely destroyed in the brief conflict.
President Saakashvili has vowed to reclaim the enclaves as parts of Georgia proper, and has US support in ensuring they will never be recognized as independent republics, though in practice both have been outside Georgian control for quite some time.
Russia started it! Russia started it!
The
None of these warmongers ever mentioned that the bloodthirsty tie-munching President of Georgia had been installed by another senior Bilderberger George Soros and Foreign Office agent Lord Malloch-Brown.
But now, a year after the event, the EU is to issue its report. It will blame Georgia for starting the war, but will also criticise Russia.
Hmm. What would you do if your allies and neighbours were being bombed in their beds?
The War in South Ossetia was a blatant provocation of Russia by Bilderberg-installed Saakashvili.
It may well have been to deflect attention from the financial crisis, a dry run for later this year, perhaps.
======================================
from http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/28/eu-report-to-conclude-georgia-started-2008-war-with-russia/
EU Report to Conclude Georgia Started 2008 War with Russia
Also Going to Criticize Russia for 'Exploiting' Conflict
by Jason Ditz, September 28, 2009
The oft-delayed European Union report on the August 2008 Russo-Georgian War is finally nearing release, according to officials, and it will conclude what a myriad of other reports in the interim have already concluded: that Georgia indeed fired the first shot.
In an effort to make the report more palatable to the eastern EU member states which have an axe to grind against Russia, the report will also accuse Russia of “exploiting” the conflict and will criticize them for distributing Russian passports to residents of the separatist enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which declared independence after the conflict.
Georgia has officially reacted with outrage at every report regarding the war, insisting that Russia actually started it. But even former Georgian officials acknowledge that President Mikheil Saakashvili was “itching” to do battle over South Ossetia, and test the high-tech military which was largely destroyed in the brief conflict.
President Saakashvili has vowed to reclaim the enclaves as parts of Georgia proper, and has US support in ensuring they will never be recognized as independent republics, though in practice both have been outside Georgian control for quite some time.
RACHMAN CALLS FOR WAR ON IRAN
Yesterday it was the turn of Bilderberger Paul Wolfowitz to literally attack Iran in the FT, and at least Wolfowitz mentioned Israel but not in the terms it deserves.
Today Bilderberger Gideon Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) has called for war on Iran, without once mentioning Israel!
Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) concludes by quoting Otto von Bismark;
"The great questions of the day will be decided not by speeches, or by resolutions of majorities, but by blood and iron."
But before this quote Rachman rants on about how ineffective the UN is and that the USA should go it alone, i.e. unilateral military action by the USA on Iran.
Yes the UN is ineffective in a number of ways, one of which is to pass resolutions criticising Israel, resolutions which Israel has blatantly ignored (which has infuriated many angry Muslims, possibly and probably driving them into terrorism, as it was supposed to do).
But in other ways the UN is doing just fine, thankyou very much, as in for example pushing the man-made global climate change bollocks which the UN is using to grab more national sovereignty and more of our money via a global climate tax.
Inspectors have not even visited the site at Qom to determine its intended purpose but Bilderberger Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) wants the USA to unilaterally bomb Iran, which would obviously kick off a series of major international incidents.
Bravo! Rachman. Bravo! Now tell us all about Israel's nuke program.
========================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b3243b2-ac59-11de-a754-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Iran tests the world’s collective will
By Gideon Rachman
Published: September 28 2009 20:29 | Last updated: September 28 2009 20:29
Barack Obama normally likes to talk about hope. Last week at the United Nations he had the audacity to fear. The US president conjured up a vision of a dystopian world: “Extremists sowing terror ... Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations.” That is our collective future, according to Mr Obama, unless the world’s leaders co-operate to find “global solutions to global problems”.
As if to illustrate his point about this dangerous new world, two days later it was revealed that Iran has a second, secret, nuclear site. The mental image of bearded mullahs watching spinning centrifuges in a secret nuclear-facility hidden in a mountain sounds like something out of a James Bond film. It is, however, exactly the kind of international challenge Mr Obama was referring to. The question is whether the world’s leaders can rise to the occasion.
If the major powers can establish a united front and force a change in Iranian behaviour, it would be a triumph for the co-operative internationalism that underpins Mr Obama’s foreign policy. Unfortunately, the odds are on failure.
In the short term, the revelation of the second Iranian nuclear site is very helpful to US efforts to ratchet up the pressure on Iran. The government in Tehran may now agree to allow international inspections of the new site. If Iranian co-operation is insufficient, as it is likely to be, it will be easier to get support for new UN sanctions.
But diplomatic progress should not be confused with real progress. The economic and political situation in Iran is unstable enough to hold out some hope that extra international pressure could force a change in policy. However, any sanctions package that is acceptable to Russia and China, both of whom have vetoes at the UN Security Council, is likely to be too weak really to damage the Iranian regime. The Chinese, in particular, are eager to protect a burgeoning energy relationship with Iran.
Many Americans gave up on the UN years ago. But Mr Obama is a believer – and the UN remains the only international body with the power to impose comprehensive international sanctions and to decide whether a war is legal. The Security Council, however, is often blocked because the Russians and the Chinese remain extremely wary of US-inspired interventionism on everything from Darfur to Iran. Even when the Security Council gets its act together, it often fails to make a difference. Iran is already the subject of UN sanctions, as Iraq was. A Security Council resolution on Gaza earlier this year was blithely ignored.
Meanwhile the very legitimacy of the Security Council is increasingly under challenge, since it still reflects the balance of power at the end of the second world war. The other decision-making organs of the UN are not faring much better. The UN’s climate summit last week did not advance the prospects of a global agreement very much. The UN General Assembly is largely powerless, and so has become a forum for tub-thumping speeches by the world’s least attractive leaders. Beneath the surface, the mood of the UN is moving increasingly in an illiberal direction. Recent research by Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner for the European Council on Foreign Relations reveals a steady “erosion of support for western positions on human rights” in the General Assembly.
For those western leaders who are hoping that the UN will tackle the frightening challenges identified by Mr Obama, it is all very depressing. One senior European politician in New York last week fretted: “On issues like Iran, the Middle East and climate change, we know what we want to get done. We just seem to lack the levers.”
If the UN is blocked or ineffective, then the search will be on for new forums and methods. The G20 summit in Pittsburgh last week looked like a model of efficiency and co-operation after the circus of the UN General Assembly. Since the countries around the table represent the world’s most populous nations and 85 per cent of world economic output, the G20 is more legitimate than the Security Council or the G8. But the G20 works only because it has confined itself to relatively bloodless issues of international economic co-ordination. If it were ever to stray on to questions like Iran, then the divisions that too often cripple the Security Council would simply reappear.
President George W. Bush had his own answer to the question of global governance – the G1. Under Mr Bush, the US was quite prepared to act alone, when necessary. But unilateral American action cannot deliver a climate-change regime or an effective package of international sanctions on Iran.
The only unilateral American policy that the US could adopt towards Iran would be military intervention – and any such response would run against the grain of everything that Mr Obama stands for. But perhaps it may still come to that, nonetheless. Listening to the debates in the General Assembly last week, I was irresistibly reminded of the most famous quotation attributed to Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian politician and patron saint of foreign policy realists. “The great questions of the day will be decided not by speeches, or by resolutions of majorities, but by blood and iron.”
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Post and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
More columns at www.ft.com/rachman
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Today Bilderberger Gideon Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) has called for war on Iran, without once mentioning Israel!
Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) concludes by quoting Otto von Bismark;
"The great questions of the day will be decided not by speeches, or by resolutions of majorities, but by blood and iron."
But before this quote Rachman rants on about how ineffective the UN is and that the USA should go it alone, i.e. unilateral military action by the USA on Iran.
Yes the UN is ineffective in a number of ways, one of which is to pass resolutions criticising Israel, resolutions which Israel has blatantly ignored (which has infuriated many angry Muslims, possibly and probably driving them into terrorism, as it was supposed to do).
But in other ways the UN is doing just fine, thankyou very much, as in for example pushing the man-made global climate change bollocks which the UN is using to grab more national sovereignty and more of our money via a global climate tax.
Inspectors have not even visited the site at Qom to determine its intended purpose but Bilderberger Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) wants the USA to unilaterally bomb Iran, which would obviously kick off a series of major international incidents.
Bravo! Rachman. Bravo! Now tell us all about Israel's nuke program.
========================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b3243b2-ac59-11de-a754-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Iran tests the world’s collective will
By Gideon Rachman
Published: September 28 2009 20:29 | Last updated: September 28 2009 20:29
Barack Obama normally likes to talk about hope. Last week at the United Nations he had the audacity to fear. The US president conjured up a vision of a dystopian world: “Extremists sowing terror ... Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations.” That is our collective future, according to Mr Obama, unless the world’s leaders co-operate to find “global solutions to global problems”.
As if to illustrate his point about this dangerous new world, two days later it was revealed that Iran has a second, secret, nuclear site. The mental image of bearded mullahs watching spinning centrifuges in a secret nuclear-facility hidden in a mountain sounds like something out of a James Bond film. It is, however, exactly the kind of international challenge Mr Obama was referring to. The question is whether the world’s leaders can rise to the occasion.
If the major powers can establish a united front and force a change in Iranian behaviour, it would be a triumph for the co-operative internationalism that underpins Mr Obama’s foreign policy. Unfortunately, the odds are on failure.
In the short term, the revelation of the second Iranian nuclear site is very helpful to US efforts to ratchet up the pressure on Iran. The government in Tehran may now agree to allow international inspections of the new site. If Iranian co-operation is insufficient, as it is likely to be, it will be easier to get support for new UN sanctions.
But diplomatic progress should not be confused with real progress. The economic and political situation in Iran is unstable enough to hold out some hope that extra international pressure could force a change in policy. However, any sanctions package that is acceptable to Russia and China, both of whom have vetoes at the UN Security Council, is likely to be too weak really to damage the Iranian regime. The Chinese, in particular, are eager to protect a burgeoning energy relationship with Iran.
Many Americans gave up on the UN years ago. But Mr Obama is a believer – and the UN remains the only international body with the power to impose comprehensive international sanctions and to decide whether a war is legal. The Security Council, however, is often blocked because the Russians and the Chinese remain extremely wary of US-inspired interventionism on everything from Darfur to Iran. Even when the Security Council gets its act together, it often fails to make a difference. Iran is already the subject of UN sanctions, as Iraq was. A Security Council resolution on Gaza earlier this year was blithely ignored.
Meanwhile the very legitimacy of the Security Council is increasingly under challenge, since it still reflects the balance of power at the end of the second world war. The other decision-making organs of the UN are not faring much better. The UN’s climate summit last week did not advance the prospects of a global agreement very much. The UN General Assembly is largely powerless, and so has become a forum for tub-thumping speeches by the world’s least attractive leaders. Beneath the surface, the mood of the UN is moving increasingly in an illiberal direction. Recent research by Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner for the European Council on Foreign Relations reveals a steady “erosion of support for western positions on human rights” in the General Assembly.
For those western leaders who are hoping that the UN will tackle the frightening challenges identified by Mr Obama, it is all very depressing. One senior European politician in New York last week fretted: “On issues like Iran, the Middle East and climate change, we know what we want to get done. We just seem to lack the levers.”
If the UN is blocked or ineffective, then the search will be on for new forums and methods. The G20 summit in Pittsburgh last week looked like a model of efficiency and co-operation after the circus of the UN General Assembly. Since the countries around the table represent the world’s most populous nations and 85 per cent of world economic output, the G20 is more legitimate than the Security Council or the G8. But the G20 works only because it has confined itself to relatively bloodless issues of international economic co-ordination. If it were ever to stray on to questions like Iran, then the divisions that too often cripple the Security Council would simply reappear.
President George W. Bush had his own answer to the question of global governance – the G1. Under Mr Bush, the US was quite prepared to act alone, when necessary. But unilateral American action cannot deliver a climate-change regime or an effective package of international sanctions on Iran.
The only unilateral American policy that the US could adopt towards Iran would be military intervention – and any such response would run against the grain of everything that Mr Obama stands for. But perhaps it may still come to that, nonetheless. Listening to the debates in the General Assembly last week, I was irresistibly reminded of the most famous quotation attributed to Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian politician and patron saint of foreign policy realists. “The great questions of the day will be decided not by speeches, or by resolutions of majorities, but by blood and iron.”
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Post and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
More columns at www.ft.com/rachman
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Monday, September 28, 2009
LEST WE FORGET : BAILOUT BROWN CAUSED THE CRASH
In devastating testimony to the Treasury Select Committee this year, Lord Turner of the FSA said that both Gordon Bailout Brown and Ed Bilderberg Balls told the FSA to take it easy on The City and its plans for inflating the housing bubble that created the money for the gambling in derivatives that has caused the crash.
This implicates Brown and Balls in criminal activity, as accessories to the violation of The Fraud Act 2006 Fraud by Abuse of Position.
This implicates Brown and Balls in criminal activity, as accessories to the violation of The Fraud Act 2006 Fraud by Abuse of Position.
HOW DO THEY DO IT?
It is now the turn of that ol' Zionist Paul "WMD" Wolfowitz to write in the FT.
Wolfowitz, lest we forget, was the architect of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. He knew where the WMD were. He knew the Iraqis would welcome the invading forces with open arms.
Wrong, and wrong.
Well, Wolfowitz is wrong again in this latest load of billox.
His error is that he does not mention Israel's WMD.
He does mention Israel, but referring only to Israel's desire for attacking Iran and that we must do it instead, continuing the policy of regime change as we saw in June.
But how do they do it? I mean, the FT publishes comments by the likes of Wolfowitz, Geithner and Ackermann, and they all attend Bilderberg frequently, and in some cases almost every year.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Martin Wolf, Associate Editor of the FT, is also a regular attendee at Bilderberg.
PS I wonder what the response would be if in the title Tehran was replaced by Tel Aviv?
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d75d1d86-ab91-11de-9be4-00144feabdc0.html
Confront Tehran now in pursuit of a nuclear-free world
By Paul Wolfowitz
Published: September 27 2009 23:16 | Last updated: September 27 2009 23:16
Barack Obama has displayed extraordinary flexibility in his approach to Iran’s nuclear programme. He has supported Iran’s “right to a peaceful nuclear energy programme”, declared his willingness to meet unconditionally and extended his own deadlines for Iran to begin serious negotiations. He has maintained that position despite Iran’s bellicose rhetoric and despite congressional pressure for sanctions.
Although it has produced no positive response from Tehran, the Obama administration’s flexibility has clearly demonstrated that the obstacle to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue is not a US refusal to negotiate. Even under the Bush administration, the US participated regularly in multilateral talks with Iran. But if there was any ambiguity about the previous administration’s willingness to negotiate, there has been none whatsoever about the Obama administration.
Last week’s revelation of a covert uranium enrichment facility makes it clear that Iran’s rulers are pursuing nuclear weapons. Common sense suggested this long ago. Iran’s proven reserves of natural gas are the world’s second largest (after Russia) and four times those of the US. With two-thirds of those reserves still undeveloped, expensive nuclear power plants are a waste of resources. Even for nuclear energy, it would be cheaper to purchase reactor fuel rather than enrich uranium. Most tellingly, why would Iran be developing long-range ballistic missiles if its nuclear intentions were peaceful? And why build a covert centrifuge plant that is too small to be of commercial use and at a military base? As a senior official of the Obama administration said last week: “Our information is that the Iranians began this facility with the intent that it be secret, and therefore giving them an option of producing weapons-grade uranium without the international community knowing about it.”
In 1994, proponents of the Framework Agreement with North Korea argued that Pyongyang would not cheat because the risks of being caught were too great. As it turned out, even the chances of being caught were not great and the consequences proved to be negligible. When the Clinton administration found signs of a secret facility in 1998, it was unable to prove it, perhaps because the North Koreans had cleaned up the site (as the Iranians are probably doing now). Definitive proof of North Korea’s centrifuge programme did not come to light until 2002, but when charged with this violation, Pyongyang rapidly broke out of the 1994 restrictions, reprocessed the previously “safeguarded” plutonium and tested a nuclear device. Faced with the prospect that North Korea could always do something worse, the US kept making concessions in order to resume negotiations.
Iran has said that it simply aspires to follow the Japanese model of peaceful nuclear development, but that is not as reassuring as it sounds. In 2002, Ichiro Ozawa, now general-secretary of Japan’s new ruling party, said: “We have plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, [enough to] produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads.” Given Japan’s decidedly peaceful foreign policy, those stockpiles do not occasion great fears. No one expects Japan to kick out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and abrogate safeguards as North Korea did. The same cannot be said of Iran, which is steadily accumulating its own break-out capability by producing low-enriched uranium. Thus, any agreement that allows Iran continued enrichment of uranium is likely to repeat the unsatisfactory experience with North Korea, in which violations are followed by new concessions to bring the violator back to the negotiating table.
Normally even the toughest sanctions would be unlikely to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iranian economy is far less vulnerable to sanctions than North Korea and Iran’s rulers have shown that they care little if their people suffer. However, circumstances in Iran are no longer normal. The push for reform in Iran that began with the protests against June’s election fraud offers an opportunity to bring the Iranian people into the debate about the true costs of their rulers’ nuclear ambitions.
To do so, the world must talk less about Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and more about how the regime is wasting the people’s resources. It means doing what we can to support the forces of reform in Iran, both symbolically and practically. Unfortunately, it also means bringing home to the Iranian people that they will pay an increasingly high price for their rulers’ nuclear ambitions. That means the toughest possible sanctions, and soon. Time is running out. The suggestion that Iran can avoid sanctions without abandoning uranium enrichment, simply by opening its illegal facilities to inspection, will be interpreted by Tehran as a sign of weakness. Even this approach may not be enough to persuade Israel not to act on its own, but at least it offers some prospect of success. And it is more than Israel’s security that is at risk. Iran’s Arab neighbours are also deeply worried that nuclear weapons would embolden Iran’s support for terrorism, subversion and even conventional military aggression. Americans need to consider that nuclear weapons might embolden Tehran to provide sanctuary to al-Qaeda or other terrorists. Or, more catastrophically, even to provide them covertly with nuclear weapons.
The pursuit of a nuclear-free world involves substantial risks. Those risks could only be justified if they eliminate the threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war between regional powers. Iran is a crucial test of whether the path to a nuclear-free world is a realistic one or simply a dangerous pipe dream.
The writer is a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Wolfowitz, lest we forget, was the architect of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. He knew where the WMD were. He knew the Iraqis would welcome the invading forces with open arms.
Wrong, and wrong.
Well, Wolfowitz is wrong again in this latest load of billox.
His error is that he does not mention Israel's WMD.
He does mention Israel, but referring only to Israel's desire for attacking Iran and that we must do it instead, continuing the policy of regime change as we saw in June.
But how do they do it? I mean, the FT publishes comments by the likes of Wolfowitz, Geithner and Ackermann, and they all attend Bilderberg frequently, and in some cases almost every year.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Martin Wolf, Associate Editor of the FT, is also a regular attendee at Bilderberg.
PS I wonder what the response would be if in the title Tehran was replaced by Tel Aviv?
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d75d1d86-ab91-11de-9be4-00144feabdc0.html
Confront Tehran now in pursuit of a nuclear-free world
By Paul Wolfowitz
Published: September 27 2009 23:16 | Last updated: September 27 2009 23:16
Barack Obama has displayed extraordinary flexibility in his approach to Iran’s nuclear programme. He has supported Iran’s “right to a peaceful nuclear energy programme”, declared his willingness to meet unconditionally and extended his own deadlines for Iran to begin serious negotiations. He has maintained that position despite Iran’s bellicose rhetoric and despite congressional pressure for sanctions.
Although it has produced no positive response from Tehran, the Obama administration’s flexibility has clearly demonstrated that the obstacle to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue is not a US refusal to negotiate. Even under the Bush administration, the US participated regularly in multilateral talks with Iran. But if there was any ambiguity about the previous administration’s willingness to negotiate, there has been none whatsoever about the Obama administration.
Last week’s revelation of a covert uranium enrichment facility makes it clear that Iran’s rulers are pursuing nuclear weapons. Common sense suggested this long ago. Iran’s proven reserves of natural gas are the world’s second largest (after Russia) and four times those of the US. With two-thirds of those reserves still undeveloped, expensive nuclear power plants are a waste of resources. Even for nuclear energy, it would be cheaper to purchase reactor fuel rather than enrich uranium. Most tellingly, why would Iran be developing long-range ballistic missiles if its nuclear intentions were peaceful? And why build a covert centrifuge plant that is too small to be of commercial use and at a military base? As a senior official of the Obama administration said last week: “Our information is that the Iranians began this facility with the intent that it be secret, and therefore giving them an option of producing weapons-grade uranium without the international community knowing about it.”
In 1994, proponents of the Framework Agreement with North Korea argued that Pyongyang would not cheat because the risks of being caught were too great. As it turned out, even the chances of being caught were not great and the consequences proved to be negligible. When the Clinton administration found signs of a secret facility in 1998, it was unable to prove it, perhaps because the North Koreans had cleaned up the site (as the Iranians are probably doing now). Definitive proof of North Korea’s centrifuge programme did not come to light until 2002, but when charged with this violation, Pyongyang rapidly broke out of the 1994 restrictions, reprocessed the previously “safeguarded” plutonium and tested a nuclear device. Faced with the prospect that North Korea could always do something worse, the US kept making concessions in order to resume negotiations.
Iran has said that it simply aspires to follow the Japanese model of peaceful nuclear development, but that is not as reassuring as it sounds. In 2002, Ichiro Ozawa, now general-secretary of Japan’s new ruling party, said: “We have plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, [enough to] produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads.” Given Japan’s decidedly peaceful foreign policy, those stockpiles do not occasion great fears. No one expects Japan to kick out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and abrogate safeguards as North Korea did. The same cannot be said of Iran, which is steadily accumulating its own break-out capability by producing low-enriched uranium. Thus, any agreement that allows Iran continued enrichment of uranium is likely to repeat the unsatisfactory experience with North Korea, in which violations are followed by new concessions to bring the violator back to the negotiating table.
Normally even the toughest sanctions would be unlikely to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iranian economy is far less vulnerable to sanctions than North Korea and Iran’s rulers have shown that they care little if their people suffer. However, circumstances in Iran are no longer normal. The push for reform in Iran that began with the protests against June’s election fraud offers an opportunity to bring the Iranian people into the debate about the true costs of their rulers’ nuclear ambitions.
To do so, the world must talk less about Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and more about how the regime is wasting the people’s resources. It means doing what we can to support the forces of reform in Iran, both symbolically and practically. Unfortunately, it also means bringing home to the Iranian people that they will pay an increasingly high price for their rulers’ nuclear ambitions. That means the toughest possible sanctions, and soon. Time is running out. The suggestion that Iran can avoid sanctions without abandoning uranium enrichment, simply by opening its illegal facilities to inspection, will be interpreted by Tehran as a sign of weakness. Even this approach may not be enough to persuade Israel not to act on its own, but at least it offers some prospect of success. And it is more than Israel’s security that is at risk. Iran’s Arab neighbours are also deeply worried that nuclear weapons would embolden Iran’s support for terrorism, subversion and even conventional military aggression. Americans need to consider that nuclear weapons might embolden Tehran to provide sanctuary to al-Qaeda or other terrorists. Or, more catastrophically, even to provide them covertly with nuclear weapons.
The pursuit of a nuclear-free world involves substantial risks. Those risks could only be justified if they eliminate the threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war between regional powers. Iran is a crucial test of whether the path to a nuclear-free world is a realistic one or simply a dangerous pipe dream.
The writer is a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
MACHINE BIOLOGY
There is an interesting article in The Independent on Sunday about Ray Kurzweil. He believes that within 20 to 30 years man and machine could fuse to form some sort of perfect being and then colonize the universe.
But he also believes that
I would say, Ray, that on that last point, someone has already beaten you to it.
====================================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/by-2040-you-will-be-able-to-upload-your-brain-1792555.html
By 2040 you will be able to upload your brain...
...or at least that's what Ray Kurzweil thinks. He has spent his life inventing machines that help people, from the blind to dyslexics. Now, he believes we're on the brink of a new age – the 'singularity' – when mind-boggling technology will allow us to email each other toast, run as fast as Usain Bolt (for 15 minutes) – and even live forever. Is there sense to his science – or is the man who reasons that one day he'll bring his dad back from the grave just a mad professor peddling a nightmare vision of the future?
By Mike Hodgkinson
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Should, by some terrible misfortune, Ray Kurzweil shuffle off his mortal coil tomorrow, the obituaries would record an inventor of rare and visionary talent. In 1976, he created the first machine capable of reading books to the blind, and less than a decade later he built the K250: the first music synthesizer to nigh-on perfectly duplicate the sound of a grand piano. His Kurzweil 3000 educational software, which helps students with learning difficulties such as dyslexia and attention deficit disorder, is likewise typical of an innovator who has made his name by combining restless imagination with technological ingenuity and a commendable sense of social responsibility.
However, these past accomplishments, as impressive as they are, would tell only half the Kurzweil story. The rest of his biography – the essence of his very existence, he would contend – belongs to the future.
Following the publication of his 2005 book, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Kurzweil has become known, above all, as a technology speculator whose predictions have polarised opinion – from stone-cold scepticism and splenetic disagreement to dedicated hero worship and admiration. It's not just that he boldly envisions a tomorrow's world where, for example, tiny robots will reverse the effects of pollution, artificial intelligence will far outstrip (and supplement) biological human intelligence, and humankind "will be able to live indefinitely without ageing". No, the real reason Kurzweil has become such a magnet for blogospheric debate, and a tech-celebrity, is that he's convinced those future predictions – and many more just as stunning – are imminent occurrences. They will all, he steadfastly maintains, happen before the middle of the 21st century.
Which means, regarding the earlier allusion to his mortal coil, that he doesn't plan to do any shuffling any time soon. Ray Kurzweil, 61, sincerely believes that his own immortality is a realistic proposition... and just as strongly contends that, using a combination of grave-site DNA and future technologies, he will be able to reclaim his father, Fredric Kurzweil (the victim of a fatal heart attack in 1970), from death.
Just when will this ultimate life-affirming feat be possible? In Kurzweil's estimation, we will be able to upload the human brain to a computer, capturing "a person's entire personality, memory, skills and history", by the end of the 2030s; humans and non-biological machines will then merge so effectively that the differences between them will no longer matter; and, after that, human intelligence, transformed for the better, will start to expand outward into the universe, around about 2045. With this last prediction, Kurzweil is referring not to any recognisable type of space travel, but to a kind of space infusion. "Intelligence," he writes, "will begin to saturate the matter and energy in its midst [and] spread out from its origin on Earth."
It's as well to mention at this point that, in 2005, Mikhail Gorbachev personally congratulated Kurzweil for foreseeing the pivotal role of communications technology in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that Microsoft chairman Bill Gates calls him "the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence". A man of lesser accomplishments, touting the same head-spinning claims, would impress few beyond an inner circle of sci-fi obsessives, but Kurzweil – honoured as an inventor by US presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton – has rightfully earned himself a stockpile of credibility.
In person, chewing pensively on a banana, the softly spoken, slightly built Kurzweil looks chipper for his 61 years, and wears an elegantly tailored suit. A father of two, he resides in the Boston suburbs with his psychologist wife, Sonya, but has flown into Los Angeles for a private screening of Transcendent Man, the upcoming documentary that examines his life and theories over a suitably cosmic score by Philip Glass. "People don't really get their intellectual arms around the changes that are happening," he says, perched lightly on the edge of a large armchair, his overall sheen of wellbeing perhaps a shade more encouraging than you'd expect from a man of his age. "The issue is not just [that] something amazing is going to happen in 2045," he says. "There's something remarkable going on right now."
To understand exactly what he means, and why he thinks that his predictions bear up to hard scrutiny, it's necessary to return to the title of the above-mentioned book, and the grand idea on which it's based: "the singularity".
Borrowed from black-hole physics, in which the singularity is taken to signify what is unknowable, the term has been applied to technology to suggest that we haven't really got a clue what's going to happen once machines are vastly more "intelligent" than humans. The singularity, writes Kurzweil, is "a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed". He is not unique in his adoption of the idea – the information theorist John von Neumann hinted at it in the 1950s; retired maths professor and sci-fi author Vernor Vinge has been exploring it at length since the early 1980s – but Kurzweil's version is currently the most popular "singularitarian" text.
"I didn't come to these ideas because I had certain conclusions and worked backwards," he explains. "In fact, I didn't start looking for them at all. I was looking for a way to time my inventions and technology projects as I realised timing was the critical factor to success. And I made this discovery that if you measure certain underlying properties of information technology, it follows exquisitely predictable trajectories."
For Kurzweil, the crux of the singularity is that the pace of technology is increasing at a super-fast, exponential rate. What's more, there's also "exponential growth in the rate ' of exponential growth". It is this understanding that gives him the confidence to believe that technology – through an explosion of progress in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics – will soon surpass the limits of his imagination.
It is also why, in addition to bananas and the odd beneficial glass of red wine, he follows a regime of around 200 vitamin pills daily: not so much a diet as an attempt to "aggressively re-programme" his biochemistry. He claims that tests have shown he aged only two biological years over the course of 16 actual vitamin-popping years. He also says that, thanks to the regime, he has effectively cured himself of Type 2 diabetes. Not even open-heart surgery, which he underwent last year, and from which he made a rapid recovery ("a few hours later I was in the next room, and sent an email") could dent his convictions. On the contrary, he thinks that the brevity of his convalescence is proof positive that the pills are working. If he slows down the ageing process, he reckons, he'll be around long enough to witness the arrival of technology that will prolong his life... forever.
Kurzweil was raised in Queens, New York, where two youthful obsessions – electronics and music – would lead to a guest appearance on the 1960s TV quiz show I've Got a Secret, on which (aged 17) he showcased his first major invention: a home-made computer that could compose tunes. Five years later came the death (in 1970, when Ray was 22) of his father, Fredric, a struggling composer and conductor who, Kurzweil believes, never really got his due. "I'm painfully aware of the limitations he had, which were not his fault," he says. "In that generation, information about health was not very available, and we didn't have [today's] resources for creating music. Now, a kid in a dorm room can create a whole orchestral composition on a synthesizer."
The tragedy of that loss – and the fact that the means to repair a congenital heart defect were available to him, but not his father – is clearly an intense motivation for Kurzweil. Sometime soon, he believes, he will once again be able to converse with his father, such is the potential of the scientific advances he believes will ultimately pave the way to the singularity. Not everyone, though, concurs with his appraisal of technological progress, and his belief in the imminence of immortality.
Memorably, in the Transcendent Man documentary, Kevin Kelly, founding editor of future-thinking magazine Wired, labels Kurzweil a "deluded dreamer" who is "performing the services of a prophet". In reacting to that assessment, Kurzweil's habitually mellow tone of voice takes on a hint – albeit mild – of umbrage. "It's interesting that [Kelly] says my views are 'hard-wired', when I actually think his views are hard-wired," he says. "He's a linear thinker, and linear thinking is hard-wired in our brains: it worked very well 1,000 years ago. Some people really are resistant to accepting this exponential perspective, and they're very smart people. You show them the data, and yes, they follow it, but they just cannot get past it. Other people accept it readily."
Whereas Kelly differs from Kurzweil on the grounds of interpretation and tone, other voices of dispute are rooted in a deep-seated fear of technological calamity. "The form of opposition from fundamentalist humanists, and fundamentalist naturalists – that we should make no change to nature [or] to human beings – is directly contrary to the nature of human beings, because we are the species that goes beyond our limitations," counters Kurzweil. "And I think that's quite a destructive school of thought – you can show that hundreds of thousands of kids went blind in Africa due to the opposition to [genetically engineered] golden rice. The opposition to genetically modified organisms is just a blanket, reflexive opposition to the idea of changing nature. Nature, and the natural human condition, generates tremendous suffering. We have the means to overcome that, and we should deploy it."
To those opponents who detect a thick strain of techno-evangelism in Kurzweil's basically optimistic interpretation of the singularity, he reacts with self-parody: there's a tongue-in-cheek photo in The Singularity is Near of the author wearing a sandwich board bearing the book's title, and he insists he was never "searching for an alternative to customary faith". At the same time, he says humankind's inevitable move towards non-biological intelligence is "an essentially spiritual undertaking".
Whether or not he attracts a significant following of dedicated believers in search of deliverance, ecstasy or any variation thereof (some commentators have called the singularity "the rapture for geeks"), Kurzweil has undoubtedly positioned himself at the heart of a growing singularity industry. He is a director of the non-profit Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, "the only organisation that exists for the expressed purpose of achieving the potential of smarter-than-human intelligence safer and sooner"; there's a second film awaiting release (part fiction, part documentary, co-produced by Kurzweil), also based on The Singularity is Near; and in addition to his theoretical books, he has co-authored a series of health titles, including Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever and Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever. The secret of immortality, he wants you to know, is available in book form.
Those who have lent Kurzweil their support include space-travel pioneer Peter Diamandis, chairman of the X-Prize Foundation; videogame designer (and creator of Spore and SimCity) Will Wright; and Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist George Smoot. All three can be found on the faculty and adviser list of the recently founded Singularity University (Silicon Valley), of which Kurzweil is chancellor and trustee.
If the pace of technology continues to accelerate, as Kurzweil predicts, it seems likely that discussion of the singularity will see an exponential growth of its own. Few would dispute that it's one of the 21st century's most compelling ideas, because it connects issues that intensely polarise people (God, the energy crisis, genetic engineering) with sci-fi concepts that stir the imagination (artificial intelligence, immersive virtual reality, molecular engineering). Thanks largely to Kurzweil and the singularity, scenarios once viewed as diverting entertainment are being reappraised with a new seriousness. The line between fanciful thinker and credible, scientific analyst is becoming blurred: what once would have been relegated to the realms of sci-fi is now gaining factual currency.
"People can wax philosophically," says Kurzweil. "It's very abstract – whether it's a good thing to overcome death or not – but when it comes to some new methodology that's a better treatment for cancer, there's no controversy. Nobody's picketing doctors who put computers inside people's brains for Parkinson's: it's not considered controversial."
Might that change as more people become aware of the singularity and the pace of technological change? "People can argue about it," says Kurzweil, relaxed as ever within his aura of certainty. "But when it comes down to accepting each step along the way, it's done really without much debate."
'Transcendent Man' (transcendentman.com) screens at Sheffield Doc/Fest (0114 276 5141, sheffdocfest.com), running in association with 'The Independent', from 4-8 November
The greatest thing since sliced bread?
Ray Kurzweil's guide to incredible future technologies — and when he thinks they're likely to arrive...
1 Reconnaissance dust
"These so-called 'smart dust' – tiny devices that are almost invisible but contain sensors, computers and communication capabilities – are already being experimented with. Practical use of these devices is likely within 10 to 15 years"
2 Nano assemblers
"Basically, these are three-dimensional printers that can create a physical object from an information file and inexpensive input materials. So we could email a blouse or a toaster or even the toast. There is already an industry of three-dimensional printers, and the resolution of the devices that can be created is getting finer and finer. The nano assembler would assemble devices from molecules and molecular fragments, and is about 20 years away"
3 Respirocytes
"A respirocyte is a nanobot (a blood cell-sized device) that is designed to replace our biological red blood cells but is 1,000 times more capable. If you replaced a portion of your biological red blood cells with these robotic versions you could do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or sit at the bottom of a swimming pool for four hours. These are about 20 years away" '
4 Foglets
"Foglets are a form of nanobots that can reassemble themselves into a wide variety of objects in the real world, essentially bringing the rapid morphing qualities of virtual reality to real reality. Nanobots that can perform useful therapeutic functions in our bodies, essentially keeping us healthy from inside, are only about 20 years away. Foglets are more advanced and are probably 30 to 40 years away"
5 Blue goo
"The concern with full-scale nanotechnology and nanobots is that if they had the capability to replicate in a natural environment (as bacteria and other pathogens do), they could destroy humanity or even all of the biomass. This is called the grey goo concern. When that becomes feasible we will need a nanotechnology immune system. The nanobots that would be protecting us from harmful self-replicating nanobots are called blue goo (blue as in police). This scenario is 20 to 30 years away"
But he also believes that
we will be able to upload the human brain to a computer, capturing "a person's entire personality, memory, skills and history"
I would say, Ray, that on that last point, someone has already beaten you to it.
====================================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/by-2040-you-will-be-able-to-upload-your-brain-1792555.html
By 2040 you will be able to upload your brain...
...or at least that's what Ray Kurzweil thinks. He has spent his life inventing machines that help people, from the blind to dyslexics. Now, he believes we're on the brink of a new age – the 'singularity' – when mind-boggling technology will allow us to email each other toast, run as fast as Usain Bolt (for 15 minutes) – and even live forever. Is there sense to his science – or is the man who reasons that one day he'll bring his dad back from the grave just a mad professor peddling a nightmare vision of the future?
By Mike Hodgkinson
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Should, by some terrible misfortune, Ray Kurzweil shuffle off his mortal coil tomorrow, the obituaries would record an inventor of rare and visionary talent. In 1976, he created the first machine capable of reading books to the blind, and less than a decade later he built the K250: the first music synthesizer to nigh-on perfectly duplicate the sound of a grand piano. His Kurzweil 3000 educational software, which helps students with learning difficulties such as dyslexia and attention deficit disorder, is likewise typical of an innovator who has made his name by combining restless imagination with technological ingenuity and a commendable sense of social responsibility.
However, these past accomplishments, as impressive as they are, would tell only half the Kurzweil story. The rest of his biography – the essence of his very existence, he would contend – belongs to the future.
Following the publication of his 2005 book, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Kurzweil has become known, above all, as a technology speculator whose predictions have polarised opinion – from stone-cold scepticism and splenetic disagreement to dedicated hero worship and admiration. It's not just that he boldly envisions a tomorrow's world where, for example, tiny robots will reverse the effects of pollution, artificial intelligence will far outstrip (and supplement) biological human intelligence, and humankind "will be able to live indefinitely without ageing". No, the real reason Kurzweil has become such a magnet for blogospheric debate, and a tech-celebrity, is that he's convinced those future predictions – and many more just as stunning – are imminent occurrences. They will all, he steadfastly maintains, happen before the middle of the 21st century.
Which means, regarding the earlier allusion to his mortal coil, that he doesn't plan to do any shuffling any time soon. Ray Kurzweil, 61, sincerely believes that his own immortality is a realistic proposition... and just as strongly contends that, using a combination of grave-site DNA and future technologies, he will be able to reclaim his father, Fredric Kurzweil (the victim of a fatal heart attack in 1970), from death.
Just when will this ultimate life-affirming feat be possible? In Kurzweil's estimation, we will be able to upload the human brain to a computer, capturing "a person's entire personality, memory, skills and history", by the end of the 2030s; humans and non-biological machines will then merge so effectively that the differences between them will no longer matter; and, after that, human intelligence, transformed for the better, will start to expand outward into the universe, around about 2045. With this last prediction, Kurzweil is referring not to any recognisable type of space travel, but to a kind of space infusion. "Intelligence," he writes, "will begin to saturate the matter and energy in its midst [and] spread out from its origin on Earth."
It's as well to mention at this point that, in 2005, Mikhail Gorbachev personally congratulated Kurzweil for foreseeing the pivotal role of communications technology in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that Microsoft chairman Bill Gates calls him "the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence". A man of lesser accomplishments, touting the same head-spinning claims, would impress few beyond an inner circle of sci-fi obsessives, but Kurzweil – honoured as an inventor by US presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton – has rightfully earned himself a stockpile of credibility.
In person, chewing pensively on a banana, the softly spoken, slightly built Kurzweil looks chipper for his 61 years, and wears an elegantly tailored suit. A father of two, he resides in the Boston suburbs with his psychologist wife, Sonya, but has flown into Los Angeles for a private screening of Transcendent Man, the upcoming documentary that examines his life and theories over a suitably cosmic score by Philip Glass. "People don't really get their intellectual arms around the changes that are happening," he says, perched lightly on the edge of a large armchair, his overall sheen of wellbeing perhaps a shade more encouraging than you'd expect from a man of his age. "The issue is not just [that] something amazing is going to happen in 2045," he says. "There's something remarkable going on right now."
To understand exactly what he means, and why he thinks that his predictions bear up to hard scrutiny, it's necessary to return to the title of the above-mentioned book, and the grand idea on which it's based: "the singularity".
Borrowed from black-hole physics, in which the singularity is taken to signify what is unknowable, the term has been applied to technology to suggest that we haven't really got a clue what's going to happen once machines are vastly more "intelligent" than humans. The singularity, writes Kurzweil, is "a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed". He is not unique in his adoption of the idea – the information theorist John von Neumann hinted at it in the 1950s; retired maths professor and sci-fi author Vernor Vinge has been exploring it at length since the early 1980s – but Kurzweil's version is currently the most popular "singularitarian" text.
"I didn't come to these ideas because I had certain conclusions and worked backwards," he explains. "In fact, I didn't start looking for them at all. I was looking for a way to time my inventions and technology projects as I realised timing was the critical factor to success. And I made this discovery that if you measure certain underlying properties of information technology, it follows exquisitely predictable trajectories."
For Kurzweil, the crux of the singularity is that the pace of technology is increasing at a super-fast, exponential rate. What's more, there's also "exponential growth in the rate ' of exponential growth". It is this understanding that gives him the confidence to believe that technology – through an explosion of progress in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics – will soon surpass the limits of his imagination.
It is also why, in addition to bananas and the odd beneficial glass of red wine, he follows a regime of around 200 vitamin pills daily: not so much a diet as an attempt to "aggressively re-programme" his biochemistry. He claims that tests have shown he aged only two biological years over the course of 16 actual vitamin-popping years. He also says that, thanks to the regime, he has effectively cured himself of Type 2 diabetes. Not even open-heart surgery, which he underwent last year, and from which he made a rapid recovery ("a few hours later I was in the next room, and sent an email") could dent his convictions. On the contrary, he thinks that the brevity of his convalescence is proof positive that the pills are working. If he slows down the ageing process, he reckons, he'll be around long enough to witness the arrival of technology that will prolong his life... forever.
Kurzweil was raised in Queens, New York, where two youthful obsessions – electronics and music – would lead to a guest appearance on the 1960s TV quiz show I've Got a Secret, on which (aged 17) he showcased his first major invention: a home-made computer that could compose tunes. Five years later came the death (in 1970, when Ray was 22) of his father, Fredric, a struggling composer and conductor who, Kurzweil believes, never really got his due. "I'm painfully aware of the limitations he had, which were not his fault," he says. "In that generation, information about health was not very available, and we didn't have [today's] resources for creating music. Now, a kid in a dorm room can create a whole orchestral composition on a synthesizer."
The tragedy of that loss – and the fact that the means to repair a congenital heart defect were available to him, but not his father – is clearly an intense motivation for Kurzweil. Sometime soon, he believes, he will once again be able to converse with his father, such is the potential of the scientific advances he believes will ultimately pave the way to the singularity. Not everyone, though, concurs with his appraisal of technological progress, and his belief in the imminence of immortality.
Memorably, in the Transcendent Man documentary, Kevin Kelly, founding editor of future-thinking magazine Wired, labels Kurzweil a "deluded dreamer" who is "performing the services of a prophet". In reacting to that assessment, Kurzweil's habitually mellow tone of voice takes on a hint – albeit mild – of umbrage. "It's interesting that [Kelly] says my views are 'hard-wired', when I actually think his views are hard-wired," he says. "He's a linear thinker, and linear thinking is hard-wired in our brains: it worked very well 1,000 years ago. Some people really are resistant to accepting this exponential perspective, and they're very smart people. You show them the data, and yes, they follow it, but they just cannot get past it. Other people accept it readily."
Whereas Kelly differs from Kurzweil on the grounds of interpretation and tone, other voices of dispute are rooted in a deep-seated fear of technological calamity. "The form of opposition from fundamentalist humanists, and fundamentalist naturalists – that we should make no change to nature [or] to human beings – is directly contrary to the nature of human beings, because we are the species that goes beyond our limitations," counters Kurzweil. "And I think that's quite a destructive school of thought – you can show that hundreds of thousands of kids went blind in Africa due to the opposition to [genetically engineered] golden rice. The opposition to genetically modified organisms is just a blanket, reflexive opposition to the idea of changing nature. Nature, and the natural human condition, generates tremendous suffering. We have the means to overcome that, and we should deploy it."
To those opponents who detect a thick strain of techno-evangelism in Kurzweil's basically optimistic interpretation of the singularity, he reacts with self-parody: there's a tongue-in-cheek photo in The Singularity is Near of the author wearing a sandwich board bearing the book's title, and he insists he was never "searching for an alternative to customary faith". At the same time, he says humankind's inevitable move towards non-biological intelligence is "an essentially spiritual undertaking".
Whether or not he attracts a significant following of dedicated believers in search of deliverance, ecstasy or any variation thereof (some commentators have called the singularity "the rapture for geeks"), Kurzweil has undoubtedly positioned himself at the heart of a growing singularity industry. He is a director of the non-profit Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, "the only organisation that exists for the expressed purpose of achieving the potential of smarter-than-human intelligence safer and sooner"; there's a second film awaiting release (part fiction, part documentary, co-produced by Kurzweil), also based on The Singularity is Near; and in addition to his theoretical books, he has co-authored a series of health titles, including Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever and Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever. The secret of immortality, he wants you to know, is available in book form.
Those who have lent Kurzweil their support include space-travel pioneer Peter Diamandis, chairman of the X-Prize Foundation; videogame designer (and creator of Spore and SimCity) Will Wright; and Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist George Smoot. All three can be found on the faculty and adviser list of the recently founded Singularity University (Silicon Valley), of which Kurzweil is chancellor and trustee.
If the pace of technology continues to accelerate, as Kurzweil predicts, it seems likely that discussion of the singularity will see an exponential growth of its own. Few would dispute that it's one of the 21st century's most compelling ideas, because it connects issues that intensely polarise people (God, the energy crisis, genetic engineering) with sci-fi concepts that stir the imagination (artificial intelligence, immersive virtual reality, molecular engineering). Thanks largely to Kurzweil and the singularity, scenarios once viewed as diverting entertainment are being reappraised with a new seriousness. The line between fanciful thinker and credible, scientific analyst is becoming blurred: what once would have been relegated to the realms of sci-fi is now gaining factual currency.
"People can wax philosophically," says Kurzweil. "It's very abstract – whether it's a good thing to overcome death or not – but when it comes to some new methodology that's a better treatment for cancer, there's no controversy. Nobody's picketing doctors who put computers inside people's brains for Parkinson's: it's not considered controversial."
Might that change as more people become aware of the singularity and the pace of technological change? "People can argue about it," says Kurzweil, relaxed as ever within his aura of certainty. "But when it comes down to accepting each step along the way, it's done really without much debate."
'Transcendent Man' (transcendentman.com) screens at Sheffield Doc/Fest (0114 276 5141, sheffdocfest.com), running in association with 'The Independent', from 4-8 November
The greatest thing since sliced bread?
Ray Kurzweil's guide to incredible future technologies — and when he thinks they're likely to arrive...
1 Reconnaissance dust
"These so-called 'smart dust' – tiny devices that are almost invisible but contain sensors, computers and communication capabilities – are already being experimented with. Practical use of these devices is likely within 10 to 15 years"
2 Nano assemblers
"Basically, these are three-dimensional printers that can create a physical object from an information file and inexpensive input materials. So we could email a blouse or a toaster or even the toast. There is already an industry of three-dimensional printers, and the resolution of the devices that can be created is getting finer and finer. The nano assembler would assemble devices from molecules and molecular fragments, and is about 20 years away"
3 Respirocytes
"A respirocyte is a nanobot (a blood cell-sized device) that is designed to replace our biological red blood cells but is 1,000 times more capable. If you replaced a portion of your biological red blood cells with these robotic versions you could do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or sit at the bottom of a swimming pool for four hours. These are about 20 years away" '
4 Foglets
"Foglets are a form of nanobots that can reassemble themselves into a wide variety of objects in the real world, essentially bringing the rapid morphing qualities of virtual reality to real reality. Nanobots that can perform useful therapeutic functions in our bodies, essentially keeping us healthy from inside, are only about 20 years away. Foglets are more advanced and are probably 30 to 40 years away"
5 Blue goo
"The concern with full-scale nanotechnology and nanobots is that if they had the capability to replicate in a natural environment (as bacteria and other pathogens do), they could destroy humanity or even all of the biomass. This is called the grey goo concern. When that becomes feasible we will need a nanotechnology immune system. The nanobots that would be protecting us from harmful self-replicating nanobots are called blue goo (blue as in police). This scenario is 20 to 30 years away"
BAILOUT BROWN AWARDED STATESMAN OF THE YEAR
I wonder why Gordon "Bailout" Brown was awarded Statesman of the Year.
I wonder why it was Henry Kissinger who gave him the award.
I wonder why the founder and head of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation (ACF) is also a director of the America Israel Friendship League along with Abe Foxman and which has Mortimer Zuckerman (Zionist, CFR, JP Morgan, Aspen Institute, WINEP, alleged member of The Israeli Lobby) as its Honorary President
I wonder why the Board of Trustess of the ACF lists Bilderberg Supremo Dr Josef Ackermann.
Something's not right.
Brown is smiling, along with Kissinger.
No. Something is definitely not right.
I wonder why it was Henry Kissinger who gave him the award.
I wonder why the founder and head of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation (ACF) is also a director of the America Israel Friendship League along with Abe Foxman and which has Mortimer Zuckerman (Zionist, CFR, JP Morgan, Aspen Institute, WINEP, alleged member of The Israeli Lobby) as its Honorary President
I wonder why the Board of Trustess of the ACF lists Bilderberg Supremo Dr Josef Ackermann.
Something's not right.
Brown is smiling, along with Kissinger.
No. Something is definitely not right.
SUFFER LITTLE OLD GRANNY
Yep. Here we go.
Massive, massive cuts in the NHS.
The biggest yet.
It's gonna be slaughter.
And guess who's at the frontline right here right now paying the price for the greed and recklessness of those very nice bankers?
Little old granny on the Liverpool Care Pathway introduced by the Butcher of Baghdad (and J P Morgan Chase employee) Tony Blair.
============================================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6234845/Plans-for-swingeing-hospital-cuts-as-NHS-on-brink-of-Armageddon.html
Plans for swingeing hospital cuts as NHS on brink of 'Armageddon'
Health service managers warned of an "Armageddon scenario" facing NHS finances as they draw up secret plans for swingeing hospital cuts.
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 26 Sep 2009
Senior officials have set "aggressive" targets to reduce the number of patients referred to specialists, or treated in Accident and Emergency departments, while GPs will be asked to cut down on the amount of time spent in consultations.
The plans are being issued as senior managers warned that the NHS is about to face the greatest financial pressures since its inception.
They fear that when the current spending round ends in 2011, the impact of an anticipated real terms freeze or cuts – coming as the demands on the NHS of an ageing population increases – will be devastating.
The NHS Confederation, which represents NHS managers, will tell this week's Labour Party conference that the impending challenge is so great that hospital closures and job cuts must be enforced across the country.
Massive, massive cuts in the NHS.
The biggest yet.
It's gonna be slaughter.
And guess who's at the frontline right here right now paying the price for the greed and recklessness of those very nice bankers?
Little old granny on the Liverpool Care Pathway introduced by the Butcher of Baghdad (and J P Morgan Chase employee) Tony Blair.
============================================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6234845/Plans-for-swingeing-hospital-cuts-as-NHS-on-brink-of-Armageddon.html
Plans for swingeing hospital cuts as NHS on brink of 'Armageddon'
Health service managers warned of an "Armageddon scenario" facing NHS finances as they draw up secret plans for swingeing hospital cuts.
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 26 Sep 2009
Senior officials have set "aggressive" targets to reduce the number of patients referred to specialists, or treated in Accident and Emergency departments, while GPs will be asked to cut down on the amount of time spent in consultations.
The plans are being issued as senior managers warned that the NHS is about to face the greatest financial pressures since its inception.
They fear that when the current spending round ends in 2011, the impact of an anticipated real terms freeze or cuts – coming as the demands on the NHS of an ageing population increases – will be devastating.
The NHS Confederation, which represents NHS managers, will tell this week's Labour Party conference that the impending challenge is so great that hospital closures and job cuts must be enforced across the country.
DON'T JUST TALK ABOUT THEM. ASK THEM YOURSELF.
You can talk about Rothschild did this, Rockefeller did that, Warburg did the other.
If you want confirmation then ask them yourself.
But a word of advice. Be prepared to wait a very very long time for a reply from the Rothschilds, even in this day of instant communication via email. I've still not had a reply a month after asking them about the Rockefellers and the Nazis.
If you want confirmation then ask them yourself.
But a word of advice. Be prepared to wait a very very long time for a reply from the Rothschilds, even in this day of instant communication via email. I've still not had a reply a month after asking them about the Rockefellers and the Nazis.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
THE MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR ARMS RACE
Israel is very very keen to implicate all of its neighbours in having or looking to have nuclear arms.
Nuclear arms are oh so baaaaaaad things, says Israel.
Nuclear arms kill people en masse like in the (Zionist-engineered) Holocaust, says Israel.
Nuclear arms should not exist in The tinderbox Middle East, says Israel.
But what about Israel?
A study by The Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College published in 2006 called Getting Ready for a Nuclear Ready Iran called for Israel to de-nuke (Part 1, Recommendations, Section 6. Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile
materials.)
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf
The Rothschilds (yes, the same Rothschilds who don't reply to their emails asking about The Rockefellers and the Nazis) gave Israel nuclear weapons technology after spying on the nuclear programs of Great Britain and Russia.
And after exposing Israel's nuclear weapons capability in the British media Mordecai Vanunu was lured to Italy by Israeli Intelligence, kidnapped, transported to Israel and banged up in solitary confinement for over a decade, and still can't talk even after his release.
So before we cast judgement on Iran's nuclear program (and yes it looks naughty), let's take a step back, take a deep breath, and ask...
WHY WOULD IRAN WANT A BOMB?
My answer would be that Israel has hundreds of them and because of that thinks it can treat the Palestinians and it's neighbours like shit without fear of a military invasion. This then drives many into terrorism, and hence events such as 9/11 can be used to introduce police state laws over here and to send our military over there (where large oil fields just happen to exist).
Nuclear arms are oh so baaaaaaad things, says Israel.
Nuclear arms kill people en masse like in the (Zionist-engineered) Holocaust, says Israel.
Nuclear arms should not exist in The tinderbox Middle East, says Israel.
But what about Israel?
A study by The Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College published in 2006 called Getting Ready for a Nuclear Ready Iran called for Israel to de-nuke (Part 1, Recommendations, Section 6. Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile
materials.)
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf
The Rothschilds (yes, the same Rothschilds who don't reply to their emails asking about The Rockefellers and the Nazis) gave Israel nuclear weapons technology after spying on the nuclear programs of Great Britain and Russia.
And after exposing Israel's nuclear weapons capability in the British media Mordecai Vanunu was lured to Italy by Israeli Intelligence, kidnapped, transported to Israel and banged up in solitary confinement for over a decade, and still can't talk even after his release.
So before we cast judgement on Iran's nuclear program (and yes it looks naughty), let's take a step back, take a deep breath, and ask...
WHY WOULD IRAN WANT A BOMB?
My answer would be that Israel has hundreds of them and because of that thinks it can treat the Palestinians and it's neighbours like shit without fear of a military invasion. This then drives many into terrorism, and hence events such as 9/11 can be used to introduce police state laws over here and to send our military over there (where large oil fields just happen to exist).
Friday, September 25, 2009
RECOMMEND
You, like me, may not be able to post on The Times in response to an article because what you say is just too damn close to the truth, but you can at least recommend another reply by someone who has managed to slip through the censorship net.
Take today's comment by Alice Thomson, "A year on, the hard lessons are still unlearnt" at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6848103.ece
It is a very well written piece with one major error, which is suggested at the very end; that the banks did not break the law.
They did break the law. They conspired a decade or so ago at Bilderberg and allowed the greed to run wild. Thomson herself even suggests a motive as to why a bank like Goldman Sachs (who supplied Paulson and Geithner among others to Bilderberg) would engage in such a conspiracy; there is now a lack of competition to Goldman Sachs. The survivors who were big before the crisis are now even bigger!! The classic is JP Morgan Chase (who Blair works for). It bought up several of its competitors under very dubious circumstances with bailout money supplied by David Rockefeller's Bilderberg buddy Hank Paulson.
Anyway, as argued previously one of the relevant laws is The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 Fraud By Abuse of Position. The banks should create money for a stable and growing economy. Instead they deliberately created a massive housing bubble to create money so that they could gamble on derivatives, and when it all went inevitably wrong we, the muggins British public, paid the price in job losses, homelessness and a recession, and a public debt that will mean cuts in public services for decades to come and the spectre of euthanasia to save on health treatments and pensions, the two largest sectors of public spending.
And now the banks are upto their old tricks again.
In response to Thomson's article I recommended the following response, which is not quite true in that there has been an investigation of sorts by the Treasury Select Committee, but it was not a legal investigation with evidence given under oath and nobody stood on trial, but I agree with the comment in general;
Take today's comment by Alice Thomson, "A year on, the hard lessons are still unlearnt" at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6848103.ece
It is a very well written piece with one major error, which is suggested at the very end; that the banks did not break the law.
They did break the law. They conspired a decade or so ago at Bilderberg and allowed the greed to run wild. Thomson herself even suggests a motive as to why a bank like Goldman Sachs (who supplied Paulson and Geithner among others to Bilderberg) would engage in such a conspiracy; there is now a lack of competition to Goldman Sachs. The survivors who were big before the crisis are now even bigger!! The classic is JP Morgan Chase (who Blair works for). It bought up several of its competitors under very dubious circumstances with bailout money supplied by David Rockefeller's Bilderberg buddy Hank Paulson.
Anyway, as argued previously one of the relevant laws is The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 Fraud By Abuse of Position. The banks should create money for a stable and growing economy. Instead they deliberately created a massive housing bubble to create money so that they could gamble on derivatives, and when it all went inevitably wrong we, the muggins British public, paid the price in job losses, homelessness and a recession, and a public debt that will mean cuts in public services for decades to come and the spectre of euthanasia to save on health treatments and pensions, the two largest sectors of public spending.
And now the banks are upto their old tricks again.
In response to Thomson's article I recommended the following response, which is not quite true in that there has been an investigation of sorts by the Treasury Select Committee, but it was not a legal investigation with evidence given under oath and nobody stood on trial, but I agree with the comment in general;
Tom E wrote:
Actually, we don't know if they broke the law because there has never been an investigation.
The reason the guys at Enron got found out was that Enron was allowed to go bust, after which the guys at the top lost control of the evidence and the power of patronage - and at that point people who had lost their jobs blew the whistle on what the people at the top had been up to.
The banks were not allowed to go bust, the same group of people are in charge and there is no appetite to investigate what went on because we have so much money tied up in bank shares.
The bankers held the gun of debt based money to government's head and government gave them a get out of jail free card. Now they are up to their old tricks and next time even the state wont be able to bail them out.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
THEY DON'T LIKE IT UP 'EM
What a fantastic phrase that is, from Dad's Army, Lance Corporal Jones.
They can't abide the cold steel, sir! no, sir! They don't like it up 'em.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
WHO HAS BEEN READING MY LETTER TO THE FSA?
I recently posted the letter I sent to the FSA regarding the Bilderberg control of the credit crisis and the subsequent bailouts by the UK and US governments. That post has received some attention in the following respects:
1. that post attracted by a significant number the most visits from people based in Washington DC, and in particular from government servers.
2. several finance houses and law firms with specialization in finance have visited that post,
and when I say visit I mean not the result of a google search but a direct link and access to that post.
You may also have noted that Lord Turner, to whom I addressed that letter, has been very vociferous recently about the banks and their uselessness, and he has been attacked some what in the media (but not actually shot, as some people at The Mansion House last night would like to do to Turner).
That cat is slowly climbing out of that bag.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
1. that post attracted by a significant number the most visits from people based in Washington DC, and in particular from government servers.
2. several finance houses and law firms with specialization in finance have visited that post,
and when I say visit I mean not the result of a google search but a direct link and access to that post.
You may also have noted that Lord Turner, to whom I addressed that letter, has been very vociferous recently about the banks and their uselessness, and he has been attacked some what in the media (but not actually shot, as some people at The Mansion House last night would like to do to Turner).
That cat is slowly climbing out of that bag.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
STUNNED INTO SILENCE
This week of silence has been due to the revelations of organised profiteering murder of the elderly and infirm in order to pay for the bank bailout, here in the UK and the attempt to introduce the same into the USA via ObamaCare.
If you have not been following the reports and videos on LPAC, particularly the OTC interview with Anton Chaitkin, then do so immediately.
http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=11764
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11797
There is something very, very evil going on, right here right now.
And I'm not surprised at the lack of coverage in the blogosphere.
If you have not been following the reports and videos on LPAC, particularly the OTC interview with Anton Chaitkin, then do so immediately.
http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=11764
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11797
There is something very, very evil going on, right here right now.
And I'm not surprised at the lack of coverage in the blogosphere.
Monday, September 14, 2009
WHAT SHOULD BE KILLED : OLD PEOPLE, OR ID CARDS, TRIDENT AND BANKS?
It is such a simple question.
What, if anything, should we kill to pay for the bailout of greedy reckless gambling banks; old people, or ID Cards and the database state, Trident and the greedy reckless gambling banks and their system?
The banks and their masters think we should kill old people to pay for the bailout.
I do not.
On the day that The Guardian reported that directors' pay increased by 10%, Brendan Barber at the TUC conference made several bloodless suggestions as to how we could save money; kill the ID card system and the database state, and kill Trident.
He did not suggest that we replace the whole financial system, and I believe he should have done so. The financial system will be used time and time again to stiff the working population. Its controllers create world wars and global recessions from which they benefit.
So kill the banks, ID cards and Trident, not powerless old people to save on treaments and pensions.
What, if anything, should we kill to pay for the bailout of greedy reckless gambling banks; old people, or ID Cards and the database state, Trident and the greedy reckless gambling banks and their system?
The banks and their masters think we should kill old people to pay for the bailout.
I do not.
On the day that The Guardian reported that directors' pay increased by 10%, Brendan Barber at the TUC conference made several bloodless suggestions as to how we could save money; kill the ID card system and the database state, and kill Trident.
He did not suggest that we replace the whole financial system, and I believe he should have done so. The financial system will be used time and time again to stiff the working population. Its controllers create world wars and global recessions from which they benefit.
So kill the banks, ID cards and Trident, not powerless old people to save on treaments and pensions.
KILLING THE ELDERLY
According to the figures provided by the UK Public Spending website, the two largest sectors of public expenditure are pensions and health; pensions at 17% and health at 18%.
So it makes sense, if the government is to save money to pay for the bailout of the reckless gambling banks, to kill the elderly; less money required to pay for treatment and thus a shortened pension due to an early death.
This is the cold-blooded logic of a morally-bankrupt inglorious Bilderberg state.
I do not accept this decision.
Kill the banks not people!
So it makes sense, if the government is to save money to pay for the bailout of the reckless gambling banks, to kill the elderly; less money required to pay for treatment and thus a shortened pension due to an early death.
This is the cold-blooded logic of a morally-bankrupt inglorious Bilderberg state.
I do not accept this decision.
Kill the banks not people!
Saturday, September 12, 2009
HOW TO WIN THE LOTTERY
Derren Brown's explanation of how he apparently predicted the lottery numbers last Wednesday night has brought some derision and scepticism in the media.
Why?
Because it involved a number of people coming together and using their inherent psychic abilities for a common aim...and it worked! We are not supposed to do this kind of thing. We are supposed to accept the lies we are told as truth without any critical thought, send our sons and daughters off to fight engineered wars for the benefit of a small satanic cabal, and watch virutal reality soap operas until we die (or are euthanised) so we don't catch a glimpse of the real horrific reality.
I can believe Brown's explanation because a few years ago I tried to 'feel' the numbers, and after years of not winning anything I began to correctly predict three of the six numbers, sometimes on successive draws, and on one occasion picked three correctly and was one off two of the other numbers, but there were a few times when I did not correctly predict any. I used the exact same process that Brown used. I studied the numbers that had been drawn for the previous six weeks or so, and then concentrated and wrote numbers down. There was only me, not twenty four people.
I don't know why I stopped playing. It may well have been because I subconciously knew I could not do it all on my own and needed alot more people, just like Brown... or that it was just a lucky roll.
But it was disturbing when it started to work!
Brown's taking-the-limeade explanation of breaking into a secret location and replacing some 80g balls with the predicted numbers with 100g balls etc is just that...taking the limeade.
I guess what I'm saying is that, if you try you never know what might happen.
Why?
Because it involved a number of people coming together and using their inherent psychic abilities for a common aim...and it worked! We are not supposed to do this kind of thing. We are supposed to accept the lies we are told as truth without any critical thought, send our sons and daughters off to fight engineered wars for the benefit of a small satanic cabal, and watch virutal reality soap operas until we die (or are euthanised) so we don't catch a glimpse of the real horrific reality.
I can believe Brown's explanation because a few years ago I tried to 'feel' the numbers, and after years of not winning anything I began to correctly predict three of the six numbers, sometimes on successive draws, and on one occasion picked three correctly and was one off two of the other numbers, but there were a few times when I did not correctly predict any. I used the exact same process that Brown used. I studied the numbers that had been drawn for the previous six weeks or so, and then concentrated and wrote numbers down. There was only me, not twenty four people.
I don't know why I stopped playing. It may well have been because I subconciously knew I could not do it all on my own and needed alot more people, just like Brown... or that it was just a lucky roll.
But it was disturbing when it started to work!
Brown's taking-the-limeade explanation of breaking into a secret location and replacing some 80g balls with the predicted numbers with 100g balls etc is just that...taking the limeade.
I guess what I'm saying is that, if you try you never know what might happen.
Friday, September 11, 2009
IT IS GOING TO GET VERY VERY NASTY
But hey! What the heck?
You only live for eternity!!
We've only just begun....
===================================
I grew up with this song, every Sunday while my mum and dad prepared their delicious roast beef dinner, with real proper gravy and everything.
We've Only Just Begun
Paul Williams and Roger Nichols
The Carpenters
We've only just begun to live,
White lace and promises
A kiss for luck and we're on our way.
And yes, We've just begun.
Before the rising sun we fly,
So many roads to choose
We start our walking and learn to run.
And yes, We've just begun.
Sharing horizons that are new to us,
Watching the signs along the way,
Talking it over just the two of us,
Working together day to day
Together.
Together.
And when the evening comes we smile,
So much of life ahead
We'll find a place where there's room to grow,
And yes, We've just begun.
You only live for eternity!!
We've only just begun....
===================================
I grew up with this song, every Sunday while my mum and dad prepared their delicious roast beef dinner, with real proper gravy and everything.
We've Only Just Begun
Paul Williams and Roger Nichols
The Carpenters
We've only just begun to live,
White lace and promises
A kiss for luck and we're on our way.
And yes, We've just begun.
Before the rising sun we fly,
So many roads to choose
We start our walking and learn to run.
And yes, We've just begun.
Sharing horizons that are new to us,
Watching the signs along the way,
Talking it over just the two of us,
Working together day to day
Together.
Together.
And when the evening comes we smile,
So much of life ahead
We'll find a place where there's room to grow,
And yes, We've just begun.
WE CAN DO 'EM FOR MURDER
World Wars 1 and 2, as horrific and engineered as they were, happened a long time ago, so current laws may not be applicable.
9/11, as horrific and engineered as it was, led to the deaths of approximately one million in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we do not have an obvious culprit (but we do have several usual suspects).
So, you ask, can we do 'em on a lesser charge, like Al Capone was done for tax evasion? Yes, that is one solution.
But stop the press! We do have a program of murder happening right here right now in the UK and about to be introduced in the USA via ObamaCare.
That program of murder is being implemented to pay for the bailout.
The bailout is due to the reckless gambling of the investment banks. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs in the FT on Wednesday 9/9/9 admitted that they, the investment banks, lost control of the derivatives monster that they created in their lust for profits.
To pay for that reckless gambling, murder is happening, right here, right now.
And in the UK it was implemented BEFORE the crash, which was ultimately predictable; as Confucius, said, when you lend mortgages to jobless no-hopers don't be surprised when they aren't repaid, thus causing the whole scheme to crash, recklessly harming the lives of millions of ordinary taxpayers contrary to The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4.
One such investment bank is J P Morgan Chase, with the other Morgan banks, all meeting at the top at Bilderberg.
And that Rockefeller-Nazi lovefest in the 1930's does not look good.
===========================================
From http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11722
The British Monarchy Caught in a Death Scheme
September 10, 2009 (LPAC)—The Royal Family and panicky City of London financiers began implementing, in 2008, a new program to kill elderly and other sick people, precisely repeating the opening phase of Hitler's 1939 T-4 euthanasia program. Under the Liverpool Care Pathway adopted for general use by the National Health Service, those showing symptoms that might foreshadow death are targeted to be killed by heavy narcotics and the withdrawal of fluids and nutrition. The new policy reportedly accounted for about one sixth of all deaths in Britain last year, according to a study by Dr. Clive Seale, of the prestigious Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry.
When the world financial system meltdown began in 2007, British imperial leaders pursued drastic shifts in funds away from public services and into bailouts of the London-Wall Street axis. They rushed into general practice an all-out euthanasia policy, that had been introduced as a pilot project in 2003-2004 by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and royal health adviser Simon Stevens.
This British fascist "health-care reform" agenda was at the same time exported to the United States for adoption by the incoming Obama Administration.
The King's Fund is the official agency driving the new euthanasia. A government-funded charity, called alternatively Marie Curie Cancer Care or Marie Curie Hospice, is the operations center tasked with shaping the killing program.
Prince Charles has been president of the King's Fund since 1986, and president of the Marie Curie Hospice organization since about 2000.
What is today called the King's Fund was created in the late 19th Century by the Prince of Wales. After he became King Edward VII, the agency was incorporated in 1907 as King Edward's Hospital Fund for London. This was the Royal Family's planning center for the reform of health care, in accord with the Empire's innovation of the time, eugenics or race-purification theory.
To start up the new killing program in 2008, the Queen became the Patron, the agency was re-incorporated under the shorter name, King's Fund, and Prince Charles and his retainers went into overdrive.
The King's Fund and the Marie Curie Hospice were merged for action with the June 24, 2008 announcement that King's Fund Policy and Development Director Steve Dewar would simultaneously lead the two agencies, to "develop the contribution of both organizations to the further improvement of end-of-life services across the U.K." In July 2008, the National Health Service published its End of Life Care Strategy, developed by an NHS Strategy unit set up for the new euthanasia program.
The Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool is one of two centers for experimental killing regimes. Out of this has come the procedure called the Liverpool Care Pathway, with its Continuous Deep Sedation, which has recently broken into the headlines in Britain due to a public protest against the murders by physicians.
Marie Curie Chief Executive Tom Hughes-Hallett, a King's Fund Senior Associate, chairs the "external Implementation Advisory Board" for the national End of Life Care Strategy. In his forward to the killers' first annual report, published by the National Service in July, 2009, Hughes-Hallett wrote,
"We're trying to change the way this country thinks about and responds to the idea of death. We're trying to change the way the medical and social care professions think about and respond to death. We're trying to change the way end of life care services are commissioned."
Being a City of London financier (with J. Henry Schroeder, and then chairman of Robert Fleming Securities), Hughes-Hallett wrote further on the urgency of getting the killing program going full blast, now: "One thing that has changed quickly, and unexpectedly, is the financial climate. For this financial year and the next, the NHS has new money for this strategy. After that things are much less certain...."
In that national Strategy Report, the "end of life care pathway" starts with "Step One: Identifying people who are approaching the end of life"; it proceeds to "Step Five: Last days of life," in which the Liverpool Care Pathway is the means of termination. After this comes "Step Six: Care after death," or what to do with the bodies and the survivors, and proposed methods for falsifying death certificates to show a natural cause rather than homicide — precisely as was done in the Hitler T-4 program.
A National Health Service-commissioned report by McKinsey and Company, calling for saving $32 billon per year by drastic cuts in health care, was leaked to the press last week. King's Fund chief economist John Appleby (quoted in Time magazine, Sept. 9, 2009) responded that these savings must be accomplished by finding "ways to counter rising health-care costs associated with an aging population, expensive new medical treatments and rising patient expectations." King's Fund chief executive Niall Dickson chimed in that, rather than doing more with less resources, "Doing less with less seems a more realistic scenario."
The Royal euthanasia program was introduced as a pilot project in 2003 and 2004 by Simon Stevens, Blair's chief adviser on health policy from 2001 to 2004. In 2007, Stevens went to the United States to spread the euthanasia project there. Stevens became vice president of Minnesota-based UnitedHealth, the massive private health insurance company for the U.S. and Britain. Stevens' official job is to advise all private health insurers to get behind the new agenda for health-care reform.
Continuing as a trustee of the King's Fund for Prince Charles in London, Simon Stevens connects President Obama with the London-Wall Street axis, for implementation of the urgent strategy in the face of financial catastrophe.
9/11, as horrific and engineered as it was, led to the deaths of approximately one million in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we do not have an obvious culprit (but we do have several usual suspects).
So, you ask, can we do 'em on a lesser charge, like Al Capone was done for tax evasion? Yes, that is one solution.
But stop the press! We do have a program of murder happening right here right now in the UK and about to be introduced in the USA via ObamaCare.
That program of murder is being implemented to pay for the bailout.
The bailout is due to the reckless gambling of the investment banks. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs in the FT on Wednesday 9/9/9 admitted that they, the investment banks, lost control of the derivatives monster that they created in their lust for profits.
To pay for that reckless gambling, murder is happening, right here, right now.
And in the UK it was implemented BEFORE the crash, which was ultimately predictable; as Confucius, said, when you lend mortgages to jobless no-hopers don't be surprised when they aren't repaid, thus causing the whole scheme to crash, recklessly harming the lives of millions of ordinary taxpayers contrary to The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4.
One such investment bank is J P Morgan Chase, with the other Morgan banks, all meeting at the top at Bilderberg.
And that Rockefeller-Nazi lovefest in the 1930's does not look good.
===========================================
From http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11722
The British Monarchy Caught in a Death Scheme
September 10, 2009 (LPAC)—The Royal Family and panicky City of London financiers began implementing, in 2008, a new program to kill elderly and other sick people, precisely repeating the opening phase of Hitler's 1939 T-4 euthanasia program. Under the Liverpool Care Pathway adopted for general use by the National Health Service, those showing symptoms that might foreshadow death are targeted to be killed by heavy narcotics and the withdrawal of fluids and nutrition. The new policy reportedly accounted for about one sixth of all deaths in Britain last year, according to a study by Dr. Clive Seale, of the prestigious Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry.
When the world financial system meltdown began in 2007, British imperial leaders pursued drastic shifts in funds away from public services and into bailouts of the London-Wall Street axis. They rushed into general practice an all-out euthanasia policy, that had been introduced as a pilot project in 2003-2004 by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and royal health adviser Simon Stevens.
This British fascist "health-care reform" agenda was at the same time exported to the United States for adoption by the incoming Obama Administration.
The King's Fund is the official agency driving the new euthanasia. A government-funded charity, called alternatively Marie Curie Cancer Care or Marie Curie Hospice, is the operations center tasked with shaping the killing program.
Prince Charles has been president of the King's Fund since 1986, and president of the Marie Curie Hospice organization since about 2000.
What is today called the King's Fund was created in the late 19th Century by the Prince of Wales. After he became King Edward VII, the agency was incorporated in 1907 as King Edward's Hospital Fund for London. This was the Royal Family's planning center for the reform of health care, in accord with the Empire's innovation of the time, eugenics or race-purification theory.
To start up the new killing program in 2008, the Queen became the Patron, the agency was re-incorporated under the shorter name, King's Fund, and Prince Charles and his retainers went into overdrive.
The King's Fund and the Marie Curie Hospice were merged for action with the June 24, 2008 announcement that King's Fund Policy and Development Director Steve Dewar would simultaneously lead the two agencies, to "develop the contribution of both organizations to the further improvement of end-of-life services across the U.K." In July 2008, the National Health Service published its End of Life Care Strategy, developed by an NHS Strategy unit set up for the new euthanasia program.
The Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool is one of two centers for experimental killing regimes. Out of this has come the procedure called the Liverpool Care Pathway, with its Continuous Deep Sedation, which has recently broken into the headlines in Britain due to a public protest against the murders by physicians.
Marie Curie Chief Executive Tom Hughes-Hallett, a King's Fund Senior Associate, chairs the "external Implementation Advisory Board" for the national End of Life Care Strategy. In his forward to the killers' first annual report, published by the National Service in July, 2009, Hughes-Hallett wrote,
"We're trying to change the way this country thinks about and responds to the idea of death. We're trying to change the way the medical and social care professions think about and respond to death. We're trying to change the way end of life care services are commissioned."
Being a City of London financier (with J. Henry Schroeder, and then chairman of Robert Fleming Securities), Hughes-Hallett wrote further on the urgency of getting the killing program going full blast, now: "One thing that has changed quickly, and unexpectedly, is the financial climate. For this financial year and the next, the NHS has new money for this strategy. After that things are much less certain...."
In that national Strategy Report, the "end of life care pathway" starts with "Step One: Identifying people who are approaching the end of life"; it proceeds to "Step Five: Last days of life," in which the Liverpool Care Pathway is the means of termination. After this comes "Step Six: Care after death," or what to do with the bodies and the survivors, and proposed methods for falsifying death certificates to show a natural cause rather than homicide — precisely as was done in the Hitler T-4 program.
A National Health Service-commissioned report by McKinsey and Company, calling for saving $32 billon per year by drastic cuts in health care, was leaked to the press last week. King's Fund chief economist John Appleby (quoted in Time magazine, Sept. 9, 2009) responded that these savings must be accomplished by finding "ways to counter rising health-care costs associated with an aging population, expensive new medical treatments and rising patient expectations." King's Fund chief executive Niall Dickson chimed in that, rather than doing more with less resources, "Doing less with less seems a more realistic scenario."
The Royal euthanasia program was introduced as a pilot project in 2003 and 2004 by Simon Stevens, Blair's chief adviser on health policy from 2001 to 2004. In 2007, Stevens went to the United States to spread the euthanasia project there. Stevens became vice president of Minnesota-based UnitedHealth, the massive private health insurance company for the U.S. and Britain. Stevens' official job is to advise all private health insurers to get behind the new agenda for health-care reform.
Continuing as a trustee of the King's Fund for Prince Charles in London, Simon Stevens connects President Obama with the London-Wall Street axis, for implementation of the urgent strategy in the face of financial catastrophe.
Friday, September 04, 2009
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER LOAD OF BOLLOCKS
How is that Bilderbergers get to write in newspapers such as The Bilderberg Washington Post and The Bilderberg Financial Times? It must be because they want their Nazi Bilderberg views injected directly into our brains.
Anyway, today's load of bollocks is supplied by Tim Geithner.
Geithner attempts to explain that everyting will be OK if the banks would only hold more capital. In other words, Bilderberger and ex-Goldman Sachs employee Geithner believes that the system and its managers, i.e. Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc, can be trusted to never, ever, ever screw the global economy again with their gambling and warmongering.
After over a century of such manipulation of the banking system by such 'people' as David Rockefeller I have absolutely no confidence in this simple-minded proposal. It keeps vast power in the hands of warmongering blood-thirsty megalomaniacs.
But why would Geithner's suggestion that simply raising levels of capital in banks would solve the world's problems be published in the FT today? Because G20 finance ministers are meeting in London this weekend, and Geithner's Bilderberg masters don't want the system altered one iota. Raising capital levels can be achieved relatively easily as compared to clamping down on the gambling practices of risk-taking banks with no moral compass.
And once capital levels are healthier I confidently predict that the banks will return to the practices that caused the trouble in the first place, and indulge themselves even more. They are convinced the mathematics behind the theories is sound, but either (1) the computers used so far have been too slow and/or too few, or (2) the theory was used incorrectly by a few madmen.
What caused the crisis is that in the middle of this decade Bilderbergers asked the UK FSA and US SEC to relax their rules regarding trading, and these requests were accepted.
When these requests were made banks had healthier levels of capital.
But that's all it takes. A simple question/demand from David Rockefeller to "relax man, take it easy, we know what we're doing..."
That's why David Rockefeller and his ilk and system should go, not ridiculoulsy low capital levels.
Banks are bankrupt.
So finish them off and replace the whole system with one that serves the people not a handful of greedy warmongering blood-thirsty megalomaniacs.
Geithner's article is in the FT today, entitled "Financial stability depends on more capital".
Anyway, today's load of bollocks is supplied by Tim Geithner.
Geithner attempts to explain that everyting will be OK if the banks would only hold more capital. In other words, Bilderberger and ex-Goldman Sachs employee Geithner believes that the system and its managers, i.e. Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc, can be trusted to never, ever, ever screw the global economy again with their gambling and warmongering.
After over a century of such manipulation of the banking system by such 'people' as David Rockefeller I have absolutely no confidence in this simple-minded proposal. It keeps vast power in the hands of warmongering blood-thirsty megalomaniacs.
But why would Geithner's suggestion that simply raising levels of capital in banks would solve the world's problems be published in the FT today? Because G20 finance ministers are meeting in London this weekend, and Geithner's Bilderberg masters don't want the system altered one iota. Raising capital levels can be achieved relatively easily as compared to clamping down on the gambling practices of risk-taking banks with no moral compass.
And once capital levels are healthier I confidently predict that the banks will return to the practices that caused the trouble in the first place, and indulge themselves even more. They are convinced the mathematics behind the theories is sound, but either (1) the computers used so far have been too slow and/or too few, or (2) the theory was used incorrectly by a few madmen.
What caused the crisis is that in the middle of this decade Bilderbergers asked the UK FSA and US SEC to relax their rules regarding trading, and these requests were accepted.
When these requests were made banks had healthier levels of capital.
But that's all it takes. A simple question/demand from David Rockefeller to "relax man, take it easy, we know what we're doing..."
That's why David Rockefeller and his ilk and system should go, not ridiculoulsy low capital levels.
Banks are bankrupt.
So finish them off and replace the whole system with one that serves the people not a handful of greedy warmongering blood-thirsty megalomaniacs.
Geithner's article is in the FT today, entitled "Financial stability depends on more capital".
Thursday, September 03, 2009
THE LAST ENEMY
The Last Enemy was shown on BBC last year. The series was based in the near future in which a system known as Total Information Awareness tracked everyone's movements and held the minutest detail of everyone's life in a stack of databases.
One aspect of policing, in which all policemen seemed to be armed and dressed as paramilitaries, was the hand-held ID card reader. Anyone could be stopped and asked to insert their ID card into such a reader and the face and details of the holder of the card appeared on the screen of the reader.
Well now it appears that such sci-fi is about to become reality.
And it also appears that there is urgency in introducing such a system even though the alleged idea of the ID card is to enhance access to public services. If so, what the hell are the Met expecting for them to be asking for such technology?
===========================================
From http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/08/27/237468/met-police-wants-handheld-id-card-readers.htm
Met Police wants handheld ID card readers
Author:
Ian Grant
Posted:
11:29 27 Aug 2009
The Metropolitan Police is looking for suppliers of portable biometric identity card readers.
A tender notice published in the Official Journal of the EU said the Met was looking to award a three-year framework agreement to supply, support and integrate handheld mobile identification units (MIUs).
The deal would cover all UK police forces, the Serious & Organised Crime Agency, UK Borders Agency, HM Revenue & Customs, Home Office, Ministry of Defence, Foreign & Commonwealth Office and related agencies.
The unit must be able to capture and display the information held on microchips and machine readable zones in passports, bank cards, ID cards, credit cards and other identification documents.
It must be able to capture one or more of 2D or 3D facial images, fingerprints and irises. It must also provide secure data communications across a secure police gateway.
There may be requirements to expand the capabilities of the devices during the contract term, the notice said.
The framework agreement will be for three years with an option to extend for a further two years.
One aspect of policing, in which all policemen seemed to be armed and dressed as paramilitaries, was the hand-held ID card reader. Anyone could be stopped and asked to insert their ID card into such a reader and the face and details of the holder of the card appeared on the screen of the reader.
Well now it appears that such sci-fi is about to become reality.
And it also appears that there is urgency in introducing such a system even though the alleged idea of the ID card is to enhance access to public services. If so, what the hell are the Met expecting for them to be asking for such technology?
===========================================
From http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/08/27/237468/met-police-wants-handheld-id-card-readers.htm
Met Police wants handheld ID card readers
Author:
Ian Grant
Posted:
11:29 27 Aug 2009
The Metropolitan Police is looking for suppliers of portable biometric identity card readers.
A tender notice published in the Official Journal of the EU said the Met was looking to award a three-year framework agreement to supply, support and integrate handheld mobile identification units (MIUs).
The deal would cover all UK police forces, the Serious & Organised Crime Agency, UK Borders Agency, HM Revenue & Customs, Home Office, Ministry of Defence, Foreign & Commonwealth Office and related agencies.
The unit must be able to capture and display the information held on microchips and machine readable zones in passports, bank cards, ID cards, credit cards and other identification documents.
It must be able to capture one or more of 2D or 3D facial images, fingerprints and irises. It must also provide secure data communications across a secure police gateway.
There may be requirements to expand the capabilities of the devices during the contract term, the notice said.
The framework agreement will be for three years with an option to extend for a further two years.
WHO RUNS THE GROUP WHO BEGGED FOR THE RELEASE OF ALLEGED LOCKERBIE BOMBER?
The Libyan British Business Council was behind the release of Megrahi.
The members of the council include;
BP
Shell
J P Morgan Chase (two seats)
ExxonMobil
(all four are Bilderberg-controlled corporations)
with a few other well known names, such as
HSBC
BAT
Standard
Barclays
and a few smaller less well known names, such as
Olive Security
Wood Group
Who would have more power in the LBBC: J P Morgan Chase or Olive Security?
It is obvious Megrahi was released so that Bilderberg could get its bloody hands on Libya's natural resources.
The timing of Megrahi's release was timed very well to take the heat off Obama and the proposed Nazi-style ObamaCare (that we have apparently had here in the UK with NICE for several years already).
=============================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210830/Group-set-Jack-Straw-begged-Set-Lockerbie-bomber-free.html
Group set up by Jack Straw begged: Set Lockerbie bomber free
By Jason Groves and Sam Fleming
Last updated at 12:16 AM on 03rd September 2009
Jack Straw's business group warned that a failure to release Megrahi would hurt British trade links with Libya
A business group set up by Jack Straw played a central role in lobbying for the urgent release of the Lockerbie bomber to prevent damage to British trade links.
The Libyan British Business Council (LBBC), which boasts of 'strong working ties' with the Foreign Office, told Scottish ministers that the death of Megrahi in jail would cause 'grave concern' to its members' interests.
Its chairman, Tory peer Lord Trefgarne, wrote to Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill in July warning that failure to release Megrahi would cast a 'shadow' over business relations with Libya - harming the interests of firms such as BP, which has struck a £15billion oil exploration deal with Tripoli.
The members of the council include;
BP
Shell
J P Morgan Chase (two seats)
ExxonMobil
(all four are Bilderberg-controlled corporations)
with a few other well known names, such as
HSBC
BAT
Standard
Barclays
and a few smaller less well known names, such as
Olive Security
Wood Group
Who would have more power in the LBBC: J P Morgan Chase or Olive Security?
It is obvious Megrahi was released so that Bilderberg could get its bloody hands on Libya's natural resources.
The timing of Megrahi's release was timed very well to take the heat off Obama and the proposed Nazi-style ObamaCare (that we have apparently had here in the UK with NICE for several years already).
=============================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210830/Group-set-Jack-Straw-begged-Set-Lockerbie-bomber-free.html
Group set up by Jack Straw begged: Set Lockerbie bomber free
By Jason Groves and Sam Fleming
Last updated at 12:16 AM on 03rd September 2009
Jack Straw's business group warned that a failure to release Megrahi would hurt British trade links with Libya
A business group set up by Jack Straw played a central role in lobbying for the urgent release of the Lockerbie bomber to prevent damage to British trade links.
The Libyan British Business Council (LBBC), which boasts of 'strong working ties' with the Foreign Office, told Scottish ministers that the death of Megrahi in jail would cause 'grave concern' to its members' interests.
Its chairman, Tory peer Lord Trefgarne, wrote to Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill in July warning that failure to release Megrahi would cast a 'shadow' over business relations with Libya - harming the interests of firms such as BP, which has struck a £15billion oil exploration deal with Tripoli.
OUR NICE NHS IS KILLING US
And all to pay for the bailout of the greedy reckless gambling banks.
This report in The Daily Telegraph is evidence that our NHS is being used to kill elderly people in order to save money, and that the practice was developed by NICE.
How do we know the NHS has been asked to save money? Because another report in the media today focuses on the suggestion that over 100,000 staff should be sacked. And the staff that should be sacked are doctors and nurses, i.e. the carers not the pen-pushers.
This comes just days after reports that elderly in the care of the NHS were treated like shit.
So Herr Bilderberger Brown can find trillions in loans and guarantees to bail out the banks and the bankers (some of whom have very strong links to the Nazis), while our NICE NHS is being asked to find massive cuts in services and it looks like the care aspect of the NHS is to be slashed and those deemed close to death get that final syringe.
I said this would happen.
Shame on you Gordon Brown. You lost your moral compass in June 1991 in Baden Baden,Germany.
===============================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
Sentenced to death on the NHS
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.
By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009
Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor Photo: GETTY
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.
“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.
“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.
The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.
Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.
It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.
It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.
Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.
They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.
However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.
Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.
When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.
If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.
Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.
He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.
He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.
“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”
He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.
“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”
He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.
Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.
In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.
“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.
Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.
“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.
“There is no one size fits all approach.”
A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.
“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.
“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.”
The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.
It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes.
The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.
"The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives.
"Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”
This report in The Daily Telegraph is evidence that our NHS is being used to kill elderly people in order to save money, and that the practice was developed by NICE.
How do we know the NHS has been asked to save money? Because another report in the media today focuses on the suggestion that over 100,000 staff should be sacked. And the staff that should be sacked are doctors and nurses, i.e. the carers not the pen-pushers.
This comes just days after reports that elderly in the care of the NHS were treated like shit.
So Herr Bilderberger Brown can find trillions in loans and guarantees to bail out the banks and the bankers (some of whom have very strong links to the Nazis), while our NICE NHS is being asked to find massive cuts in services and it looks like the care aspect of the NHS is to be slashed and those deemed close to death get that final syringe.
I said this would happen.
Shame on you Gordon Brown. You lost your moral compass in June 1991 in Baden Baden,Germany.
===============================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
Sentenced to death on the NHS
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.
By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009
Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor Photo: GETTY
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.
“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.
“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.
The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.
Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.
It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.
It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.
Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.
They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.
However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.
Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.
When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.
If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.
Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.
He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.
He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.
“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”
He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.
“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”
He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.
Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.
In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.
“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.
Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.
“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.
“There is no one size fits all approach.”
A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.
“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.
“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.”
The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.
It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes.
The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.
"The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives.
"Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
MY LETTER TO THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY ABOUT BILDERBERG AND THE CREDIT CRUNCH
In April this year (before Bilderberg 2009) I sent the following letter to Lord Turner at the Financial Services Authority, and in reply I was told that what I set out in that letter was being investigated.
=================================
Dear Lord Turner
I very much welcome the decision to investigate the events that led to The Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland being bailed out by the British taxpayer, particularly now that Alistair Darling has given us some idea of the consequences, but have little confidence in its independence if the City auditors are brought in as co-investigators. I therefore ask that you reconsider that element of the investigation to make it truly independent.
But this is a secondary matter.
You recently published a review in which you explained the reasons and general events that you thought had led to the current financial crisis. One of those reasons, if not the prime reason, was the financial derivative. The bank with the largest exposure to these derivatives is J P Morgan Chase (JPMC). JPMC is a bank primarily made up of J P Morgan and Chase Manhattan and is associated with the leading Wall Street banking names Rockefeller, Morgan and Warburg. These are the names exposed by The Pecora Commission of 1934, an investigation managed by Ferdinand Pecora into the practices of the Wall Street banks which led to the 1929 crash and the subsequent depression. Pecora exposed them all as financial thugs, charlatans and tax evaders. Sound familiar? The Pecora Commission led to several banking acts and the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
We desperately need a new Global Pecora Commission today.
I would like to bring to your attention a group called Bilderberg. Bilderberg was started by a card-carrying Nazi Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, and one recent regular member is George Soros, another self-confessed Nazi who worked for the Nazis in Hungary in the confiscation of the property of Hungarian Jews before they were transported to concentration camps. Bilderberg consists of a Steering Committee which meets once each year and invites approximately one hundred people, which the steering committee considers to be the most important of that year, to a three or four day meeting in an exclusive hotel surrounded by security guards and beyond the reach of the public. Behind closed doors, in order to encourage frank and open discussion, they discuss world affairs under Chatham House Rules, i.e. nobody, not even the attending reporters, can reveal to anyone outside what was said.
The current President of the United States Barak Obama came to power on a promise of change. But take a close look at his economic team and key positions in his administration and they have all been to Bilderberg several times, indicating some continuity of economic and foreign policy. The following key people in Obama’s economic team were all at Bilderberg 2008 in Chantilly, Virginia last year;
• the current Secretary to the Treasury Timothy Geithner
• the current Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke
• the current Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence Summers who briefs President Obama every day on the state of the economy.
Also there was the former Secretary to the Treasury Henry Paulson.
President Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Thomas E. Donilon has been to Bilderberg for the last 11 years except in 2007, which is no surprise because he like Peter Sutherland of RBS is on the Bilderberg Steering Committee.
One of Obama’s chief advisers James Johnson also attended Bilderberg last year, and not for the first time, which may well explain why Obama selected Donilon, Geithner, Summers and Bernanke on Johnson’s advice. The following also attended last year;
• Henry Kissinger
• Josef Ackermann, Chairman and CEO of Deutsche Bank (who recently met with Brown in 10 Downing Street with a representative of JPMC to discuss what?)
• Jean Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank
• David Rockefeller (see above)
• Paul Gigot, Editor of The Wall Street Journal
• Harold Ford, VP of Merrill Lynch
• William J McDonough, Vice Chairman and Special Advisor to the Chairman, Merrill Lynch
• Martin S. Feldstein, then President and CEO of The National Bureau of Economic Research
• Robert E Rubin, Director of Citigroup
and one Sir Tom McKillop of RBS.
The following types usually attend every year;
• David Rockefeller (on the International Council of J P Morgan)
• Henry Kissinger
• Secretary General of NATO
• Monarch of Spain
• Monarch of The Netherlands
• A handful of Neocons (Richard Perle etc)
• At least one senior reporter from the Financial Times (who is never allowed to report on the proceedings!)
• The owner/manager of The Washington Post (who is never allowed to report on the proceedings!)
The presence of two senior employees of Merrill Lynch is of significance because Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch just a few months later with hundreds of billions of dollars in loans and guarantees from the TARP proposed by…Henry Paulson. In February this year Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Ken Lewis testified before New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that Paulson and Bernanke instructed him not to disclose Merrill Lynch's financial condition to shareholders before its takeover by Bank of America.
I recall that you told the Treasury Select Committee earlier this year that both Gordon Brown and Ed Balls asked the FSA to go easy on The City during the last few years as the crisis developed. Why do you think they requested that? Our current Prime Minister Gordon Brown attended Bilderberg in 1991 with Maurice Greenberg of AIG. Ed Balls MP has attended almost every year this decade. MPs are supposed to register their attendance at Bilderberg. George Osborne and Ken Clarke have, but I can’t find Balls’ registration of his attendance.
But of much more interest to you in the investigation of RBS should be Peter Sutherland. Sutherland is much more important to Bilderberg than McKillop. Sutherland has been a member of the Steering Committee of Bilderberg this decade, while at the same time sitting on the board of RBS from January 2001 until February this year, and also occupying the position of Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, a position he has occupied since 1995.
Another significant employee of Goldman Sachs is Henry Paulson. Paulson worked his way up Goldman Sachs to eventually become Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in 1999.
In 2004 Wall Street requested that the Securities and Exchange Committee relax their rules and allow the likes of Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase to basically do whatever they wanted, not only in the USA but anywhere in the world. How similar is this to what was requested of the FSA and its oversight of The City, and did that request of the FSA occur at about the same time?
So at the time that this request was made by Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase, the Chairman of Goldman Sachs Intl was the Bilderberger Peter Sutherland (when he was also on the board of RBS and on the steering committee of Bilderberg) and the Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs was Bilderberger Henry Paulson. The Chairman of the SEC who acquiesced to this request was William Donaldson, who is a member of another Rockefeller-financed organization The Council on Foreign Relations. Needless to say, that decision led to the current crisis. Paulson then became Secretary to the Treasury at the request of George Bush and came up with “the Paulson Plan”, i.e. a massive, massive bailout called the TARP.
Citigroup, under the direction of Robert E Rubin who attended Bilderberg last year, took out $45 billion of TARP bailout money.
I understand that several British banks have also received multi-billion pound bailouts from the TARP through AIG (see below for the significance of this), one of which was RBS. I also understand that HSBC did the same, and that RBS and HSBC were the two British banks with the largest exposures to derivatives, and HSBC still has the fifth largest exposure.
Regarding a representative of Goldman Sachs attending Bilderberg each year, Sutherland attended Bilderberg this decade in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and in the previous decade once he became Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs Intl Sutherland attended in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. Paulson has attended only once, in 2008. The representative for Goldman Sachs at Bilderberg 2001 was Ken Courtis.
This decade Geithner has attended in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Bernanke has only attended in 2008.
Mervyn King attended in 2003.
James Johnson, President Obama’s Adviser, has attended every year since 1998 inclusive, except for in 1999 and 2004. Johnson was also a member of the board of Goldman Sachs between 2001 and 2003.
Richard Holbrooke, currently overseeing the indiscriminate slaughter of Pakistani civilians by US drone attacks and also member of the board of AIG for the last three years, has attended Bilderberg for the last five years, as well as for five years in the 1990’s.
Martin Feldstein, like Holbrooke also on the board of AIG since 2005, has attended Bilderberg every year since 1996 inclusive except in 1997, 2000 and 2004 (you should instantly recognize the significance of this frequent attendance of two members of the board of AIG!). Feldstein is a member of the board of David Rockefeller’s elite Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission as well as a member of the Group of Thirty.
Matias Rodriguez Inciarte of The Santander Group has attended every year since 1997 inclusive?
So why haven’t you or I been invited?
And what are these powerful financiers and kings and queens talking about that reporters from such prestigious newspapers as The Financial Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal never, ever, ever report the proceedings? Indeed, why are such reporters invited if they cannot report?
I think it is of great significance that
1. Peter Sutherland of RBS was also managing Goldman Sachs while on the steering committee of the secretive Bilderberg group that was started with Rockefeller money and David Rockefeller attends every year.
2. both Goldman Sachs, under Paulson and Sutherland, and J P Morgan Chase, controlled by David Rockefeller, requested that the SEC relax their rules, and this occurred about the same time that the FSA was requested by Ed Balls and Gordon Brown to do the same.
3. Sutherland, Rockefeller and Balls have attended Bilderberg meetings nearly every year this decade as the current financial crisis began and evolved
4. another regular face at Bilderberg Tim Geithner is now Secretary to the Treasury and is now financing the TARP bailout proposed by another Bilderberger and director of Goldman Sachs Henry Paulson.
5. Tom McKillop was also at Bilderberg last year, i.e. TWO members of the board of RBS, Sutherland and McKillop, were in the USA attending a secret meeting with the engineers of the TARP and possibly the engineers of the crisis itself.
6. Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase now appear to be the first to recover from the crisis, now requesting that they be allowed to repay their bailouts back to the US government, and thus put themselves in prime position to take advantage of the situation that they may well have engineered under the guidance of Rockefeller, Sutherland and Paulson.
As the current financial crisis began to unfold J P Morgan Chase almost managed to buy Bear Stearns for just $2 a share, but after some investor protest still bought BS for half price, at $10 a share. JPMC was able to do this with a bung from the Federal Reserve of nearly $30 billion. Just a few years ago Bear Stearns was the seventh-largest securities firm in terms of total capital and was thus a big competitor of J P Morgan Chase.
J P Morgan Chase also purchased Washington Mutual, the largest savings and loans association in the USA and the sixth largest bank in the USA and was thus another significant competitor of J P Morgan Chase. The FDIC seized WaMu and for whatever reason gave it to J P Morgan Chase.
No representative of Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual has ever attended Bilderberg.
A report in The Independent of 17th April 2009 entitled “JPMorgan ready to return $25bn Tarp cash” states that J P Morgan Chase is desperate to repay its multi-billion dollar loan after posting profits well above expectation. The report goes on to state:
The results showed how JPMorgan is winning market share from weaker rivals. New mortgage business and car loans both surged, offsetting a $547m loss on credit cards. Overall, first-quarter earnings were $2.14bn, down 10 per cent from $2.37bn in the same period last year but about 25 per cent higher than the market had been expecting.
So it appears that J P Morgan Chase is doing quite well…
The Federal Reserve also bailed out AIG with $150 billion, by far the largest individual bailout.
Another major beneficiary of Fed bailouts is Citigroup. Citigroup was started by a Rockefeller and still is part of the Rockefeller empire, and several of its board have been to Bilderberg. Robert Rubin, who opposed regulation of derivatives, attended last year with Geithner and Bernanke. Rubin is also Chairman of David Rockefeller’s elite Council on Foreign Relations, and was Bill Clinton’s Secretary to the Treasury. Citi’s President and CEO is William Rhodes, a member of Rockefeller’s Council on Foreign Relations and also of The Group of Thirty along with Geithner, Feldstein and Summers. A senior adviser to Citi is James Wolfensohn. Wolfensohn has attended Bilderberg every year since 1995 inclusive except for in 2001, and was President of The World Bank for ten years from 1995.
Citi made a move to purchase Wachovia after Wachovia was advised to sell itself by the FDIC, and was just about to seal the deal when Wachovia announced it would be merging with Wells Fargo instead. Citi took that claim to court and failed. Citi is still complaining about the decision to allow the merger between Wells Fargo and Wachovia.
Again, there has been no attendee from either Wells Fargo or Wachovia at Bilderberg.
These men, such as David Rockefeller, James Wolfensohn, Timothy Geithner, Peter Sutherland, etc., all very experienced in world finance are meeting behind closed doors once a year for three or four days. What are they talking about?
A report in The Washington Post of 20th April this year entitled “A Bigger, Bolder Role Is Imagined For the IMF” suggested that the International Monetary Fund is preparing for a time just a few years from now when it will control the world economy. The IMF was recently given more power and money at the G20 London Summit because of the current financial crisis. The current Managing Director of the IMF is Dominique Strauss-Kahn who attended Bilderberg in 2000. Previous MDs of the IMF are
• Rodrigo Rato who attended Bilderberg in 1992 and 1994
• Jacques de Larosière who attended Bilderberg in 1982
• Pierre-Paul Schweitzer who attended Bilderberg in 1964 and 1966
• Per Jacobsson who attended Bilderberg in 1957
A look at the statistics provided by the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency shows that the banks named below, which are significantly represented at Bilderberg, are highly exposed in derivatives, the cause recognized by yourself as a, if not the, prime reason for the current financial crisis
• J P Morgan Chase
• Bank of America
• Citi
• Goldman Sachs
Interestingly HSBC has the fifth largest exposure. Why? I don’t know, but it would be interesting to find out.
Their exposure to derivatives far exceeds their total assets. Why are they effectively gambling in such large quantities? Or do they have some insider knowledge of what is to occur because of the Bilderberg connection between some banks, such as J P Morgan Chase, the US Federal Reserve and the US Treasury?
I don’t know about you, but this all looks highly suspicious to me.
What were Rockefeller, Paulson, Geithner, Sutherland, McKillop, Holbrooke, Feldstein and Balls all discussing for three days behind closed doors knowing that anything they said would never be reported despite the presence of reporters from the FT and The Wall Street Journal, and having been in the exact same situation several times before when the current financial crisis was developing?
We need a new Pecora Commission. Investigate this lot under oath. Now!
Yours truly,
=================================
Dear Lord Turner
I very much welcome the decision to investigate the events that led to The Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland being bailed out by the British taxpayer, particularly now that Alistair Darling has given us some idea of the consequences, but have little confidence in its independence if the City auditors are brought in as co-investigators. I therefore ask that you reconsider that element of the investigation to make it truly independent.
But this is a secondary matter.
You recently published a review in which you explained the reasons and general events that you thought had led to the current financial crisis. One of those reasons, if not the prime reason, was the financial derivative. The bank with the largest exposure to these derivatives is J P Morgan Chase (JPMC). JPMC is a bank primarily made up of J P Morgan and Chase Manhattan and is associated with the leading Wall Street banking names Rockefeller, Morgan and Warburg. These are the names exposed by The Pecora Commission of 1934, an investigation managed by Ferdinand Pecora into the practices of the Wall Street banks which led to the 1929 crash and the subsequent depression. Pecora exposed them all as financial thugs, charlatans and tax evaders. Sound familiar? The Pecora Commission led to several banking acts and the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
We desperately need a new Global Pecora Commission today.
I would like to bring to your attention a group called Bilderberg. Bilderberg was started by a card-carrying Nazi Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, and one recent regular member is George Soros, another self-confessed Nazi who worked for the Nazis in Hungary in the confiscation of the property of Hungarian Jews before they were transported to concentration camps. Bilderberg consists of a Steering Committee which meets once each year and invites approximately one hundred people, which the steering committee considers to be the most important of that year, to a three or four day meeting in an exclusive hotel surrounded by security guards and beyond the reach of the public. Behind closed doors, in order to encourage frank and open discussion, they discuss world affairs under Chatham House Rules, i.e. nobody, not even the attending reporters, can reveal to anyone outside what was said.
The current President of the United States Barak Obama came to power on a promise of change. But take a close look at his economic team and key positions in his administration and they have all been to Bilderberg several times, indicating some continuity of economic and foreign policy. The following key people in Obama’s economic team were all at Bilderberg 2008 in Chantilly, Virginia last year;
• the current Secretary to the Treasury Timothy Geithner
• the current Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke
• the current Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence Summers who briefs President Obama every day on the state of the economy.
Also there was the former Secretary to the Treasury Henry Paulson.
President Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Thomas E. Donilon has been to Bilderberg for the last 11 years except in 2007, which is no surprise because he like Peter Sutherland of RBS is on the Bilderberg Steering Committee.
One of Obama’s chief advisers James Johnson also attended Bilderberg last year, and not for the first time, which may well explain why Obama selected Donilon, Geithner, Summers and Bernanke on Johnson’s advice. The following also attended last year;
• Henry Kissinger
• Josef Ackermann, Chairman and CEO of Deutsche Bank (who recently met with Brown in 10 Downing Street with a representative of JPMC to discuss what?)
• Jean Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank
• David Rockefeller (see above)
• Paul Gigot, Editor of The Wall Street Journal
• Harold Ford, VP of Merrill Lynch
• William J McDonough, Vice Chairman and Special Advisor to the Chairman, Merrill Lynch
• Martin S. Feldstein, then President and CEO of The National Bureau of Economic Research
• Robert E Rubin, Director of Citigroup
and one Sir Tom McKillop of RBS.
The following types usually attend every year;
• David Rockefeller (on the International Council of J P Morgan)
• Henry Kissinger
• Secretary General of NATO
• Monarch of Spain
• Monarch of The Netherlands
• A handful of Neocons (Richard Perle etc)
• At least one senior reporter from the Financial Times (who is never allowed to report on the proceedings!)
• The owner/manager of The Washington Post (who is never allowed to report on the proceedings!)
The presence of two senior employees of Merrill Lynch is of significance because Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch just a few months later with hundreds of billions of dollars in loans and guarantees from the TARP proposed by…Henry Paulson. In February this year Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Ken Lewis testified before New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that Paulson and Bernanke instructed him not to disclose Merrill Lynch's financial condition to shareholders before its takeover by Bank of America.
I recall that you told the Treasury Select Committee earlier this year that both Gordon Brown and Ed Balls asked the FSA to go easy on The City during the last few years as the crisis developed. Why do you think they requested that? Our current Prime Minister Gordon Brown attended Bilderberg in 1991 with Maurice Greenberg of AIG. Ed Balls MP has attended almost every year this decade. MPs are supposed to register their attendance at Bilderberg. George Osborne and Ken Clarke have, but I can’t find Balls’ registration of his attendance.
But of much more interest to you in the investigation of RBS should be Peter Sutherland. Sutherland is much more important to Bilderberg than McKillop. Sutherland has been a member of the Steering Committee of Bilderberg this decade, while at the same time sitting on the board of RBS from January 2001 until February this year, and also occupying the position of Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, a position he has occupied since 1995.
Another significant employee of Goldman Sachs is Henry Paulson. Paulson worked his way up Goldman Sachs to eventually become Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in 1999.
In 2004 Wall Street requested that the Securities and Exchange Committee relax their rules and allow the likes of Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase to basically do whatever they wanted, not only in the USA but anywhere in the world. How similar is this to what was requested of the FSA and its oversight of The City, and did that request of the FSA occur at about the same time?
So at the time that this request was made by Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase, the Chairman of Goldman Sachs Intl was the Bilderberger Peter Sutherland (when he was also on the board of RBS and on the steering committee of Bilderberg) and the Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs was Bilderberger Henry Paulson. The Chairman of the SEC who acquiesced to this request was William Donaldson, who is a member of another Rockefeller-financed organization The Council on Foreign Relations. Needless to say, that decision led to the current crisis. Paulson then became Secretary to the Treasury at the request of George Bush and came up with “the Paulson Plan”, i.e. a massive, massive bailout called the TARP.
Citigroup, under the direction of Robert E Rubin who attended Bilderberg last year, took out $45 billion of TARP bailout money.
I understand that several British banks have also received multi-billion pound bailouts from the TARP through AIG (see below for the significance of this), one of which was RBS. I also understand that HSBC did the same, and that RBS and HSBC were the two British banks with the largest exposures to derivatives, and HSBC still has the fifth largest exposure.
Regarding a representative of Goldman Sachs attending Bilderberg each year, Sutherland attended Bilderberg this decade in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and in the previous decade once he became Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs Intl Sutherland attended in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. Paulson has attended only once, in 2008. The representative for Goldman Sachs at Bilderberg 2001 was Ken Courtis.
This decade Geithner has attended in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Bernanke has only attended in 2008.
Mervyn King attended in 2003.
James Johnson, President Obama’s Adviser, has attended every year since 1998 inclusive, except for in 1999 and 2004. Johnson was also a member of the board of Goldman Sachs between 2001 and 2003.
Richard Holbrooke, currently overseeing the indiscriminate slaughter of Pakistani civilians by US drone attacks and also member of the board of AIG for the last three years, has attended Bilderberg for the last five years, as well as for five years in the 1990’s.
Martin Feldstein, like Holbrooke also on the board of AIG since 2005, has attended Bilderberg every year since 1996 inclusive except in 1997, 2000 and 2004 (you should instantly recognize the significance of this frequent attendance of two members of the board of AIG!). Feldstein is a member of the board of David Rockefeller’s elite Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission as well as a member of the Group of Thirty.
Matias Rodriguez Inciarte of The Santander Group has attended every year since 1997 inclusive?
So why haven’t you or I been invited?
And what are these powerful financiers and kings and queens talking about that reporters from such prestigious newspapers as The Financial Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal never, ever, ever report the proceedings? Indeed, why are such reporters invited if they cannot report?
I think it is of great significance that
1. Peter Sutherland of RBS was also managing Goldman Sachs while on the steering committee of the secretive Bilderberg group that was started with Rockefeller money and David Rockefeller attends every year.
2. both Goldman Sachs, under Paulson and Sutherland, and J P Morgan Chase, controlled by David Rockefeller, requested that the SEC relax their rules, and this occurred about the same time that the FSA was requested by Ed Balls and Gordon Brown to do the same.
3. Sutherland, Rockefeller and Balls have attended Bilderberg meetings nearly every year this decade as the current financial crisis began and evolved
4. another regular face at Bilderberg Tim Geithner is now Secretary to the Treasury and is now financing the TARP bailout proposed by another Bilderberger and director of Goldman Sachs Henry Paulson.
5. Tom McKillop was also at Bilderberg last year, i.e. TWO members of the board of RBS, Sutherland and McKillop, were in the USA attending a secret meeting with the engineers of the TARP and possibly the engineers of the crisis itself.
6. Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase now appear to be the first to recover from the crisis, now requesting that they be allowed to repay their bailouts back to the US government, and thus put themselves in prime position to take advantage of the situation that they may well have engineered under the guidance of Rockefeller, Sutherland and Paulson.
As the current financial crisis began to unfold J P Morgan Chase almost managed to buy Bear Stearns for just $2 a share, but after some investor protest still bought BS for half price, at $10 a share. JPMC was able to do this with a bung from the Federal Reserve of nearly $30 billion. Just a few years ago Bear Stearns was the seventh-largest securities firm in terms of total capital and was thus a big competitor of J P Morgan Chase.
J P Morgan Chase also purchased Washington Mutual, the largest savings and loans association in the USA and the sixth largest bank in the USA and was thus another significant competitor of J P Morgan Chase. The FDIC seized WaMu and for whatever reason gave it to J P Morgan Chase.
No representative of Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual has ever attended Bilderberg.
A report in The Independent of 17th April 2009 entitled “JPMorgan ready to return $25bn Tarp cash” states that J P Morgan Chase is desperate to repay its multi-billion dollar loan after posting profits well above expectation. The report goes on to state:
The results showed how JPMorgan is winning market share from weaker rivals. New mortgage business and car loans both surged, offsetting a $547m loss on credit cards. Overall, first-quarter earnings were $2.14bn, down 10 per cent from $2.37bn in the same period last year but about 25 per cent higher than the market had been expecting.
So it appears that J P Morgan Chase is doing quite well…
The Federal Reserve also bailed out AIG with $150 billion, by far the largest individual bailout.
Another major beneficiary of Fed bailouts is Citigroup. Citigroup was started by a Rockefeller and still is part of the Rockefeller empire, and several of its board have been to Bilderberg. Robert Rubin, who opposed regulation of derivatives, attended last year with Geithner and Bernanke. Rubin is also Chairman of David Rockefeller’s elite Council on Foreign Relations, and was Bill Clinton’s Secretary to the Treasury. Citi’s President and CEO is William Rhodes, a member of Rockefeller’s Council on Foreign Relations and also of The Group of Thirty along with Geithner, Feldstein and Summers. A senior adviser to Citi is James Wolfensohn. Wolfensohn has attended Bilderberg every year since 1995 inclusive except for in 2001, and was President of The World Bank for ten years from 1995.
Citi made a move to purchase Wachovia after Wachovia was advised to sell itself by the FDIC, and was just about to seal the deal when Wachovia announced it would be merging with Wells Fargo instead. Citi took that claim to court and failed. Citi is still complaining about the decision to allow the merger between Wells Fargo and Wachovia.
Again, there has been no attendee from either Wells Fargo or Wachovia at Bilderberg.
These men, such as David Rockefeller, James Wolfensohn, Timothy Geithner, Peter Sutherland, etc., all very experienced in world finance are meeting behind closed doors once a year for three or four days. What are they talking about?
A report in The Washington Post of 20th April this year entitled “A Bigger, Bolder Role Is Imagined For the IMF” suggested that the International Monetary Fund is preparing for a time just a few years from now when it will control the world economy. The IMF was recently given more power and money at the G20 London Summit because of the current financial crisis. The current Managing Director of the IMF is Dominique Strauss-Kahn who attended Bilderberg in 2000. Previous MDs of the IMF are
• Rodrigo Rato who attended Bilderberg in 1992 and 1994
• Jacques de Larosière who attended Bilderberg in 1982
• Pierre-Paul Schweitzer who attended Bilderberg in 1964 and 1966
• Per Jacobsson who attended Bilderberg in 1957
A look at the statistics provided by the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency shows that the banks named below, which are significantly represented at Bilderberg, are highly exposed in derivatives, the cause recognized by yourself as a, if not the, prime reason for the current financial crisis
• J P Morgan Chase
• Bank of America
• Citi
• Goldman Sachs
Interestingly HSBC has the fifth largest exposure. Why? I don’t know, but it would be interesting to find out.
Their exposure to derivatives far exceeds their total assets. Why are they effectively gambling in such large quantities? Or do they have some insider knowledge of what is to occur because of the Bilderberg connection between some banks, such as J P Morgan Chase, the US Federal Reserve and the US Treasury?
I don’t know about you, but this all looks highly suspicious to me.
What were Rockefeller, Paulson, Geithner, Sutherland, McKillop, Holbrooke, Feldstein and Balls all discussing for three days behind closed doors knowing that anything they said would never be reported despite the presence of reporters from the FT and The Wall Street Journal, and having been in the exact same situation several times before when the current financial crisis was developing?
We need a new Pecora Commission. Investigate this lot under oath. Now!
Yours truly,
FEE! FI! FO! FUM! I SMELL THE BLOOD OF A REBELLION.
There's something going on in Europe.
They want much stricter controls on dodgy financial practices, such as exotic derivatives. The City of London does not.
They want much stricter controls on banks so that they do not become 'too big to fail' and can hold governments to ransom (as has just happened). The City of London does not.
The FT is reporting that Bilderberger Angela Merkel said on Monday,
"No bank should be allowed to become so big that it can blackmail governments,".
You may recall that about a month ago superBilderberger Josef Ackermann of Deutsche Bank wrote in the FT that banks should be allowed to become absolutely huge in order to facilitate globalisation.
There is a whiff of a rebellion here.
But the only way I will truly accept that a rebellion is going in the ranks of Bilderberg is if the rebels got together and wrote a book entitled Memoirs of Bilderberg, and tell all.
And the man who can redeem himself by resigning from his current position and managing the production of such a book by becoming the first to write his memoirs of Bilderberg is our inglorious Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a42860e-9642-11de-84d1-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=8cf8b7ea-0e1c-11de-b099-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Berlin bids to halt ‘too big to fail’ banking
By Bertrand Benoit and Chris Bryant in Berlin
Published: August 31 2009 16:41 | Last updated: August 31 2009 19:50
Germany is calling on the world’s largest economies to adopt joint measures to prevent banks from becoming “too big to fail” and holding governments to ransom in future financial crises.
Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, said on Monday – following a meeting in Berlin with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France – that steps to prevent excessive risk-taking by large banks should rank high on the agenda of the summit of the Group of 20 largest economies in Pittsburgh later this month.
“No bank should be allowed to become so big that it can blackmail governments,” Ms Merkel said.
Meanwhile, in a letter to counterparts from the G20 sent late last week, Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister, urged members to agree on “international rules that facilitate the insolvency and liquidation of large, internationally active banks”.
The proposal, which comes ahead of a G20 finance ministers’ meeting in London on Friday and Saturday, is among the most concrete steps floated by a government so far in response to the dilemma posed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the US a year ago.
The bankruptcy caused the world’s financial infrastructure to seize up as banks stopped lending to each other in anticipation of further insolvencies. The crisis forced governments and central banks to intervene by injecting massive amounts of capital and liquidity into their paralysed financial sectors and bailing out large banks.
In his letter, Mr Steinbrück wrote: “It has proved unavoidably necessary to rescue banks from insolvency, if they are large and relevant to the continued functioning of the banking system, in order to prevent damage to our countries’ economies. This is not an acceptable situation.”
As one solution, he proposed a co-ordinated reform of insolvency laws across the world’s largest economies so that governments would be able to allow future Lehman Brothers to fail without undermining confidence in the entire sector or triggering strings of defaults at other banks.
One Berlin official said the measure would discourage large banks from assuming “that they will always be bailed out no matter what.”
Officials said talks had already taken place at the working level within the G20 on additional measures that could prevent banks from becoming so large as to threaten their countries’ economies.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
They want much stricter controls on dodgy financial practices, such as exotic derivatives. The City of London does not.
They want much stricter controls on banks so that they do not become 'too big to fail' and can hold governments to ransom (as has just happened). The City of London does not.
The FT is reporting that Bilderberger Angela Merkel said on Monday,
"No bank should be allowed to become so big that it can blackmail governments,".
You may recall that about a month ago superBilderberger Josef Ackermann of Deutsche Bank wrote in the FT that banks should be allowed to become absolutely huge in order to facilitate globalisation.
There is a whiff of a rebellion here.
But the only way I will truly accept that a rebellion is going in the ranks of Bilderberg is if the rebels got together and wrote a book entitled Memoirs of Bilderberg, and tell all.
And the man who can redeem himself by resigning from his current position and managing the production of such a book by becoming the first to write his memoirs of Bilderberg is our inglorious Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a42860e-9642-11de-84d1-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=8cf8b7ea-0e1c-11de-b099-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Berlin bids to halt ‘too big to fail’ banking
By Bertrand Benoit and Chris Bryant in Berlin
Published: August 31 2009 16:41 | Last updated: August 31 2009 19:50
Germany is calling on the world’s largest economies to adopt joint measures to prevent banks from becoming “too big to fail” and holding governments to ransom in future financial crises.
Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, said on Monday – following a meeting in Berlin with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France – that steps to prevent excessive risk-taking by large banks should rank high on the agenda of the summit of the Group of 20 largest economies in Pittsburgh later this month.
“No bank should be allowed to become so big that it can blackmail governments,” Ms Merkel said.
Meanwhile, in a letter to counterparts from the G20 sent late last week, Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister, urged members to agree on “international rules that facilitate the insolvency and liquidation of large, internationally active banks”.
The proposal, which comes ahead of a G20 finance ministers’ meeting in London on Friday and Saturday, is among the most concrete steps floated by a government so far in response to the dilemma posed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the US a year ago.
The bankruptcy caused the world’s financial infrastructure to seize up as banks stopped lending to each other in anticipation of further insolvencies. The crisis forced governments and central banks to intervene by injecting massive amounts of capital and liquidity into their paralysed financial sectors and bailing out large banks.
In his letter, Mr Steinbrück wrote: “It has proved unavoidably necessary to rescue banks from insolvency, if they are large and relevant to the continued functioning of the banking system, in order to prevent damage to our countries’ economies. This is not an acceptable situation.”
As one solution, he proposed a co-ordinated reform of insolvency laws across the world’s largest economies so that governments would be able to allow future Lehman Brothers to fail without undermining confidence in the entire sector or triggering strings of defaults at other banks.
One Berlin official said the measure would discourage large banks from assuming “that they will always be bailed out no matter what.”
Officials said talks had already taken place at the working level within the G20 on additional measures that could prevent banks from becoming so large as to threaten their countries’ economies.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)