The police did a good job of keeping the two parties apart, except for one possible flashpoint at the top of the Headrow when a small group of EDL singing "Ingerland" almost crossed paths with a small group of UAF marching towards the town hall to meet their comrades.
Both parties had small scuffles with the police.
But I found it all a farce. The two parties have common aims. They should unite and fight the banks, unnecessary wars and loss of freedom.
We've all just been fcukt left and right and up and down by the banks, and will be paying for their greed for decades, and our parents and grandparents will be paying for it with their lives as soon as they show any sign of sickness.
And we are probably about to see the creation of a European superstate in which an unelected elite will have almost total control over a half billion people.
I find it outrageous that on the UAF website they wanted the Home Office to ban the EDL from protesting. This is just as Naziesque as anything the EDL want as stated on their website.
Here's what the EDL were singing this afternoon in City Square, Leeds.
"Ingerland, Ingerland, Ingerland" etc (the classic football tune)
"We want our country back, We want our country back, We want our country back..."
"You sold your country out, You sold your country out, You sold your country out,..."
"E, E, EDL"
"No surrender, no surrender, no surrender to the Al-Qaida"
And that was about it, excpet for the national anthem.
I didn't hear anyone on a megaphone, inciting riots or racial murder. I actually thought the EDL were trying to bore everyone into leaving because nothing happened, and they were so quiet and well behaved considering they had been caged in and resembled an exhibit of alleged wild animals at a zoo. It felt like they were simply the political wing of the England Supporters Club, and their attire was classic from the terraces; Lacoste, Stone Island (whose logo is very similar to NATO), Adidas trainers etc
I noticed that police had been brought in from Durham Constabulary. There were police dogs, riot police, several police camera crews filming the farce and about twenty mounted police. I wonder how much it all cost.
And all the while the bankers who engineered the two world wars, the holocaust, the friction caused by Israel and the resulting Islamic terrorism, 9/11 and the current financial crisis are laughing their heads off and rubbing their hands with glee at the utter utter stupidity of both parties, the classic example of which is the EDL singing the national anthem. Don't they realise that there is one woman who could refuse to sign us over to Europe, but doesn't, yet they sing her praises?!
So how's about it, Ma'am?
Why do you sign?
Do you endorse the EDL who oppose Sharia Law in the UK and do not want the Star and Crescent flying over Number 10?
Are the EDL a threat to the Covenant of Security between MI5 and the Islamic extremists based in the UK from where they export their terror?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN
Yes, it's almost Bankers in Need day again, the day before Children in Need day, when we give bankers lots of money to...
We've what? We've given 'em hundreds of billions already? What have they done with it? And they want more? Are they all called Oliver? The cheeky bunch of ...
We've what? We've given 'em hundreds of billions already? What have they done with it? And they want more? Are they all called Oliver? The cheeky bunch of ...
BLUFF
The FT editorial today is a very poor attempt at a bluff. For weeks, if not months, even though the Lisbon Treaty has not yet been fully ratified, Tony Blair has been proposed as President of Europe in the British media.
The FT says that it believes that Tony Blair is not the man for the job. Iraq is primarily the reason why, they say, and a pandering to the Eurosceptic media at crucial times.
Yet the FT does not propose anyone else, and in fact promotes Blair.
[source : Blair is the wrong man for EU job, FT 29/10/2009]
Forget this. They want Blair. Read The Times today. Read the British media from the last month. Only one man has been proposed for President of Europe, and that man is Tony Blair.
He has proven himself to them at Bilderberg.
He has proven himself to them over Afghanistan, and Iraq and the privatisation of its oil.
He has proven himself to them over the financial crisis by allowing it occur.
He has proven himself to them by working for JP Morgan Chase, the bank that has benefitted most from the financial crisis.
He has proven himself to them over Palestine.
They want Blair.
The FT says that it believes that Tony Blair is not the man for the job. Iraq is primarily the reason why, they say, and a pandering to the Eurosceptic media at crucial times.
Yet the FT does not propose anyone else, and in fact promotes Blair.
It is far from clear EU leaders, in their vanity, would allow themselves to be eclipsed by that kind of star. They may well prefer someone who patiently attends to the (27) agenda(s) and works to build the sort of messy consensus that keeps the union staggering forward. The impenetrable Lisbon treaty is verbose on this but uncharacteristically brief on the role of representation.
But, if it is global recognition the EU wants, Mr Blair can certainly oblige. In his decade at the top of British and international politics, he was, indeed, a star, albeit in a rather dim firmament. It is a seductive argument that with his mix of access and charm, and his I’m-a-straight-sort-of-guy way of doing business, he would enable the EU to, at last, punch its weight on the international stage.
Europe does need a more persuasive voice, otherwise it risks fading into geopolitical irrelevance in a world parcelled up between a G2 of the US and China. And, even though the other big job of foreign policy chief created by the Lisbon treaty could turn out to be more important, it is far from obvious there are good alternatives to Mr Blair as president of the Council.
[source : Blair is the wrong man for EU job, FT 29/10/2009]
Forget this. They want Blair. Read The Times today. Read the British media from the last month. Only one man has been proposed for President of Europe, and that man is Tony Blair.
He has proven himself to them at Bilderberg.
He has proven himself to them over Afghanistan, and Iraq and the privatisation of its oil.
He has proven himself to them over the financial crisis by allowing it occur.
He has proven himself to them by working for JP Morgan Chase, the bank that has benefitted most from the financial crisis.
He has proven himself to them over Palestine.
They want Blair.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
WHY DO THEY REALLY REALLY REALLY WANT BLAIR AS PRESIDENT OF EUROPE?
It's only supposed to be a representative and ceremonial role with little power but they are really pushing for Bliar to fill the position!
Never mind that he lied and lied and just in case he hadn't lied enough he lied some more over Iraq, leading to the attack on 7/7 in London.
Never mind that while he was PM the City of London went on the rampage with its destructive financial policies, leading to the new secret policy of killing little old granny to pay for the bailouts.
Never mind that while Israel was bombing Gaza into the stone age he fulfilled his role as Middle East Peace Envoy by doing sweet FA.
The BBC showed its bias again this morning on the BBC Radio 5 Live debate with Nicky Campbell. On every media show the presenters have always stated that by an overwhelming majority the number of responses by text or email they had received were opposed to Blair becoming President.
Yet somehow approximately half of the callers this morning were in favour of Blair, and they had the lamest of reasons for doing so. Examples were;
we're in Europe no matter what so we need someone to go in there and sort them out
we need somoeone to stand up for Britain
he was PM for ten years so has experience of running a country
We're in Europe and losing out legally and financially because Bliar and Bailout Brown denied us the right to a referendum, despite their promises. Standing up for Britain does not mean transferring sovereignty to a supranational organisation that has been financed into existence by the same bankers who bankrolled Hitler and Mussolini and empowered Stalin and financed both attempts at world government, the League of Nations and the United Nations.
I can only assume that the only reason why they really really really want Blair as President of Europe is that
1. the position is to assume more and more power, approaching dictatorship, much like the EU itself has grown over the decades
2. in which case they want someone they can trust, someone who is a proven world liar and will take the entity he or she is governing into unneccesary wars to their benefit
3. and those wars could very well drive the continental governments such as the EU and North American Union into amalgamating into a single global dictatorship or ceding their 'sovereignty' to the UN which will be crowned as the single global dictatorship.
Blair as President of Europe will be a marriage made in hell.
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Never mind that he lied and lied and just in case he hadn't lied enough he lied some more over Iraq, leading to the attack on 7/7 in London.
Never mind that while he was PM the City of London went on the rampage with its destructive financial policies, leading to the new secret policy of killing little old granny to pay for the bailouts.
Never mind that while Israel was bombing Gaza into the stone age he fulfilled his role as Middle East Peace Envoy by doing sweet FA.
The BBC showed its bias again this morning on the BBC Radio 5 Live debate with Nicky Campbell. On every media show the presenters have always stated that by an overwhelming majority the number of responses by text or email they had received were opposed to Blair becoming President.
Yet somehow approximately half of the callers this morning were in favour of Blair, and they had the lamest of reasons for doing so. Examples were;
we're in Europe no matter what so we need someone to go in there and sort them out
we need somoeone to stand up for Britain
he was PM for ten years so has experience of running a country
We're in Europe and losing out legally and financially because Bliar and Bailout Brown denied us the right to a referendum, despite their promises. Standing up for Britain does not mean transferring sovereignty to a supranational organisation that has been financed into existence by the same bankers who bankrolled Hitler and Mussolini and empowered Stalin and financed both attempts at world government, the League of Nations and the United Nations.
I can only assume that the only reason why they really really really want Blair as President of Europe is that
1. the position is to assume more and more power, approaching dictatorship, much like the EU itself has grown over the decades
2. in which case they want someone they can trust, someone who is a proven world liar and will take the entity he or she is governing into unneccesary wars to their benefit
3. and those wars could very well drive the continental governments such as the EU and North American Union into amalgamating into a single global dictatorship or ceding their 'sovereignty' to the UN which will be crowned as the single global dictatorship.
Blair as President of Europe will be a marriage made in hell.
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
HOW I CAME TO HATE THE EU
Over 50 years a group of very privileged and powerful people, thanks to the banal decision of our former leaders to hand them the God-like power to create money out of nothing, decided that there must be a European Union. This was because Europe, previously a set of individual sovereign states, had just endured over six years of war and were very vulnerable to suggestion due to the trauma the violence and destitution that the war had brought upon them.
To create the proposed union would require substantial trickery, for europe had just endured over 6 years of pure unadulterated warfare for freedom and the people of europe were not going to cede their former sovereignty easily. So this concept of a common market was proposed, with the aim of economic integration. Gradually more economic integration has taken place with the adoption of the Euro, and political integration has taken place with the creation of the EU via The Maastricht Treaty and more recently by the Lisbon Treaty.
Now with the EU about to have a President and a Foreign Minister, making it look more and more like a sovereign nation by the day, there are proposals that the EU wants to tax me directly and that it wants DNA, health and tax records as well as a common police force, sharing intelligence and spying on me via CCTV.
This transformation of Europe from a set of sovereign nation states to a de facto superstate has taken place by stealth and over a period of several decades. And it is happening not just in Europe but in all continents; Africa, North and South America, Asia-Pacific. Each continent is slowing creating its own continental government, initially based on economic integration, as with the EU. But you can bet your bottom SDR that they will become de facto continental governments which will cede their 'sovereignty' to the UN when another world war occurs or under other violent and traumatic circumstances.
It took an engineeered World War 1 to destroy the central monarchies of Germany and Austria in preparation.
It took an engineeered World War 2 to create the conditions for the nations of Europe to accept the minimum of integration, and for the world to accept the idea of a world government that could stop wars (which it obviously has not but it has sponsored the MMGW bollocks and proposed subsequent related taxes and laws that empower it).
It has since taken several decades of lies and manipulation and broken promises to create the supranational organisation of today that we know as the bastard EU.
It's mother is the single parent United Nations who has not named the father.
But we know who the father is, or one of the fathers is.
And he is proud of it, because he said so in his memoirs.
And his name is Rockefeller.
That is how I have come to hate the EU.
It has been forced onto us by murder. Murder from two engineered world wars and in the concentration camps.
Blair would be a very suitable President of such an organisation.
To create the proposed union would require substantial trickery, for europe had just endured over 6 years of pure unadulterated warfare for freedom and the people of europe were not going to cede their former sovereignty easily. So this concept of a common market was proposed, with the aim of economic integration. Gradually more economic integration has taken place with the adoption of the Euro, and political integration has taken place with the creation of the EU via The Maastricht Treaty and more recently by the Lisbon Treaty.
Now with the EU about to have a President and a Foreign Minister, making it look more and more like a sovereign nation by the day, there are proposals that the EU wants to tax me directly and that it wants DNA, health and tax records as well as a common police force, sharing intelligence and spying on me via CCTV.
This transformation of Europe from a set of sovereign nation states to a de facto superstate has taken place by stealth and over a period of several decades. And it is happening not just in Europe but in all continents; Africa, North and South America, Asia-Pacific. Each continent is slowing creating its own continental government, initially based on economic integration, as with the EU. But you can bet your bottom SDR that they will become de facto continental governments which will cede their 'sovereignty' to the UN when another world war occurs or under other violent and traumatic circumstances.
It took an engineeered World War 1 to destroy the central monarchies of Germany and Austria in preparation.
It took an engineeered World War 2 to create the conditions for the nations of Europe to accept the minimum of integration, and for the world to accept the idea of a world government that could stop wars (which it obviously has not but it has sponsored the MMGW bollocks and proposed subsequent related taxes and laws that empower it).
It has since taken several decades of lies and manipulation and broken promises to create the supranational organisation of today that we know as the bastard EU.
It's mother is the single parent United Nations who has not named the father.
But we know who the father is, or one of the fathers is.
And he is proud of it, because he said so in his memoirs.
And his name is Rockefeller.
That is how I have come to hate the EU.
It has been forced onto us by murder. Murder from two engineered world wars and in the concentration camps.
Blair would be a very suitable President of such an organisation.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
IT'S QUESTION TIME FOR QUESTION TIME
An article in today's The Daily Mail exposes the complete stitch-up of Nick Griffin on BBC QT, the self-acclaimed flagship current affairs programme of the inglorious BBC.
There are some who will say that Griffin deserved it, that his racism and homophobia should be exposed and ridiculed.
But is that the purpose of QT?
During the days before Thursday's QT, and in particular on the day, the BBC was promoting QT as the flagship current affairs programme that allows the general public to ask a panel of politicians, celebrities, writers and academics some questions on their views of current affairs.
I would say that without doubt today's current affairs are the postal strike, MPs expenses, bankers bonuses and Afghanistan.
Not one question was asked on these. If questions had been asked on these then I would guess that Griffin would have won substantial support over three of these (MPs expenses, Afghanistan and bankers bonuses) and am not sure of the BNPs stance on the postal strike.
You may remember seeing the young Jewish man asking his question about the holocaust. He applied to appear on QT a year ago, and was not invited then, but curiously received his invitation to appear just one day before Thursday's QT. And he was just one of a handful of the audience to ask his question! How lucky can you get?
There are serious questions to be asked of QT. How impartial is it? Who selects the audience? How are the audience selected? How are the questions from the audience selected?
It's QT for QT.
That Thursday's QT was a plan to get Griffin is beyond doubt. The question is, why?
Are the BBC, i.e. MI5, playing the race card to divert anger against the banks into race attacks? Or are they getting a little scared of the now obvious consequences of what their financial masters in The City have done with their shafting of the British taxpaying public and they can't control it?
==========================================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222586/The-BNP-backlash--MPs-accuse-BBC-playing-Nick-Griffins-hands-stage-managing-Question-Time-onslaught.html#
The BNP backlash - MPs accuse BBC of playing into Nick Griffin's hands by stage-managing Question Time onslaught
By James Chapman
Last updated at 10:12 AM on 24th October 2009
* Comments (363)
* Add to My Stories
The BBC has been accused of letting BNP bigot Nick Griffin 'play the martyr' amid bitter recriminations over his appearance on Question Time.
Senior MPs accused the corporation of whipping up controversy to maximise viewing figures - then crudely stage-managing the programme so he was under attack throughout from the audience and fellow panellists.
They said the attempt to expose his racist views risked backfiring because some voters would feel he had been unfairly treated.
Nick Griffin talks with a market trader in Grays town centre
Milking the moment: Nick Griffin with an Essex market trader yesterday. Senior MPs have accused the BBC of playing into the BNP's hands by stage-managing Question Time and making Griffin 'a martyr'
Last night it emerged that:
* Complaints that the show was biased against Mr Griffin outnumbered by more than two to one those about him being allowed to appear;
* Some of the audience appear to have been rushed through the vetting process in a bid to emphasise the multi-cultural nature of London;
* Audience members were briefed to ask 'provocative' questions and host David Dimbleby told them it was acceptable to boo;
* More than eight million people tuned in - four times the usual audience and more than watched Strictly Come Dancing last week;
* The BNP boasted that since Mr Griffin's appearance, 3,000 people had registered to sign up as members;
* Joel Weiner, 17, who dramatically confronted Mr Griffin about Holocaust denial, said he applied to attend a Question Time programme more than a year ago, but was approached just 24 hours before filming.
Mr Griffin himself said he planned to make a formal complaint to the BBC, over 'twisting' the programme format. He said the episode 'was not a genuine Question Time, it was a lynch mob'.
'People wanted to see me and hear me talking about things like the postal strike. Let's do it again and do it properly this time,' he added.
Nick Griffin conducting an interview in Essex yesterday
Grilling: Mr Griffin (centre left) conducted interviews in Essex yesterday when he claimed London had been 'ethnically cleansed'
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson admitted the exposure would lead to a short-term bounce for the far-Right party, but predicted that in the long term it will have done them 'no good at all'.
But other senior Labour and Conservative figures said the BBC risked long-term damage by allowing Question Time to be transformed into the 'Nick Griffin Show'.
One in five would vote BNP
More than a fifth of voters would consider backing the British National Party in a future election, according to an opinion poll taken in the hours after leader Nick Griffin's appearance on BBC1's Question Time.
Some 22% of those questioned said they would "seriously consider" voting BNP in a local, European or general election - including 4% who said they would "definitely" consider backing the party.
3% said they would "probably" consider it, and 15% who said they were "possible" BNP voters
While Question Time normally ranges across issues of the day, which this week included the postal strike and the economy, all but one of the questions selected focused on the BNP and its policies.
Mr Griffin, one of two BNP candidates elected to the European Parliament earlier this year, faced fierce attacks on race, immigration and the Holocaust.
Viewers heard him brand Islam 'wicked' and smear homosexuals as 'creepy'.
He went on to make inflammatory remarks about the composition of the audience, suggesting London was 'ethnically cleansed' and 'no longer British'.
Labour former Home Secretary David Blunkett said last night: 'The BBC played into Griffin's hands by managing to create a victim out of a perpetrator. Their totally unwarranted blanket coverage on news broadcasts before and after Question Time was blatant self-promotion.
'They made the format so obviously skewed that they have allowed him to play the martyr. It was all about him and the BNP, not about the issues of the day.
'They have achieved his victimhood and that may make people much more open to hearing what he has to say in the future.'
Question Time panel
The panel (l to r): Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, Conservative shadow cabinet member Sayeeda Warsi, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, Dimbleby, Griffin and Bonnie Greer
Former shadow home secretary David Davis said: 'The point of democratic discussion is to dissect the weaknesses and stupidities of extremists, not to make them the gift of martyrdom.
'David Dimbleby is old enough and wise enough to have been able to present a properly impartial exposé of Mr Griffin's many inadequacies without having to resort to such crude stage management.'
Labour MP Diane Abbott said Mr Griffin's appearance had given the BNP unnecessary credibility and exposure by 'putting him in the mainstream'.
She warned that many people across the country would have thought he was picked on by the other panellists.
TODAY'S POLL
Was Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time a PR victory or disaster for the BNP?
Victory
Disaster
VOTE
nick griffin
POLL RESULTS
Close
All polls Click to view yesterday's poll results
But Labour minister Margaret Hodge, in whose Barking and Dagenham constituency the BNP won 11 council seats in 2006, insisted: 'The BBC gave Nick Griffin the opportunity to show himself up for what he is - flaky, dishonest and bigoted.
'I have been in Barking all day asking people about it, and one or two did say they felt he had been bullied. But overwhelmingly people thought it had exposed him as a bigot.'
Activists on far-Right websites condemned the BNP leader for being 'overawed' and 'flustered'.
One said: 'The public despise indecisiveness as they see it as weakness, and all these quotes from Nick's past make the party look bad.'
The BBC defended the programme, saying viewers would make up their own minds.
A spokesman said: 'It is normal for the programme to reflect topics that are in the news - people would accept that the BNP and Question Time have been prominent topics.'
Anatomy of an ambush: How the BBC hand picked its audience
Question Time is supposed to be a random cross-section of the British public who put the questions of the day to leading politicians.
But extraordinary details emerged yesterday of the lengths to which the BBC went to make sure Nick Griffin got his 'comeuppance' on Thursday night's incendiary edition of the programme, which drew a record 8.1million audience.
Observers claimed that the make-up of the audience appeared to have been deliberately slanted towards the young, multi-cultural and metropolitan.
Enlarge Question Time audience
A fair cross section of the community? Members of Thursday night's audience were predominantly young and multi-cultural
The BBC flatly denies cherry-picking activists or potential troublemakers. It says that those selected were plucked from a database only containing those who had applied to go on the show before Mr Griffin's appearance had been confirmed.
However a British Asian who clashed with the BNP leader revealed last night that he had been approached to take part only a couple of days before the show.
Khush Klare, 38, asked Mr Griffin what country a British-born Asian was supposed to return to. He then suggested that Mr Griffin himself should go to the South Pole, provoking a wave of laughter.
Mr Klare, a Hindu director of a financial services company, said he had been approached to go on the show by a friend from university. 'When he told me that Nick Griffin would be there on behalf of the BNP, I said, "Absolutely".'
Up to ten BNP supporters are thought to have been in the 200-strong audience. The BBC points out that it always attempts to ensure that the audience is representative of the show's town or city - which on Thursday was London.
Enlarge BBC Question Time
Be provocative: The instructions handed to audience members along with profiles of the panel, starting with Nick Griffin
However, members of the audience have told the Mail they were handed a detailed crib-sheet which encouraged them to ask questions which were 'short, sharp and provocative'.
The word 'provocative' was underlined in the document handed to them before they went into the studio.
In addition, this sheet contained profiles of the five guests - Mr Griffin, LibDem Chris Huhne, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, Tory peer Baroness Warsi and writer Bonnie Greer. In every single profile, the panellist's views on race was highlighted.
During the warm-up for Thursday's recording of the show, audience members were told they should feel free to jeer when they considered it appropriate.
Joel Weiner, 17, who confronted Mr Griffin about Holocaust denial, said he applied to appear on the programme more than a year ago but was approached 'out of the blue' on Wednesday - just 24 hours before filming.
The schoolboy's grandfather escaped from Germany to Palestine the day before war broke out but many of his family were lost - some, he believes, in Auschwitz.
Joel Weiner
Confrontation: Joel Weiner grilled Mr Griffin about Holocaust denial
Joel said he felt it was important to ask Mr Griffin about his views on the Holocaust. 'I wanted to show him for what he was. I think he struggled to answer the question. The atmosphere in the studio was very tense but there was a real sense of camaraderie. Everyone was together against Nick Griffin apart from a small group of supporters.'
Those who apply to any Question Time programme have to go through a vetting process via its website. They are asked for their name, age, occupation and contact details, but also if they are members of any political parties or campaign groups. They also answer questions about their views on the situation in Iraq, whether they are pro-Europe or sceptical and what issues they would like to discuss on the show.
Audience member Ellen Mellington, a 29-year-old project manager from South London, said members of the production team told her they wanted provocative questions.
'It seemed like they were trying to whip up a bit of a frenzy in the studio. What surprised me most was when David Dimbleby came in before the taping and started to speak to the audience. He told us it was OK to boo, which I didn't quite agree with. I don't think you should boo at people.'
Beth Pritchard, from Elephant and Castle, South London, was seen attacking Mr Griffin's views after he claimed teaching homosexuality to school children was 'perverse'.
Miss Pritchard told the Mail she was so shocked by his remarks she wanted to make her views heard. 'I was just particularly shocked at the venom coming from Mr Griffin and his supporters in the audience. It was just anger that spurred me on to say something.
'I've never actually experienced anyone making homophobic comments before and I found it quite bizarre.'
The 28-year-old bank clerk, who wed her girlfriend two years ago in a civil partnership, said her comment to Mr Griffin had not been one of the two questions she prepared before the taping began.
'Nick Griffin's remarks just riled me,' she said. 'I just put my hand up and they came to me for my comment. There's no way they could have been aware of my sexuality or known who I was. It was all completely random.'
Miss Pritchard said audience members were not allocated particular seats and claimed that the 'handful' of BNP members who attended deliberately spread themselves out.
'I think they wanted to make it look like Mr Griffin had a huge range of support across the whole audience.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222586/The-BNP-backlash--MPs-accuse-BBC-playing-Nick-Griffins-hands-stage-managing-Question-Time-onslaught.html##ixzz0UrOkBwKs
There are some who will say that Griffin deserved it, that his racism and homophobia should be exposed and ridiculed.
But is that the purpose of QT?
During the days before Thursday's QT, and in particular on the day, the BBC was promoting QT as the flagship current affairs programme that allows the general public to ask a panel of politicians, celebrities, writers and academics some questions on their views of current affairs.
I would say that without doubt today's current affairs are the postal strike, MPs expenses, bankers bonuses and Afghanistan.
Not one question was asked on these. If questions had been asked on these then I would guess that Griffin would have won substantial support over three of these (MPs expenses, Afghanistan and bankers bonuses) and am not sure of the BNPs stance on the postal strike.
You may remember seeing the young Jewish man asking his question about the holocaust. He applied to appear on QT a year ago, and was not invited then, but curiously received his invitation to appear just one day before Thursday's QT. And he was just one of a handful of the audience to ask his question! How lucky can you get?
There are serious questions to be asked of QT. How impartial is it? Who selects the audience? How are the audience selected? How are the questions from the audience selected?
It's QT for QT.
That Thursday's QT was a plan to get Griffin is beyond doubt. The question is, why?
Are the BBC, i.e. MI5, playing the race card to divert anger against the banks into race attacks? Or are they getting a little scared of the now obvious consequences of what their financial masters in The City have done with their shafting of the British taxpaying public and they can't control it?
==========================================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222586/The-BNP-backlash--MPs-accuse-BBC-playing-Nick-Griffins-hands-stage-managing-Question-Time-onslaught.html#
The BNP backlash - MPs accuse BBC of playing into Nick Griffin's hands by stage-managing Question Time onslaught
By James Chapman
Last updated at 10:12 AM on 24th October 2009
* Comments (363)
* Add to My Stories
The BBC has been accused of letting BNP bigot Nick Griffin 'play the martyr' amid bitter recriminations over his appearance on Question Time.
Senior MPs accused the corporation of whipping up controversy to maximise viewing figures - then crudely stage-managing the programme so he was under attack throughout from the audience and fellow panellists.
They said the attempt to expose his racist views risked backfiring because some voters would feel he had been unfairly treated.
Nick Griffin talks with a market trader in Grays town centre
Milking the moment: Nick Griffin with an Essex market trader yesterday. Senior MPs have accused the BBC of playing into the BNP's hands by stage-managing Question Time and making Griffin 'a martyr'
Last night it emerged that:
* Complaints that the show was biased against Mr Griffin outnumbered by more than two to one those about him being allowed to appear;
* Some of the audience appear to have been rushed through the vetting process in a bid to emphasise the multi-cultural nature of London;
* Audience members were briefed to ask 'provocative' questions and host David Dimbleby told them it was acceptable to boo;
* More than eight million people tuned in - four times the usual audience and more than watched Strictly Come Dancing last week;
* The BNP boasted that since Mr Griffin's appearance, 3,000 people had registered to sign up as members;
* Joel Weiner, 17, who dramatically confronted Mr Griffin about Holocaust denial, said he applied to attend a Question Time programme more than a year ago, but was approached just 24 hours before filming.
Mr Griffin himself said he planned to make a formal complaint to the BBC, over 'twisting' the programme format. He said the episode 'was not a genuine Question Time, it was a lynch mob'.
'People wanted to see me and hear me talking about things like the postal strike. Let's do it again and do it properly this time,' he added.
Nick Griffin conducting an interview in Essex yesterday
Grilling: Mr Griffin (centre left) conducted interviews in Essex yesterday when he claimed London had been 'ethnically cleansed'
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson admitted the exposure would lead to a short-term bounce for the far-Right party, but predicted that in the long term it will have done them 'no good at all'.
But other senior Labour and Conservative figures said the BBC risked long-term damage by allowing Question Time to be transformed into the 'Nick Griffin Show'.
One in five would vote BNP
More than a fifth of voters would consider backing the British National Party in a future election, according to an opinion poll taken in the hours after leader Nick Griffin's appearance on BBC1's Question Time.
Some 22% of those questioned said they would "seriously consider" voting BNP in a local, European or general election - including 4% who said they would "definitely" consider backing the party.
3% said they would "probably" consider it, and 15% who said they were "possible" BNP voters
While Question Time normally ranges across issues of the day, which this week included the postal strike and the economy, all but one of the questions selected focused on the BNP and its policies.
Mr Griffin, one of two BNP candidates elected to the European Parliament earlier this year, faced fierce attacks on race, immigration and the Holocaust.
Viewers heard him brand Islam 'wicked' and smear homosexuals as 'creepy'.
He went on to make inflammatory remarks about the composition of the audience, suggesting London was 'ethnically cleansed' and 'no longer British'.
Labour former Home Secretary David Blunkett said last night: 'The BBC played into Griffin's hands by managing to create a victim out of a perpetrator. Their totally unwarranted blanket coverage on news broadcasts before and after Question Time was blatant self-promotion.
'They made the format so obviously skewed that they have allowed him to play the martyr. It was all about him and the BNP, not about the issues of the day.
'They have achieved his victimhood and that may make people much more open to hearing what he has to say in the future.'
Question Time panel
The panel (l to r): Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, Conservative shadow cabinet member Sayeeda Warsi, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, Dimbleby, Griffin and Bonnie Greer
Former shadow home secretary David Davis said: 'The point of democratic discussion is to dissect the weaknesses and stupidities of extremists, not to make them the gift of martyrdom.
'David Dimbleby is old enough and wise enough to have been able to present a properly impartial exposé of Mr Griffin's many inadequacies without having to resort to such crude stage management.'
Labour MP Diane Abbott said Mr Griffin's appearance had given the BNP unnecessary credibility and exposure by 'putting him in the mainstream'.
She warned that many people across the country would have thought he was picked on by the other panellists.
TODAY'S POLL
Was Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time a PR victory or disaster for the BNP?
Victory
Disaster
VOTE
nick griffin
POLL RESULTS
Close
All polls Click to view yesterday's poll results
But Labour minister Margaret Hodge, in whose Barking and Dagenham constituency the BNP won 11 council seats in 2006, insisted: 'The BBC gave Nick Griffin the opportunity to show himself up for what he is - flaky, dishonest and bigoted.
'I have been in Barking all day asking people about it, and one or two did say they felt he had been bullied. But overwhelmingly people thought it had exposed him as a bigot.'
Activists on far-Right websites condemned the BNP leader for being 'overawed' and 'flustered'.
One said: 'The public despise indecisiveness as they see it as weakness, and all these quotes from Nick's past make the party look bad.'
The BBC defended the programme, saying viewers would make up their own minds.
A spokesman said: 'It is normal for the programme to reflect topics that are in the news - people would accept that the BNP and Question Time have been prominent topics.'
Anatomy of an ambush: How the BBC hand picked its audience
Question Time is supposed to be a random cross-section of the British public who put the questions of the day to leading politicians.
But extraordinary details emerged yesterday of the lengths to which the BBC went to make sure Nick Griffin got his 'comeuppance' on Thursday night's incendiary edition of the programme, which drew a record 8.1million audience.
Observers claimed that the make-up of the audience appeared to have been deliberately slanted towards the young, multi-cultural and metropolitan.
Enlarge Question Time audience
A fair cross section of the community? Members of Thursday night's audience were predominantly young and multi-cultural
The BBC flatly denies cherry-picking activists or potential troublemakers. It says that those selected were plucked from a database only containing those who had applied to go on the show before Mr Griffin's appearance had been confirmed.
However a British Asian who clashed with the BNP leader revealed last night that he had been approached to take part only a couple of days before the show.
Khush Klare, 38, asked Mr Griffin what country a British-born Asian was supposed to return to. He then suggested that Mr Griffin himself should go to the South Pole, provoking a wave of laughter.
Mr Klare, a Hindu director of a financial services company, said he had been approached to go on the show by a friend from university. 'When he told me that Nick Griffin would be there on behalf of the BNP, I said, "Absolutely".'
Up to ten BNP supporters are thought to have been in the 200-strong audience. The BBC points out that it always attempts to ensure that the audience is representative of the show's town or city - which on Thursday was London.
Enlarge BBC Question Time
Be provocative: The instructions handed to audience members along with profiles of the panel, starting with Nick Griffin
However, members of the audience have told the Mail they were handed a detailed crib-sheet which encouraged them to ask questions which were 'short, sharp and provocative'.
The word 'provocative' was underlined in the document handed to them before they went into the studio.
In addition, this sheet contained profiles of the five guests - Mr Griffin, LibDem Chris Huhne, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, Tory peer Baroness Warsi and writer Bonnie Greer. In every single profile, the panellist's views on race was highlighted.
During the warm-up for Thursday's recording of the show, audience members were told they should feel free to jeer when they considered it appropriate.
Joel Weiner, 17, who confronted Mr Griffin about Holocaust denial, said he applied to appear on the programme more than a year ago but was approached 'out of the blue' on Wednesday - just 24 hours before filming.
The schoolboy's grandfather escaped from Germany to Palestine the day before war broke out but many of his family were lost - some, he believes, in Auschwitz.
Joel Weiner
Confrontation: Joel Weiner grilled Mr Griffin about Holocaust denial
Joel said he felt it was important to ask Mr Griffin about his views on the Holocaust. 'I wanted to show him for what he was. I think he struggled to answer the question. The atmosphere in the studio was very tense but there was a real sense of camaraderie. Everyone was together against Nick Griffin apart from a small group of supporters.'
Those who apply to any Question Time programme have to go through a vetting process via its website. They are asked for their name, age, occupation and contact details, but also if they are members of any political parties or campaign groups. They also answer questions about their views on the situation in Iraq, whether they are pro-Europe or sceptical and what issues they would like to discuss on the show.
Audience member Ellen Mellington, a 29-year-old project manager from South London, said members of the production team told her they wanted provocative questions.
'It seemed like they were trying to whip up a bit of a frenzy in the studio. What surprised me most was when David Dimbleby came in before the taping and started to speak to the audience. He told us it was OK to boo, which I didn't quite agree with. I don't think you should boo at people.'
Beth Pritchard, from Elephant and Castle, South London, was seen attacking Mr Griffin's views after he claimed teaching homosexuality to school children was 'perverse'.
Miss Pritchard told the Mail she was so shocked by his remarks she wanted to make her views heard. 'I was just particularly shocked at the venom coming from Mr Griffin and his supporters in the audience. It was just anger that spurred me on to say something.
'I've never actually experienced anyone making homophobic comments before and I found it quite bizarre.'
The 28-year-old bank clerk, who wed her girlfriend two years ago in a civil partnership, said her comment to Mr Griffin had not been one of the two questions she prepared before the taping began.
'Nick Griffin's remarks just riled me,' she said. 'I just put my hand up and they came to me for my comment. There's no way they could have been aware of my sexuality or known who I was. It was all completely random.'
Miss Pritchard said audience members were not allocated particular seats and claimed that the 'handful' of BNP members who attended deliberately spread themselves out.
'I think they wanted to make it look like Mr Griffin had a huge range of support across the whole audience.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222586/The-BNP-backlash--MPs-accuse-BBC-playing-Nick-Griffins-hands-stage-managing-Question-Time-onslaught.html##ixzz0UrOkBwKs
REASONS
The headline hype sourrounding the appearance of Nick Griffin on Question Time is diverting from several other items of news becoming headlines. Let's see which items of news, which are much more devastating and dangerous, are not headlines.
1. experts predicted growth of 0.7% in the UK economy but instead it shrank by 0.4%, the sixth consecutive contraction
2. the bankers, who caused point 1. above, with their reckless gambling are getting billions in bonuses for taking us into an economic state now approaching depression
This should be the headline for all news outlets;
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Bastard bankers who couldn't give a toss about British workers get billions in bonuses for wrecking the UK economy! Incompetent Prime Minister who encouraged their gambling policies gets it wrong again! We're still in recession with massive debts that our kids will be repaying even after killing little old granny!
If I owned a newspaper I'd have that as my headline.
1. experts predicted growth of 0.7% in the UK economy but instead it shrank by 0.4%, the sixth consecutive contraction
2. the bankers, who caused point 1. above, with their reckless gambling are getting billions in bonuses for taking us into an economic state now approaching depression
This should be the headline for all news outlets;
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Bastard bankers who couldn't give a toss about British workers get billions in bonuses for wrecking the UK economy! Incompetent Prime Minister who encouraged their gambling policies gets it wrong again! We're still in recession with massive debts that our kids will be repaying even after killing little old granny!
If I owned a newspaper I'd have that as my headline.
Friday, October 23, 2009
UNITE AGAINST FOOLISHNESS
You saw and heard them last night.
UAF were allegedly fighting for freedom of speech by demanding that freedom of speech be denied to someone who has never lobbied at the United Nations for a war on a sovereign country based on lies.
Nick "pull the troops out of Afghanistan" Griffin was demonised, heckled and booed while Jack "liemonger" Straw, who worked hard to secure enough doubt over the legality of a war on Iraq in 2003 while Foreign Secretary which led to the deaths of an estimated one million Iraqi civilians so that BP could be given the largest oil field in Iraq, was given free passage.
It really is farcical.
UAF were allegedly fighting for freedom of speech by demanding that freedom of speech be denied to someone who has never lobbied at the United Nations for a war on a sovereign country based on lies.
Nick "pull the troops out of Afghanistan" Griffin was demonised, heckled and booed while Jack "liemonger" Straw, who worked hard to secure enough doubt over the legality of a war on Iraq in 2003 while Foreign Secretary which led to the deaths of an estimated one million Iraqi civilians so that BP could be given the largest oil field in Iraq, was given free passage.
It really is farcical.
QUESTION TIME
Just over two years ago Question Time invited a certain guest called Boris Berezovsky to sit on its panel. He agreed, and was given over half the show to answer very biased questions on Russia to which he gave answers that were very critical of Russia. About the same time he was also interviewed by the BBC on Hardtalk for a half hour and was asked similar questions and gave similar answers.
i.e. the BBC gave a pro-London anti-Russia member of the Russian exile elite approximately one hour to provoke and anger Russia with his comments.
Last night the BNP leader Nick Griffin was controversially invited onto the Question Time panel. I missed it, but it appears to me from reading and listening to post-airing media articles that it was a 'get the BNP' show.
I am not a member of the BNP nor do I intend to join, but they do have some policies that I could well imagine driving the same dark forces that manipulated Berezovsky and his questions to trick, and I use that word deliberately, Nick Griffin into sitting on the panel to answer qestions about himself and his party's extreme views rather than current affairs. Several members of the audience who were interviewed after the programme expressed their concern and disappointment at not being able to ask the panel about current affairs such as Afghanistan, bankers bonuses, MPs not repaying expenses etc.
I went to the BNP website this morning and read that the BNP wants, amongst other policies;
British jobs for British workers (didn't Bailout Brown say that?)
Say NO to a Federal Europe
Bring British soldiers home from Afghanistan
Put British workers before the banks
It is not coincidence that questions to the panel did not address these points.
All this talk by the BNP of Britishness is bollocks. It is racist. We were once the greatest slave trading nation in the world for a long time as we developed the Americas. And we've probably murdered more people through colonisation than all the wars between other nations put together. So to talk of being proud of being British is sick.
But the BNP are talking of policies that the ordinary white working class man and woman who has had enough want to hear, because they have been well and truly fcukt. Lied to and fcukt good and proper, and the mainstream parties have lost credibility because they have all been caught with their fingers in the till with the MPs expenses farce.
And the BBC does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to undue media bias. It fully supported the slaughter of Gaza in the New Year, and covers celebrity weddings with more journalism than it does for Bilderberg meetings.
So with its past record with Berezovsky and the lack of coverage of current affairs last night I would say Griffin was stitched up, and the reason is because the BNP wants us out of Europe and Afghanistan and is outraged by the behaviour of the banks and their complete lack of concern for the conditions of the British economy and its workers.
i.e. the BBC gave a pro-London anti-Russia member of the Russian exile elite approximately one hour to provoke and anger Russia with his comments.
Last night the BNP leader Nick Griffin was controversially invited onto the Question Time panel. I missed it, but it appears to me from reading and listening to post-airing media articles that it was a 'get the BNP' show.
I am not a member of the BNP nor do I intend to join, but they do have some policies that I could well imagine driving the same dark forces that manipulated Berezovsky and his questions to trick, and I use that word deliberately, Nick Griffin into sitting on the panel to answer qestions about himself and his party's extreme views rather than current affairs. Several members of the audience who were interviewed after the programme expressed their concern and disappointment at not being able to ask the panel about current affairs such as Afghanistan, bankers bonuses, MPs not repaying expenses etc.
I went to the BNP website this morning and read that the BNP wants, amongst other policies;
British jobs for British workers (didn't Bailout Brown say that?)
Say NO to a Federal Europe
Bring British soldiers home from Afghanistan
Put British workers before the banks
It is not coincidence that questions to the panel did not address these points.
All this talk by the BNP of Britishness is bollocks. It is racist. We were once the greatest slave trading nation in the world for a long time as we developed the Americas. And we've probably murdered more people through colonisation than all the wars between other nations put together. So to talk of being proud of being British is sick.
But the BNP are talking of policies that the ordinary white working class man and woman who has had enough want to hear, because they have been well and truly fcukt. Lied to and fcukt good and proper, and the mainstream parties have lost credibility because they have all been caught with their fingers in the till with the MPs expenses farce.
And the BBC does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to undue media bias. It fully supported the slaughter of Gaza in the New Year, and covers celebrity weddings with more journalism than it does for Bilderberg meetings.
So with its past record with Berezovsky and the lack of coverage of current affairs last night I would say Griffin was stitched up, and the reason is because the BNP wants us out of Europe and Afghanistan and is outraged by the behaviour of the banks and their complete lack of concern for the conditions of the British economy and its workers.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
THERE IS AN ANTARCTIC POLE TOO
The Meteorological Office, and yes that's the same Meteorological Office who predicted a BBQ summer and a warm winter last year, are reporting on their website that ice melt at the arctic can partially be attributed to man-made climate change. The report examines the panic that was engineered by the dramatic decrease in arctic sea ice in 2007, and now attributes that dramatic increase to extreme weather.
[source : The decline in Arctic summer sea ice, The Meteorological Office 15/10/2009]
As with the failed predictions we have been given over the last year, were such extreme weather conditions predicted? If not, why not? I suspect that if they had been predicted correctly that we would have heard about it, before and after.
But I would like to remind the Met Office that we also have the Antarctic pole too.
And sea ice at the Antarctic has increased.
Without the 2007 drama then over the last few decades sea ice levels at the poles would have been pretty much balanced, with a net effect of ice transferred from the Arctic to the Antarctic (though obviously the ice would not have travelled physically from one pole to the other).
Check out the graphs at the bottom of the page at
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
(and remember the freak of 2007)
So I say, like I would to the EU about us not killing little old granny off fast enough to pay for the bank bailout; don't panic!
They said we were entering a man-made ice age. A few years later they said we were causing global warming.
They said last winter would be warm.
They said last summer would be a barbecue summer.
And now they say that an event in the Arctic in 2007 which led to a dramatic increase in sea ice which was initially attributed to man was in fact due to freak weather (which was not predicted).
We can predict weather and thus climate to a significant accuracy just days ahead.
Not weeks.
Not months.
Not years.
Not decades.
Despite all the computing power and the rinky dinky mathematical models and numerical methods we have (in the public domain anyway, the military may have more accurate methods), we can only predict the weather to any degree of accuracy just one or two days ahead.
And if you don't believe me check out the Met Office predictions today for next Thursday, and not just for your area but for the whole of the UK, and you'll see what I mean.
I really wish the Met Office could be more accurate (and I would be very interested in applying the CFD methods I am researching on the computers I am using to predicting weather) but unfortunately it is not. Occassionally they get it right 3 or 4 days ahead but that is only becuse there is a large slow moving high pressure system bringing clear conditions.
[source : The decline in Arctic summer sea ice, The Meteorological Office 15/10/2009]
As with the failed predictions we have been given over the last year, were such extreme weather conditions predicted? If not, why not? I suspect that if they had been predicted correctly that we would have heard about it, before and after.
But I would like to remind the Met Office that we also have the Antarctic pole too.
And sea ice at the Antarctic has increased.
Without the 2007 drama then over the last few decades sea ice levels at the poles would have been pretty much balanced, with a net effect of ice transferred from the Arctic to the Antarctic (though obviously the ice would not have travelled physically from one pole to the other).
Check out the graphs at the bottom of the page at
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
(and remember the freak of 2007)
So I say, like I would to the EU about us not killing little old granny off fast enough to pay for the bank bailout; don't panic!
They said we were entering a man-made ice age. A few years later they said we were causing global warming.
They said last winter would be warm.
They said last summer would be a barbecue summer.
And now they say that an event in the Arctic in 2007 which led to a dramatic increase in sea ice which was initially attributed to man was in fact due to freak weather (which was not predicted).
We can predict weather and thus climate to a significant accuracy just days ahead.
Not weeks.
Not months.
Not years.
Not decades.
Despite all the computing power and the rinky dinky mathematical models and numerical methods we have (in the public domain anyway, the military may have more accurate methods), we can only predict the weather to any degree of accuracy just one or two days ahead.
And if you don't believe me check out the Met Office predictions today for next Thursday, and not just for your area but for the whole of the UK, and you'll see what I mean.
I really wish the Met Office could be more accurate (and I would be very interested in applying the CFD methods I am researching on the computers I am using to predicting weather) but unfortunately it is not. Occassionally they get it right 3 or 4 days ahead but that is only becuse there is a large slow moving high pressure system bringing clear conditions.
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL POSTMAN
Lord Peter Mandelson, playmate of the Rothschilds, has been involved in the negotiations between Royal Mail and the CWU. The CWU has today gone on strike, even after months of talks between the two parties. The CWU blames Mandelson for interfering with an agreement reached yesterday. The financial crisis would not have happened without a nod from the Rothschilds, so one wonders if Mandelson concurred with the plan to wreck the global economy too.
The Post Office has been almost decimated this decade. Many Post Offices have been closed. Collections and deliveries have been significantly reduced. You now have to pay premium to get a guaranteed delivery next day!
I strongly suspect the idea is to reduce postal deliveries to the minimum, i.e. parcels only, so that all written communication is by email which is far easier to intercept and spy on than postal communications. It could be that smashing the Post Office is a step towards this.
As for the postmen, the government has not paid anything into their pension for years, taking advantage of pension holidays, yet the senior managers have been awarded tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses (sound familiar?).
Support your local Postman. They are striking not only to stop bullying at work, reductions in pensions but to stop cuts in services.
And if you're thinking, "well, that's the way of the world these days", as some callers into BBC Radio 5 Live have done this morning, ask yourself this : Why is it the way of the world these days? It's because of Mandy's mates in Europe and in the financial centres. Mandelson is Europe, he left a top job in the EU to take control of the government, and Mandelson is also playmates with the richest bankers in the world, the Rothschilds. Thanks to the likes of the Rothschilds we will all be paying for the bank bailout for a generation, by killing little old granny, paying more tax and suffering massive cuts in public services.
So when Mandelson, who wants to privatise parts of the Royal Mail to pay for the bank bailout, interferes with an agreement that would have avoided a strike then I fully support the postmen.
You have to understand who Mandelson is, what he represents and why he is what is he is; the de facto Prime Minister of Great Britain.
The Post Office has been almost decimated this decade. Many Post Offices have been closed. Collections and deliveries have been significantly reduced. You now have to pay premium to get a guaranteed delivery next day!
I strongly suspect the idea is to reduce postal deliveries to the minimum, i.e. parcels only, so that all written communication is by email which is far easier to intercept and spy on than postal communications. It could be that smashing the Post Office is a step towards this.
As for the postmen, the government has not paid anything into their pension for years, taking advantage of pension holidays, yet the senior managers have been awarded tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses (sound familiar?).
Support your local Postman. They are striking not only to stop bullying at work, reductions in pensions but to stop cuts in services.
And if you're thinking, "well, that's the way of the world these days", as some callers into BBC Radio 5 Live have done this morning, ask yourself this : Why is it the way of the world these days? It's because of Mandy's mates in Europe and in the financial centres. Mandelson is Europe, he left a top job in the EU to take control of the government, and Mandelson is also playmates with the richest bankers in the world, the Rothschilds. Thanks to the likes of the Rothschilds we will all be paying for the bank bailout for a generation, by killing little old granny, paying more tax and suffering massive cuts in public services.
So when Mandelson, who wants to privatise parts of the Royal Mail to pay for the bank bailout, interferes with an agreement that would have avoided a strike then I fully support the postmen.
You have to understand who Mandelson is, what he represents and why he is what is he is; the de facto Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
THE FRAUD ACT 2006 SECTION 4 FRAUD BY ABUSE OF POSITION
For those who are unaware of the Fraud Act 2006 Section 4, here it is in all its legal glory.
The private banks, the banks who have indulged themselves in reckless gambling, create our money. Only during special occasions does The Bank of England create money, as in this latest QE.
The private banks create money for loans, to businesses and the general public, and for mortgages, so that the general public can buy their own homes.
Surely it is in their best interest to finance a growing and stable economy.
Apparently not.
Apparently it is in their best interest to inflate a massive credit bubble based on a housing market that was encouraged to rapidly grow by the plethora of home-improvement programmes on TV (and yes, thats's the same TV that told us Iraq had WMD aimed at your back garden barbecue).
So waking up every morning to a mountain of letters offering us thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds in loans and mortgages at low introductory rates we fell for it, hook line and sinker. Why? Because we the British general public have a suicidal trust in our institutions.
So when that bubble predictably burst they came running to us, crying crocodile tears, claiming remorse and that it will never happen again if we, the muggins British public, bail them out.
But it looks like it's business as usual.
As Mervyn King highlighted last night, there are billions in bonuses for little reform.
We trust that because our fathers and grandfathers fought and won two world wars against nun-raping Germans that we wouldn't be lied to, we would always be told the truth and we would be shown some respect.
We trust that having sent 'our boys' into war again, this time againstCIA-financed Islamic terrorists the Taliban or al-Qaeda or whoever it is this time that we wouldn't be taken advantage of.
Not so.
You are, always have been and always be simply cattle.
Cattle to be microchipped, terrified into actions by terrorists, and injected with all sorts of crap, to be finally led to the slaughterhouse of the hospital to be executed via the Liverpool Care Pathway to save on pensions or sent into war to enrich your mocking masters.
These are the simple and brutal facts.
The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 offers one argument that could rid off this scum.
But there are also others such as the FSMA 2000 which when applied within the framework provided by the Law of Unjust Enrichment make a solid wooden stake to drive directly into the hearts of the bloodsucking vampires.
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.
The private banks, the banks who have indulged themselves in reckless gambling, create our money. Only during special occasions does The Bank of England create money, as in this latest QE.
The private banks create money for loans, to businesses and the general public, and for mortgages, so that the general public can buy their own homes.
Surely it is in their best interest to finance a growing and stable economy.
Apparently not.
Apparently it is in their best interest to inflate a massive credit bubble based on a housing market that was encouraged to rapidly grow by the plethora of home-improvement programmes on TV (and yes, thats's the same TV that told us Iraq had WMD aimed at your back garden barbecue).
So waking up every morning to a mountain of letters offering us thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds in loans and mortgages at low introductory rates we fell for it, hook line and sinker. Why? Because we the British general public have a suicidal trust in our institutions.
So when that bubble predictably burst they came running to us, crying crocodile tears, claiming remorse and that it will never happen again if we, the muggins British public, bail them out.
But it looks like it's business as usual.
As Mervyn King highlighted last night, there are billions in bonuses for little reform.
We trust that because our fathers and grandfathers fought and won two world wars against nun-raping Germans that we wouldn't be lied to, we would always be told the truth and we would be shown some respect.
We trust that having sent 'our boys' into war again, this time against
Not so.
You are, always have been and always be simply cattle.
Cattle to be microchipped, terrified into actions by terrorists, and injected with all sorts of crap, to be finally led to the slaughterhouse of the hospital to be executed via the Liverpool Care Pathway to save on pensions or sent into war to enrich your mocking masters.
These are the simple and brutal facts.
The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 offers one argument that could rid off this scum.
But there are also others such as the FSMA 2000 which when applied within the framework provided by the Law of Unjust Enrichment make a solid wooden stake to drive directly into the hearts of the bloodsucking vampires.
WHAT IS MARTIN WOLF SAYING TODAY?
At first Bilderberger Martin Wolf's comment in the FT today appears to be possibly sympathetic to the plight that faces most of humanity.
The banks were naughty. They gambled etc etc etc.
But then he writes this gem.
[source : How to manage the gigantic financial cuckoo in our nest, FT 21/10/2009]
Wolf says that we mustn't impose a windfall tax despite billions being paid in bonuses.
He ends with this peculiar paragraph, for this is where his apparent sympathy shows.
Wolf then supplies four graphs that show the winners and losers of the crisis.
For the US Market Value chart at the start of 2007 J P Morgan Chase was third largest in market value, nearly half the values of Citi and Bank of America. But now J P Morgan Chase is top dog with Citi and BoA saddled with tens of billions of TARP bailouts while JPMC, having bought several competitors, has repaid its bailout.
For US Investment banks Goldman Sachs was just about top but now the competition is nowhere to be seen.
And for European banks the main beneficiary has been Banco Santander.
These three, J P Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Banco Santander, have regular attendees at Bilderberg. The others do not, though Citi has had a couple over the years, but nowhere near as much as the other three main beneficiaries.
And Martin Wolf himself is a regular too.
Yet Wolf fails to suggest that maybe, just maybe, something was planned at Bilderberg involving top people from JPMC, GS and BS.
Bilderberg offers the ideal opportunity to plan a conspiracy. Very powerful people meet behind closed doors for a few days and discuss problems in secrecy.
Whether Citi has been deliberately brought down to benefit JPMC or not by a Bilderberg insider implementing damaging policies is up for debate. The simple and brutal facts are this;
1. JPMC is run by one of the most evil men on the planet, who also runs Bilderberg.
2. Bilderbergers occupying key positions in US finance have willingly agreed to bail out some special banks like JPMC, but let others sink or be purchased with funny money.
3. Banks run by regular Bilderbergers have done rather well (see first quote from Wolf above).
(i) JPMC run by David Rockefeller (Bilderberg steering committee)
(ii) Goldman Sachs run by Peter Sutherland (Bilderberg steering committee)
(iii) Deutsche Bank run by Josef Ackermann (Bilderberg steering committee)
(iv) Banco Santander run by MatÃas Rodriguez Inciarte
They've all done rather well, thank you very much.
And I think I know why...
The banks were naughty. They gambled etc etc etc.
But then he writes this gem.
This recovery has been no accident. When central bank money is almost free, prices of risky assets are recovering and competitors have disappeared or are weakened, making money is a relatively simple matter for the strong survivors.
[source : How to manage the gigantic financial cuckoo in our nest, FT 21/10/2009]
Wolf says that we mustn't impose a windfall tax despite billions being paid in bonuses.
He ends with this peculiar paragraph, for this is where his apparent sympathy shows.
Either we impose a credible threat of bankruptcy, or institutions we have to support are made safer, or, better, we have both of these. Open-ended insurance of weakly regulated institutions that take complex gambles is intolerable. We dare not return to business as usual. It is as simple – and brutal – as that.
Wolf then supplies four graphs that show the winners and losers of the crisis.
For the US Market Value chart at the start of 2007 J P Morgan Chase was third largest in market value, nearly half the values of Citi and Bank of America. But now J P Morgan Chase is top dog with Citi and BoA saddled with tens of billions of TARP bailouts while JPMC, having bought several competitors, has repaid its bailout.
For US Investment banks Goldman Sachs was just about top but now the competition is nowhere to be seen.
And for European banks the main beneficiary has been Banco Santander.
These three, J P Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Banco Santander, have regular attendees at Bilderberg. The others do not, though Citi has had a couple over the years, but nowhere near as much as the other three main beneficiaries.
And Martin Wolf himself is a regular too.
Yet Wolf fails to suggest that maybe, just maybe, something was planned at Bilderberg involving top people from JPMC, GS and BS.
Bilderberg offers the ideal opportunity to plan a conspiracy. Very powerful people meet behind closed doors for a few days and discuss problems in secrecy.
Whether Citi has been deliberately brought down to benefit JPMC or not by a Bilderberg insider implementing damaging policies is up for debate. The simple and brutal facts are this;
1. JPMC is run by one of the most evil men on the planet, who also runs Bilderberg.
2. Bilderbergers occupying key positions in US finance have willingly agreed to bail out some special banks like JPMC, but let others sink or be purchased with funny money.
3. Banks run by regular Bilderbergers have done rather well (see first quote from Wolf above).
(i) JPMC run by David Rockefeller (Bilderberg steering committee)
(ii) Goldman Sachs run by Peter Sutherland (Bilderberg steering committee)
(iii) Deutsche Bank run by Josef Ackermann (Bilderberg steering committee)
(iv) Banco Santander run by MatÃas Rodriguez Inciarte
They've all done rather well, thank you very much.
And I think I know why...
ONE TRILLION POUND BAILOUT LEADS TO SEVEN PENCE INCREASE IN BASIC TAX
If ever there was a crystal clear violation of the Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 Fraud By Abuse of Position this has to be it.
Not only have many businesses gone under, jobs lost and innocent hardworking families been made homeless, with more to come.
Not only will public services be slashed.
Not only will little old granny be secretly and silently murdered at the first sign of illness.
But the basic rate of tax is expected to rise by seven pence to 27p in the pound.
And all to pay for the one trillion pound bailout that Bailout Brown gave the banks after he encouraged and permitted their reckless greed and gambling to occur throughout the noughties.
I was up late last night, and of the five terrestrial channels two were showing gambling; one was based on roullette and the other was showing poker.
I have never liked gambling. Never.
So when someone like Mervyn King makes a strong attack on the UK banking system as he did last night in Edinburgh I feel some encouragement that maybe, just maybe, something will get done, that the whole fraudulent system will be ripped up and replaced by a system that serves the British public and not the warmongering murdering parasites who have used the system to engineer at least two world wars for their benefit.
But perhaps King is scared, scared for his life.
For while he attended Bilderberg in 2003 he may well have heard the first mutterings of how the whole scam was going to play out, and upon returning to London he may have quietly investigated the banks and corporations that his new Bilderberg buddies ran; the J P Morgan Chase, the Goldman Sachs etc
He may have done, but it doesn't look like it.
And now King, now fast approaching old age, an age when illness can strike very quickly, is showing some concern. Concern that the Liverpool Care Pathway can strike anyone, anywhere so that the state doesn't have to pay his pension.
Just like for little old granny, who like most of us will now have to work to 70 years old and if she survives may retire on a slashed pension and at the first sign of illness be placed on the Liverpool Care Pathway.
So read up on The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4.
We have been well and truly fcukt.
Not only have many businesses gone under, jobs lost and innocent hardworking families been made homeless, with more to come.
Not only will public services be slashed.
Not only will little old granny be secretly and silently murdered at the first sign of illness.
But the basic rate of tax is expected to rise by seven pence to 27p in the pound.
And all to pay for the one trillion pound bailout that Bailout Brown gave the banks after he encouraged and permitted their reckless greed and gambling to occur throughout the noughties.
I was up late last night, and of the five terrestrial channels two were showing gambling; one was based on roullette and the other was showing poker.
I have never liked gambling. Never.
So when someone like Mervyn King makes a strong attack on the UK banking system as he did last night in Edinburgh I feel some encouragement that maybe, just maybe, something will get done, that the whole fraudulent system will be ripped up and replaced by a system that serves the British public and not the warmongering murdering parasites who have used the system to engineer at least two world wars for their benefit.
But perhaps King is scared, scared for his life.
For while he attended Bilderberg in 2003 he may well have heard the first mutterings of how the whole scam was going to play out, and upon returning to London he may have quietly investigated the banks and corporations that his new Bilderberg buddies ran; the J P Morgan Chase, the Goldman Sachs etc
He may have done, but it doesn't look like it.
And now King, now fast approaching old age, an age when illness can strike very quickly, is showing some concern. Concern that the Liverpool Care Pathway can strike anyone, anywhere so that the state doesn't have to pay his pension.
Just like for little old granny, who like most of us will now have to work to 70 years old and if she survives may retire on a slashed pension and at the first sign of illness be placed on the Liverpool Care Pathway.
So read up on The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4.
We have been well and truly fcukt.
Monday, October 19, 2009
BP GETS RAMAILA
Well, we went into Iraq in 2003 looking for WMD and found large underdeveloped oil fields instead! Weren't we very, very, very lucky!
And by 'we' I mean Bilderberg.
That's what the B in BP stands for; Bilderberg.
Not British.
Not Bastard.
Not Bloody.
B is for Bilderberg.
The Chairman of BP is Peter Sutherland, who has occupied that position since 1997.
And yes, that's the same Peter Sutherland who has been in charge of Goldman Sachs and Royal Bank of Scotland while the current financial crisis was planned and executed leading to the secret silent executions of many pensioners as governments try to pay for the subsequent bailouts of their banks by killing little old granny.
================================================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bp-set-for-iraqi-oil-licence-as-cabinet-approves-deal-1805329.html
BP set for Iraqi oil licence as cabinet approves deal
Group will share rights over 17bn barrel Rumaila field with China's state-owned CNPC
By Alistair Dawber
Monday, 19 October 2009
Iraq's cabinet has approved a deal with BP to develop the huge Rumaila oil field in the country's first international energy deal since the American-led invasion in 2003.
The agreement, which was brokered in June during the first round of tendering for licences to exploit Iraq's enormous and largely untapped hydrocarbon resources, should also send "a strong signal" to other energy groups that the Iraqi administration is keen to secure deals.
And by 'we' I mean Bilderberg.
That's what the B in BP stands for; Bilderberg.
Not British.
Not Bastard.
Not Bloody.
B is for Bilderberg.
The Chairman of BP is Peter Sutherland, who has occupied that position since 1997.
And yes, that's the same Peter Sutherland who has been in charge of Goldman Sachs and Royal Bank of Scotland while the current financial crisis was planned and executed leading to the secret silent executions of many pensioners as governments try to pay for the subsequent bailouts of their banks by killing little old granny.
================================================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bp-set-for-iraqi-oil-licence-as-cabinet-approves-deal-1805329.html
BP set for Iraqi oil licence as cabinet approves deal
Group will share rights over 17bn barrel Rumaila field with China's state-owned CNPC
By Alistair Dawber
Monday, 19 October 2009
Iraq's cabinet has approved a deal with BP to develop the huge Rumaila oil field in the country's first international energy deal since the American-led invasion in 2003.
The agreement, which was brokered in June during the first round of tendering for licences to exploit Iraq's enormous and largely untapped hydrocarbon resources, should also send "a strong signal" to other energy groups that the Iraqi administration is keen to secure deals.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
TIMING
It's all about timing.
Just as the main beneficiaries of the financial crisis, J P Morgan Chase (boo, hiss, get off) and Goldman Sachs (boo, hiss, get off), report massive profits and thus subsequent bonuses, the 'independent' investigator into MPs expenses is telling our corrupt MPs to repay thousands each.
That some of the MPs are being asked to return expenses that they never claimed for, and in one case being allowed to keep one hundred thousand pounds after simply saying sorry, indicates to me that the investigation and the investigator were bogus.
And this would explain the timing of the release of his requests for repayment.
Just as the main beneficiaries of the financial crisis, J P Morgan Chase (boo, hiss, get off) and Goldman Sachs (boo, hiss, get off), report massive profits and thus subsequent bonuses, the 'independent' investigator into MPs expenses is telling our corrupt MPs to repay thousands each.
That some of the MPs are being asked to return expenses that they never claimed for, and in one case being allowed to keep one hundred thousand pounds after simply saying sorry, indicates to me that the investigation and the investigator were bogus.
And this would explain the timing of the release of his requests for repayment.
WE ARE NOT KILLING ENOUGH LITTLE OLD GRANNIES
The European Commission is warning that if Great Britain doesn't kill more grannies and grandads then we may go bust!
My message to the EC is this;
Don't worry! The robbing murdering bastards who planned the financial crisis in the late 1990s and during the noughties at Bilderberg foresaw your concern and introduced the Liverpool Care Pathway into the NHS and it will soon be saving on pensions and treatment to pay for the bailouts of the rip-off banks.
=====================================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220508/Britain-danger-going-bust-warns-EU.html
Britain is in danger of going bust, warns EU
By James Chapman
Last updated at 8:27 AM on 15th October 2009
Britian's economy was consigned to a list of those at 'high risk' yesterday because of the spiralling national debt.
The European Commission issued a humiliating warning that the worsening budget deficit poses 'serious concerns' that the country will be unable to meet future spending commitments, such as pensions.
The growing number of elderly people threatens to make debt unsustainable and has led to the UK economy being ranked alongside nations such as Latvia, Greece and Romania.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220508/Britain-danger-going-bust-warns-EU.html#ixzz0U0Upi69T
My message to the EC is this;
Don't worry! The robbing murdering bastards who planned the financial crisis in the late 1990s and during the noughties at Bilderberg foresaw your concern and introduced the Liverpool Care Pathway into the NHS and it will soon be saving on pensions and treatment to pay for the bailouts of the rip-off banks.
=====================================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220508/Britain-danger-going-bust-warns-EU.html
Britain is in danger of going bust, warns EU
By James Chapman
Last updated at 8:27 AM on 15th October 2009
Britian's economy was consigned to a list of those at 'high risk' yesterday because of the spiralling national debt.
The European Commission issued a humiliating warning that the worsening budget deficit poses 'serious concerns' that the country will be unable to meet future spending commitments, such as pensions.
The growing number of elderly people threatens to make debt unsustainable and has led to the UK economy being ranked alongside nations such as Latvia, Greece and Romania.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220508/Britain-danger-going-bust-warns-EU.html#ixzz0U0Upi69T
THE BOGUS GREEN AGENDA
The Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to stop two climate protestors from attending a Climate Justice Action conference in Denmark.
When will the green movement get it?
The green agenda is simple.
It is proposed simply as a means to introduce global taxation and laws that intrude into every tiny aspect of our lives.
You are supposed to be so terrified of climate change that you cede your sovereignty and brain to the global government and let them do anything they believe is necessary to 'save the planet', and that includes euthanasia and genocide.
You are not supposed to be active and protest and demand the implementation of policies that will restrict the economic development of the most powerful countries.
Get it?
======================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/terror-act-used-on-climate-activist-1803054.html
Terror Act used on climate activist
By Beverley Rouse, Press Association
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Terror legislation was used to stop a British climate change activist from travelling to Denmark, it has emerged.
Chris Kitchen, 31, said he was prevented from crossing the border on Tuesday at about 5pm when the coach he was travelling on stopped at the Folkestone terminal of the Channel Tunnel.
Mr Kitchen told the Guardian that police officers boarded the coach and, after checking all passengers' passports, took him and another climate activist to be interviewed under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a clause which enables border officials to stop and search individuals to determine if they are connected to terrorism.
He was asked what he intended to do in Copenhagen and also about his family, work and past political activity.
Mr Kitchen said he pointed out that anti-terrorist legislation did not apply to environmental activists but said the officer replied that terrorism "could mean a lot of things".
His coach had left by the time his 30-minute interview had finished and police paid for a ticket for him to return to London.
Mr Kitchen said he believed the officials knew his name and had planned to remove him before they boarded the coach as passports were not initially scanned.
"The use of anti-terrorist legislation like this is another example of political policing, of the government harassing and intimidating people practising their hard earned democratic rights," he told the Guardian.
"We are going to Copenhagen to take part in Climate Justice Action because we want to protest against false solutions like carbon trading and to build a global movement for effective, socially just solutions.
"People who are practising civil disobedience on climate change in the face of ineffectual government action are certainly not terrorists, and I am sure that their actions will be vindicated by history."
Mr Kitchen said he would make a second attempt last night to get to Denmark.
Once there, he plans to take part in discussions organised by a network of protest groups coming together under the banner Climate Justice Action in the run-up to the United Nations summit.
Friends of the Earth's head of climate Mike Childs said: "It's outrageous to stop someone from travelling to Copenhagen to protest on climate change.
"Climate change is a global crisis that will have catastrophic consequences unless world leaders take drastic action to tackle it, so it's not surprising people want their voices to be heard.
"The police should be supporting people's right to protest peacefully.
"One of the most effective ways to campaign is to unite as many voices as possible at the same time and this is exactly what Friends of the Earth will be doing in Copenhagen in the coming weeks."
A Home Office spokesman said: "There has been no change in policy.
"Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 enables an examining officer to stop, search and examine a person at a port or in a border area to determine whether they are someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
"The exercise of the powers by the police is an operational matter for each force."
When will the green movement get it?
The green agenda is simple.
It is proposed simply as a means to introduce global taxation and laws that intrude into every tiny aspect of our lives.
You are supposed to be so terrified of climate change that you cede your sovereignty and brain to the global government and let them do anything they believe is necessary to 'save the planet', and that includes euthanasia and genocide.
You are not supposed to be active and protest and demand the implementation of policies that will restrict the economic development of the most powerful countries.
Get it?
======================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/terror-act-used-on-climate-activist-1803054.html
Terror Act used on climate activist
By Beverley Rouse, Press Association
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Terror legislation was used to stop a British climate change activist from travelling to Denmark, it has emerged.
Chris Kitchen, 31, said he was prevented from crossing the border on Tuesday at about 5pm when the coach he was travelling on stopped at the Folkestone terminal of the Channel Tunnel.
Mr Kitchen told the Guardian that police officers boarded the coach and, after checking all passengers' passports, took him and another climate activist to be interviewed under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a clause which enables border officials to stop and search individuals to determine if they are connected to terrorism.
He was asked what he intended to do in Copenhagen and also about his family, work and past political activity.
Mr Kitchen said he pointed out that anti-terrorist legislation did not apply to environmental activists but said the officer replied that terrorism "could mean a lot of things".
His coach had left by the time his 30-minute interview had finished and police paid for a ticket for him to return to London.
Mr Kitchen said he believed the officials knew his name and had planned to remove him before they boarded the coach as passports were not initially scanned.
"The use of anti-terrorist legislation like this is another example of political policing, of the government harassing and intimidating people practising their hard earned democratic rights," he told the Guardian.
"We are going to Copenhagen to take part in Climate Justice Action because we want to protest against false solutions like carbon trading and to build a global movement for effective, socially just solutions.
"People who are practising civil disobedience on climate change in the face of ineffectual government action are certainly not terrorists, and I am sure that their actions will be vindicated by history."
Mr Kitchen said he would make a second attempt last night to get to Denmark.
Once there, he plans to take part in discussions organised by a network of protest groups coming together under the banner Climate Justice Action in the run-up to the United Nations summit.
Friends of the Earth's head of climate Mike Childs said: "It's outrageous to stop someone from travelling to Copenhagen to protest on climate change.
"Climate change is a global crisis that will have catastrophic consequences unless world leaders take drastic action to tackle it, so it's not surprising people want their voices to be heard.
"The police should be supporting people's right to protest peacefully.
"One of the most effective ways to campaign is to unite as many voices as possible at the same time and this is exactly what Friends of the Earth will be doing in Copenhagen in the coming weeks."
A Home Office spokesman said: "There has been no change in policy.
"Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 enables an examining officer to stop, search and examine a person at a port or in a border area to determine whether they are someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
"The exercise of the powers by the police is an operational matter for each force."
THE NAME'S MUSSOLINI. BENITO MUSSOLINI.
Well, well.
So Mussolini was paid by the British Secret Services to 'encourage' support for WW1 in Italy.
That Mussolini was later given massive a loan by J P Morgan (that name again) of $100 million in 1925 to save his government is of no relevance?
And that Mussolini then joined forces with another Illuminati gimp called Adolf Hitler, who was also bailed out and assisted into government by Wall Street and the City of London, is of no relevance?
Of course these facts are of relevance.
They are of great relevance.
They support the thesis that both Fascism and Communism were created to engineer a world war more devastating than WW1 because WW1 had failed to create a world government controlled by the victors because the USA had voted to stay out of the League of Nations and would thus starve the League of Nations of its finance from the Federal Reserve.
Mussolini later became a strange decoration after he was executed by an angry mob (see below).
So beware! The British Secret Services will use you against your own people for their evil purpose of global tyrannical dictatorship and then not send in the cavalry to save you when you most need it.
======================================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy
Recruited by MI5: the name's Mussolini. Benito Mussolini
Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of £100 weekly wage from MI5
History remembers Benito Mussolini as a founder member of the original Axis of Evil, the Italian dictator who ruled his country with fear and forged a disastrous alliance with Nazi Germany. But a previously unknown area of Il Duce's CV has come to light: his brief career as a British agent.
Archived documents have revealed that Mussolini got his start in politics in 1917 with the help of a £100 weekly wage from MI5.
For the British intelligence agency, it must have seemed like a good investment. Mussolini, then a 34-year-old journalist, was not just willing to ensure Italy continued to fight alongside the allies in the first world war by publishing propaganda in his paper. He was also willing to send in the boys to "persuade'' peace protesters to stay at home.
Mussolini's payments were authorised by Sir Samuel Hoare, an MP and MI5's man in Rome, who ran a staff of 100 British intelligence officers in Italy at the time.
Cambridge historian Peter Martland, who discovered details of the deal struck with the future dictator, said: "Britain's least reliable ally in the war at the time was Italy after revolutionary Russia's pullout from the conflict. Mussolini was paid £100 a week from the autumn of 1917 for at least a year to keep up the pro-war campaigning – equivalent to about £6,000 a week today."
Hoare, later to become Lord Templewood, mentioned the recruitment in memoirs in 1954, but Martland stumbled on details of the payments for the first time while scouring Hoare's papers.
As well as keeping the presses rolling at Il Popolo d'Italia, the newspaper he edited, Mussolini also told Hoare he would send Italian army veterans to beat up peace protesters in Milan, a dry run for his fascist blackshirt units.
"The last thing Britain wanted were pro-peace strikes bringing the factories in Milan to a halt. It was a lot of money to pay a man who was a journalist at the time, but compared to the £4m Britain was spending on the war every day, it was petty cash," said Martland.
"I have no evidence to prove it, but I suspect that Mussolini, who was a noted womaniser, also spent a good deal of the money on his mistresses."
After the armistice, Mussolini began his rise to power, assisted by electoral fraud and blackshirt violence, establishing a fascist dictorship by the mid-1920s.
His colonial ambitions in Africa brought him into contact with his old paymaster again in 1935. Now the British foreign secretary, Hoare signed the Hoare-Laval pact, which gave Italy control over Abyssinia.
"There is no reason to believe the two men were friends, although Hoare did have an enduring love affair with Italy," said Martland, whose research is included in Christopher Andrew's history of MI5, Defence of the Realm, which was published last week.
The unpopularity of the Hoare-Laval pact in Britain forced Hoare to resign. Mussolini, meanwhile, built on his new colonial clout to ally with Hitler, entering the second world war in 1940, this time to fight against the allies.
Deposed following the allied invasion of Italy in 1943, Mussolini was killed with his mistress, Clara Petacci, by Italian partisans while fleeing Italy in an attempt to reach Switzerland two years later.
Martland said: "Mussolini ended his life hung upside down in Milan, but history has not been kind to Hoare either, condemned as an appeaser of fascism alongside Neville Chamberlain."
So Mussolini was paid by the British Secret Services to 'encourage' support for WW1 in Italy.
That Mussolini was later given massive a loan by J P Morgan (that name again) of $100 million in 1925 to save his government is of no relevance?
And that Mussolini then joined forces with another Illuminati gimp called Adolf Hitler, who was also bailed out and assisted into government by Wall Street and the City of London, is of no relevance?
Of course these facts are of relevance.
They are of great relevance.
They support the thesis that both Fascism and Communism were created to engineer a world war more devastating than WW1 because WW1 had failed to create a world government controlled by the victors because the USA had voted to stay out of the League of Nations and would thus starve the League of Nations of its finance from the Federal Reserve.
Mussolini later became a strange decoration after he was executed by an angry mob (see below).
So beware! The British Secret Services will use you against your own people for their evil purpose of global tyrannical dictatorship and then not send in the cavalry to save you when you most need it.
======================================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy
Recruited by MI5: the name's Mussolini. Benito Mussolini
Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of £100 weekly wage from MI5
History remembers Benito Mussolini as a founder member of the original Axis of Evil, the Italian dictator who ruled his country with fear and forged a disastrous alliance with Nazi Germany. But a previously unknown area of Il Duce's CV has come to light: his brief career as a British agent.
Archived documents have revealed that Mussolini got his start in politics in 1917 with the help of a £100 weekly wage from MI5.
For the British intelligence agency, it must have seemed like a good investment. Mussolini, then a 34-year-old journalist, was not just willing to ensure Italy continued to fight alongside the allies in the first world war by publishing propaganda in his paper. He was also willing to send in the boys to "persuade'' peace protesters to stay at home.
Mussolini's payments were authorised by Sir Samuel Hoare, an MP and MI5's man in Rome, who ran a staff of 100 British intelligence officers in Italy at the time.
Cambridge historian Peter Martland, who discovered details of the deal struck with the future dictator, said: "Britain's least reliable ally in the war at the time was Italy after revolutionary Russia's pullout from the conflict. Mussolini was paid £100 a week from the autumn of 1917 for at least a year to keep up the pro-war campaigning – equivalent to about £6,000 a week today."
Hoare, later to become Lord Templewood, mentioned the recruitment in memoirs in 1954, but Martland stumbled on details of the payments for the first time while scouring Hoare's papers.
As well as keeping the presses rolling at Il Popolo d'Italia, the newspaper he edited, Mussolini also told Hoare he would send Italian army veterans to beat up peace protesters in Milan, a dry run for his fascist blackshirt units.
"The last thing Britain wanted were pro-peace strikes bringing the factories in Milan to a halt. It was a lot of money to pay a man who was a journalist at the time, but compared to the £4m Britain was spending on the war every day, it was petty cash," said Martland.
"I have no evidence to prove it, but I suspect that Mussolini, who was a noted womaniser, also spent a good deal of the money on his mistresses."
After the armistice, Mussolini began his rise to power, assisted by electoral fraud and blackshirt violence, establishing a fascist dictorship by the mid-1920s.
His colonial ambitions in Africa brought him into contact with his old paymaster again in 1935. Now the British foreign secretary, Hoare signed the Hoare-Laval pact, which gave Italy control over Abyssinia.
"There is no reason to believe the two men were friends, although Hoare did have an enduring love affair with Italy," said Martland, whose research is included in Christopher Andrew's history of MI5, Defence of the Realm, which was published last week.
The unpopularity of the Hoare-Laval pact in Britain forced Hoare to resign. Mussolini, meanwhile, built on his new colonial clout to ally with Hitler, entering the second world war in 1940, this time to fight against the allies.
Deposed following the allied invasion of Italy in 1943, Mussolini was killed with his mistress, Clara Petacci, by Italian partisans while fleeing Italy in an attempt to reach Switzerland two years later.
Martland said: "Mussolini ended his life hung upside down in Milan, but history has not been kind to Hoare either, condemned as an appeaser of fascism alongside Neville Chamberlain."
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
J P MORGAN AGAIN
J P Morgan Chase reported thrid quarter profits that were almost twice as much as some predictions!
But when you analyse the performance of each sech sector, some very serious questions should be asked.
The investment banking branch of the bank did the best by far, with nearly $2 billion in profit, while the credit card branch lost $700 million and the retail branch barely broke even.
Investment banking is about predicting the future. It's about putting money into businesses that are going to make money.
So how did JPMC predict the future?
Perhaps that is the wrong question.
Perhaps the question should be, how did JPMC engineer the future?
The banks reporting massive profits in this crisis have two things in common;
1. they are investment banks, or have investment branches which produce the largest profits of each operation of that bank
2. they have very, very strong connections to Bilderberg
I am thinking of JPMC, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank.
Their senior advisors and managers all meet at Bilderberg and somehow always come out on top, no matter the situation.
So, how do they know what to invest in to produce such staggering and surprising profits? It is not just down to luck or intelligence. There is much more going on.
================================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/14/jp-morgan-beats-profit-forecast
JP Morgan smashes expectations with $3.6bn profit
• Wall Street bank made $3.6bn in the last quarter
• Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America results due
JP Morgan has kicked off the US bank reporting season by smashing profit expectations, making $3.6bn in the last quarter.
The Wall Street bank made net profits of $0.82 per share in the three months to 30 September. Analysts had predicted $0.49-$0.51 per share. The results are another sign that the banking sector is enjoying better times, just a year after having to be bailed out by massive government intervention on both sides of the Atlantic.
The prospect of Wall Street banks posting healthy profits again so soon after the financial crisis that claimed Lehman Brothers has already alarmed some experts, especially with Goldman Sachs – due to report tomorrow – setting aside a reported $22bn to pay its staff. City minister Lord Myners is meeting with 11 of the biggest banks today to urge restraint and demand that bonuses can be clawed back if appropriate.
Chief executive Jamie Dimon credited the strong profits to "broad-based growth" across JP Morgan's investment banking, asset management, commercial banking and retail banking operations. But he also warned that consumers are finding it increasingly hard to repay loans in the recession.
"While we are seeing some initial signs of consumer credit stability, we are not yet certain that this trend will continue," added Dimon – one banking executive whose reputation has not been crushed by the financial crisis.
JP Morgan had to set aside another $2bn to cover future losses on customers who cannot repay their loans. Provisions for credit card losses grew to $4.967bn, up from $4.6bn in the previous quarter and a large hike on the $2.229m put aside a year ago. Its retail banking arm made a bad-debt provision of almost $4bn to cover consumer loans that turn sour, up from $3.85bn three months ago.
The overall strong performance was partly due to a $400m "write-up" on the value of JP Morgan's legacy leveraged lending and mortgage-related assets. This is a reversal of the recent trend of banks slashing the value of these type of assets, and analysts suggested that rival banks could copy this move. Citigroup and Bank of America are also due to release third-quarter trading results later this week.
JP Morgan's investment banking arm made net profits of $1.92bn, while commercial banking made $341m. However, the large provisions against credit losses meant that retail banking made a net profit of just $7m, while the credit card arm lost $700m.
Shares in JP Morgan rose in pre-market trading. The results, which followed better-than-expected numbers from Intel overnight, sent the FTSE100 index soaring by over 100 points to a new intraday high for 2009 of 5261. The Dow Jones is also expected to gain over 100 points when trading begins.
JP Morgan received $25bn from the US Treasury in October 2008 as part of America's bailout of the banking sector, and was one of the most eager to repay the money as conditions improved this year.
But when you analyse the performance of each sech sector, some very serious questions should be asked.
The investment banking branch of the bank did the best by far, with nearly $2 billion in profit, while the credit card branch lost $700 million and the retail branch barely broke even.
Investment banking is about predicting the future. It's about putting money into businesses that are going to make money.
So how did JPMC predict the future?
Perhaps that is the wrong question.
Perhaps the question should be, how did JPMC engineer the future?
The banks reporting massive profits in this crisis have two things in common;
1. they are investment banks, or have investment branches which produce the largest profits of each operation of that bank
2. they have very, very strong connections to Bilderberg
I am thinking of JPMC, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank.
Their senior advisors and managers all meet at Bilderberg and somehow always come out on top, no matter the situation.
So, how do they know what to invest in to produce such staggering and surprising profits? It is not just down to luck or intelligence. There is much more going on.
================================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/14/jp-morgan-beats-profit-forecast
JP Morgan smashes expectations with $3.6bn profit
• Wall Street bank made $3.6bn in the last quarter
• Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America results due
JP Morgan has kicked off the US bank reporting season by smashing profit expectations, making $3.6bn in the last quarter.
The Wall Street bank made net profits of $0.82 per share in the three months to 30 September. Analysts had predicted $0.49-$0.51 per share. The results are another sign that the banking sector is enjoying better times, just a year after having to be bailed out by massive government intervention on both sides of the Atlantic.
The prospect of Wall Street banks posting healthy profits again so soon after the financial crisis that claimed Lehman Brothers has already alarmed some experts, especially with Goldman Sachs – due to report tomorrow – setting aside a reported $22bn to pay its staff. City minister Lord Myners is meeting with 11 of the biggest banks today to urge restraint and demand that bonuses can be clawed back if appropriate.
Chief executive Jamie Dimon credited the strong profits to "broad-based growth" across JP Morgan's investment banking, asset management, commercial banking and retail banking operations. But he also warned that consumers are finding it increasingly hard to repay loans in the recession.
"While we are seeing some initial signs of consumer credit stability, we are not yet certain that this trend will continue," added Dimon – one banking executive whose reputation has not been crushed by the financial crisis.
JP Morgan had to set aside another $2bn to cover future losses on customers who cannot repay their loans. Provisions for credit card losses grew to $4.967bn, up from $4.6bn in the previous quarter and a large hike on the $2.229m put aside a year ago. Its retail banking arm made a bad-debt provision of almost $4bn to cover consumer loans that turn sour, up from $3.85bn three months ago.
The overall strong performance was partly due to a $400m "write-up" on the value of JP Morgan's legacy leveraged lending and mortgage-related assets. This is a reversal of the recent trend of banks slashing the value of these type of assets, and analysts suggested that rival banks could copy this move. Citigroup and Bank of America are also due to release third-quarter trading results later this week.
JP Morgan's investment banking arm made net profits of $1.92bn, while commercial banking made $341m. However, the large provisions against credit losses meant that retail banking made a net profit of just $7m, while the credit card arm lost $700m.
Shares in JP Morgan rose in pre-market trading. The results, which followed better-than-expected numbers from Intel overnight, sent the FTSE100 index soaring by over 100 points to a new intraday high for 2009 of 5261. The Dow Jones is also expected to gain over 100 points when trading begins.
JP Morgan received $25bn from the US Treasury in October 2008 as part of America's bailout of the banking sector, and was one of the most eager to repay the money as conditions improved this year.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
THE CRISIS HAS BEEN GOOD TO J P MORGAN
Not my words, but the words of the Financial Times.
[source : Guard of the fortress, FT 13/10/2009]
For an explanation as to how and why this happened please read my letter to the FSA which I published a few weeks ago.
It is all a scam.
The whole thing is a scam, from the source of our money to the derivatives that caused the collapse; A SCAM, PURE AND SIMPLE!
And it can best be summed up in one word; BILDERBERG.
The crisis has been good to JPMorgan. As one rival after another collapsed (Lehman Brothers) or stumbled into the arms of governments (Citigroup, BofA, UBS), JPMorgan emerged as a formidable force. Sifting through the rubble of the financial earthquake, Mr Dimon filled in gaps in an international financial conglomerate that spans complex derivatives and saving accounts. In two opportunistic moves last year, it bought Bear Stearns, the investment bank, and Washington Mutual, the regional lender, through cheap government-assisted deals.
[source : Guard of the fortress, FT 13/10/2009]
For an explanation as to how and why this happened please read my letter to the FSA which I published a few weeks ago.
It is all a scam.
The whole thing is a scam, from the source of our money to the derivatives that caused the collapse; A SCAM, PURE AND SIMPLE!
And it can best be summed up in one word; BILDERBERG.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
DAVID MILIBAND WANTED WAR WITH RUSSIA
Now that Blair is apparently losing support for his bid to become President of the EU we are allegedly proposing little boy David Miliband as EU Foreign Minister, so that Great Britain, of the 27 states who may well ratify the Lisbon Treaty, occupy at least one of the two power positions.
Lest we forget, Miliband was threatening war against Russia last year for invading South Ossetia.
That's about the level of his diplomatic skills.
When Israel bombed Gaza at the New Year and slaughtered thousands, including many innocent women and children, little boy David, like Nobel Peace Prize winner Obomber, did sweet FA.
And when Russia invaded South Ossetia to stop an attack by Georgia, who were shelling civilians in their beds, little boy David wanted us to go to war against Russia.
The boy is a plonker!
And he, like proven warmonger The Butcher of Baghdad Blair, must not be allowed anywhere near the power positions of the EU, assuming the Czech Republic ratifies the Lisbon Treaty and Eton/Oxford/Bullingdon Cameron, like Bailout Brown despite his promise, doesn't give us a referendum.
Lest we forget, Miliband was threatening war against Russia last year for invading South Ossetia.
That's about the level of his diplomatic skills.
When Israel bombed Gaza at the New Year and slaughtered thousands, including many innocent women and children, little boy David, like Nobel Peace Prize winner Obomber, did sweet FA.
And when Russia invaded South Ossetia to stop an attack by Georgia, who were shelling civilians in their beds, little boy David wanted us to go to war against Russia.
The boy is a plonker!
And he, like proven warmonger The Butcher of Baghdad Blair, must not be allowed anywhere near the power positions of the EU, assuming the Czech Republic ratifies the Lisbon Treaty and Eton/Oxford/Bullingdon Cameron, like Bailout Brown despite his promise, doesn't give us a referendum.
Friday, October 09, 2009
WHAT IS MARTIN WOLF SUGGESTING?
Bilderberger Martin Wolf has written a curious comment in the FT today.
At first Wolf presents some statistics about the deficits we will face due to the greedy reckless gambling by those f*^&ing bas$£ards in the banks, i.e. Wolf's mates, and they don't look good.
Wolf then asks; what are we to do?
Wolf does not propose a solution explicitly, but read this paragraph and I think I know what Wolf is proposing; KILL GRANNY!
[source : FT 09/10/2009 Britain’s phoney debate on slashing spending]
NB Wolf mentions pensions...TWICE!
Just how does Wolf expect to deal with "big rises in pension age, to take account of higher life expectancy"? Surely he is not proposing to cut if not stop the state pension? Or was he wearing a moustache when he wrote this?
Two of Wolf's Bilderberg mates are Sir Peter Sutherland (who recently assisted the pro-Lisbon Treaty movement in Ireland) and Sir Tom McKillop. As board members of RBS they would have agreed the remuneration of Sir Fred Goodwin NB, Sirs, all three of 'em. Goodwin has been hounded off these islands because of the revulsion to the size of his pension. It could pay for twenty pensioners per year, as well as keeping Goodwin in luxury.
There is something mentally wrong with people who suggest we attack the aged to bail out greedy reckless gamblers.
Does Wolf have a granny he is offering up for sacrifice?
At first Wolf presents some statistics about the deficits we will face due to the greedy reckless gambling by those f*^&ing bas$£ards in the banks, i.e. Wolf's mates, and they don't look good.
Wolf then asks; what are we to do?
Wolf does not propose a solution explicitly, but read this paragraph and I think I know what Wolf is proposing; KILL GRANNY!
When large, long-term cuts have to be made, the best approach is to set priorities and make structural changes. Obvious examples are: big changes in unaffordable and unjust public sector pension provision; big rises in pension age, to take account of higher life expectancy; long-term constraints on the remuneration bill (but not pay levels) of the government; and deep reforms in welfare spending. The crisis is a golden opportunity to impose discipline and make reforms.
[source : FT 09/10/2009 Britain’s phoney debate on slashing spending]
NB Wolf mentions pensions...TWICE!
Just how does Wolf expect to deal with "big rises in pension age, to take account of higher life expectancy"? Surely he is not proposing to cut if not stop the state pension? Or was he wearing a moustache when he wrote this?
Two of Wolf's Bilderberg mates are Sir Peter Sutherland (who recently assisted the pro-Lisbon Treaty movement in Ireland) and Sir Tom McKillop. As board members of RBS they would have agreed the remuneration of Sir Fred Goodwin NB, Sirs, all three of 'em. Goodwin has been hounded off these islands because of the revulsion to the size of his pension. It could pay for twenty pensioners per year, as well as keeping Goodwin in luxury.
There is something mentally wrong with people who suggest we attack the aged to bail out greedy reckless gamblers.
Does Wolf have a granny he is offering up for sacrifice?
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
SOME BANKERS MUST GO TO PRISON
Not all bankers are the greedy reckless fucking bastards who screwed the whole world with their oh so predictable failing gambling policies.
But there are some who do fall into that category, and it is they who must go to prison. The traders on the floor are the equivalent to the Nazi soldiers, simply taking orders but those with some nouse could have foreseen the wreckage on the beach.
No it's not the traders.
It's not all the members of the board who gave the nod to implement the policies.
But there are a few board members of a particular subset of very large banks who need some exercise doing the perp walk.
Stephen King of HSBC says the banks need to apologise and improve their PR to reconnect with the public. Not good enough.
Long prison sentences with lots of community service looking after sick old people, the ultimate targets of their gambling, would only begin to repay the world for the huge distress that their policies have brought to this world.
================================
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8293981.stm
HSBC boss says banks owe apology
The entire banking industry "owes the real world an apology", the chairman of HSBC has said.
Stephen Green told BBC World Business Report that a change in culture was needed to improve the public's perception of bankers.
He also said that London was secure as a major financial centre, but would lose market share as Asia developed.
Last month, HSBC announced that its chief executive Michael Geoghan would move to Hong Kong from London.
But Mr Green said the bank's decision did not mean it was turning its back on London.
"Two-thirds of our business is in Asia. It's where we think the centre of gravity of the world's economy is shifting," he said.
'Learn the lessons'
Mr Green, in Istanbul for the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, admitted the banking industry collectively owed the world an apology for the financial crisis.
"It also owes the real world a commitment to learn the lessons. Some of them are about governance and ethics and culture within the industry," he said.
"You can't do all this simply by rules and regulations."
However, commenting on increased regulations for banks, Mr Green said it was "inevitable" that regulators as well as the banks themselves could learn from the crisis.
He added that the industry needed to "pay much more attention to liquidity" than it had done previously.
On Monday, the Financial Services Authority in the UK published new rules governing funding standards at banks and building societies, stating that banks should hold more assets that were truly liquid, such as government bonds.
But there are some who do fall into that category, and it is they who must go to prison. The traders on the floor are the equivalent to the Nazi soldiers, simply taking orders but those with some nouse could have foreseen the wreckage on the beach.
No it's not the traders.
It's not all the members of the board who gave the nod to implement the policies.
But there are a few board members of a particular subset of very large banks who need some exercise doing the perp walk.
Stephen King of HSBC says the banks need to apologise and improve their PR to reconnect with the public. Not good enough.
Long prison sentences with lots of community service looking after sick old people, the ultimate targets of their gambling, would only begin to repay the world for the huge distress that their policies have brought to this world.
================================
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8293981.stm
HSBC boss says banks owe apology
The entire banking industry "owes the real world an apology", the chairman of HSBC has said.
Stephen Green told BBC World Business Report that a change in culture was needed to improve the public's perception of bankers.
He also said that London was secure as a major financial centre, but would lose market share as Asia developed.
Last month, HSBC announced that its chief executive Michael Geoghan would move to Hong Kong from London.
But Mr Green said the bank's decision did not mean it was turning its back on London.
"Two-thirds of our business is in Asia. It's where we think the centre of gravity of the world's economy is shifting," he said.
'Learn the lessons'
Mr Green, in Istanbul for the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, admitted the banking industry collectively owed the world an apology for the financial crisis.
"It also owes the real world a commitment to learn the lessons. Some of them are about governance and ethics and culture within the industry," he said.
"You can't do all this simply by rules and regulations."
However, commenting on increased regulations for banks, Mr Green said it was "inevitable" that regulators as well as the banks themselves could learn from the crisis.
He added that the industry needed to "pay much more attention to liquidity" than it had done previously.
On Monday, the Financial Services Authority in the UK published new rules governing funding standards at banks and building societies, stating that banks should hold more assets that were truly liquid, such as government bonds.
HOW WILL WE KNOW IF KILLING GRANNY WORKS?
Channel 4 news last night went into some detail about Osborne's proposal to pay for the bailout. From that report I understood that the projected deficit by 2014 will be £74 billion while Osborne's proposals would save only a tenth of that, approximately £7 billion.
Some of Osborne's proposals were harsh (the headlines today mention austerity a lot) and will no doubt lead to some older people dying before they claim their pension.
But how the hell is this country going to pay for the bailout if such harsh proposals lead to saving only a tenth of what is necessary?
The answer is simple; kill little old granny!
Killing granny will save on a number of payments.
So if by 2014 we have somehow saved £20 billion instead of the projected £7 billion by the Tories or £10 billion from whoever is in government then we will know that killing granny works!
But perhaps we aren't supposed to pay off the debts.
Perhaps by then the major third world war will have occured and a global dictatorship will have emerged via the amalgamation of the continental governments.
The EU was formed after WW2.
The world government will be formed after WW3.
And a world government will be able to do whatever it likes...including exterminating with extreme prejudice those deemed 'useless eaters'.
Some of Osborne's proposals were harsh (the headlines today mention austerity a lot) and will no doubt lead to some older people dying before they claim their pension.
But how the hell is this country going to pay for the bailout if such harsh proposals lead to saving only a tenth of what is necessary?
The answer is simple; kill little old granny!
Killing granny will save on a number of payments.
So if by 2014 we have somehow saved £20 billion instead of the projected £7 billion by the Tories or £10 billion from whoever is in government then we will know that killing granny works!
But perhaps we aren't supposed to pay off the debts.
Perhaps by then the major third world war will have occured and a global dictatorship will have emerged via the amalgamation of the continental governments.
The EU was formed after WW2.
The world government will be formed after WW3.
And a world government will be able to do whatever it likes...including exterminating with extreme prejudice those deemed 'useless eaters'.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
RACHMAN GIVES THE PLOT AWAY
Motormouth Gideon Rachman has today written in the FT the purpose of the EU. It is as I and many others suggest simply a stepping stone to world government. But despite Rachman's alleged mastery of history he does not identify the real beneficiaries of this movement.
Rachman states,
[source : FT 06/10/2009 Europe’s plot to take over the world]
Again, Rachman's grasp of history, despite his first class degree in the subject from Cambridge, escapes him.
Monnet alone did not create the EU. He was one small but important cog in the creation and development of the EU. Finance and support for the EU came from the USA in many forms, primarily the CIA who were terrified of the encroachment of the USSR into Europe, and private sources such as from the Rockefellers. The question as to how and why the USSR was permitted to encroach so deep into Europe is covered on my website; it was all part of the three-world-war plan of Albert Pike.
Rachman fails to mention that the very concept of the EU was agreed upon at the 1955 Bilderberg meeting, run and financed by the Rockefellers. Although Monnet did not attend Bilderberg himslef (unlike Rachman) he did mix and hang around with the Bilderberg crowd.
Rachman seems to be very very happy with the Lisbon Treaty, joyful, ecstatic, displaying unbounded love for the document that takes us one step closer to global tyranny by the bastards who financed and engineered WW1, WW2, the Holocaust and the major tyrants of the 20th century.
For those who still do not understand what is going on today, our money supply is controlled by a bunch of satanist warmongering kiddie-fiddling megalomaniacs who have abused the God-like power to create trillions of money out of nothing to not finance a stable and growing economy for us all but instead financed movements such as Nazism, Communism and Zionism. They first created global chaos in WW1 to grab Palestine from the Ottomans. They then created and manipulated the Nazis and the Communists into a second world war, allowing the Holocaust to occur so that after WW2 global Jewry would demand Palestine as a Jewish homeland as shelter from a cruel world, and also formed world governing institutions such as the UN. They then used the ultra-Zionist mentality to create a barbaric Israel which together with the anger caused by mass Jewish immigration into Palestine has made the Middle East the focus of war and terror that it is. That conflict is primed to detonate WW3, and has been for years (which is why I suspect they are well behind in their plans).
It hasn't happened yet, but they haven't given up.
The idea is to form continental unions such as the EU, the African Union and the North American Union to assume national sovereignty, and then to blow up the Middle East via a Zionist v Arab war over something, e.g. nukes, and after that war then bring the continental governments such as EU and AU all together into one big happy global tyrannical dictatorship run behind the scenes (or even perhaps overtly) by the bastards who engineered the chaos and destruction in the first place.
And I accuse Gideon Rachman of gross professional misconduct in not informing you of this, or at the very least not reporting on Bilderberg.
Rachman states,
Jean Monnet, the founding father of the EU, believed that European unity was “not an end in itself, but only a stage on the way to the organised world of tomorrow”. His successors in Brussels make no secret of the fact that they regard the Union’s brand of supranational governance as a global model.
[source : FT 06/10/2009 Europe’s plot to take over the world]
Again, Rachman's grasp of history, despite his first class degree in the subject from Cambridge, escapes him.
Monnet alone did not create the EU. He was one small but important cog in the creation and development of the EU. Finance and support for the EU came from the USA in many forms, primarily the CIA who were terrified of the encroachment of the USSR into Europe, and private sources such as from the Rockefellers. The question as to how and why the USSR was permitted to encroach so deep into Europe is covered on my website; it was all part of the three-world-war plan of Albert Pike.
Rachman fails to mention that the very concept of the EU was agreed upon at the 1955 Bilderberg meeting, run and financed by the Rockefellers. Although Monnet did not attend Bilderberg himslef (unlike Rachman) he did mix and hang around with the Bilderberg crowd.
Rachman seems to be very very happy with the Lisbon Treaty, joyful, ecstatic, displaying unbounded love for the document that takes us one step closer to global tyranny by the bastards who financed and engineered WW1, WW2, the Holocaust and the major tyrants of the 20th century.
For those who still do not understand what is going on today, our money supply is controlled by a bunch of satanist warmongering kiddie-fiddling megalomaniacs who have abused the God-like power to create trillions of money out of nothing to not finance a stable and growing economy for us all but instead financed movements such as Nazism, Communism and Zionism. They first created global chaos in WW1 to grab Palestine from the Ottomans. They then created and manipulated the Nazis and the Communists into a second world war, allowing the Holocaust to occur so that after WW2 global Jewry would demand Palestine as a Jewish homeland as shelter from a cruel world, and also formed world governing institutions such as the UN. They then used the ultra-Zionist mentality to create a barbaric Israel which together with the anger caused by mass Jewish immigration into Palestine has made the Middle East the focus of war and terror that it is. That conflict is primed to detonate WW3, and has been for years (which is why I suspect they are well behind in their plans).
It hasn't happened yet, but they haven't given up.
The idea is to form continental unions such as the EU, the African Union and the North American Union to assume national sovereignty, and then to blow up the Middle East via a Zionist v Arab war over something, e.g. nukes, and after that war then bring the continental governments such as EU and AU all together into one big happy global tyrannical dictatorship run behind the scenes (or even perhaps overtly) by the bastards who engineered the chaos and destruction in the first place.
And I accuse Gideon Rachman of gross professional misconduct in not informing you of this, or at the very least not reporting on Bilderberg.
Monday, October 05, 2009
FT TELLS CAMERON TO LIVE WITH LISBON
In its editorial today the FT tells Cameron to be mature and live with the ratification of The Lisbon Treaty.
In the last paragraph the FT states
[source : FT 05/10/09 Ready to lead?]
What does this indicate?
The FT does not support British sovereignty, but instead supports the emergence of a European superstate, one run by The Butcher of Baghdad Tony Blair.
Whether such support for the EU would be forthcoming if the EU President was not British is not up for debate; as long as the EU President was a Bilderberger then he or she would receive FT support.
However, there is one person, besides Cameron, who could scupper the Lisbon Treaty; H M Queen Elizabeth II
In the last paragraph the FT states
Mr Cameron has not yet set out what this means for his European policy. He should do so this week. He should explain that once the treaty has passed, a Tory government will live with it. With that simple stroke, he would show that he is unafraid of the swivel-eyed euro-frothing on the fringes of his party. At the same time, he would show prime ministerial pragmatism, refusing to raise needless obstacles to engagement with Europe. Mr Cameron must use this conference to show that he will stand up for Britain’s interests, even against his own party’s destructive instincts.
[source : FT 05/10/09 Ready to lead?]
What does this indicate?
The FT does not support British sovereignty, but instead supports the emergence of a European superstate, one run by The Butcher of Baghdad Tony Blair.
Whether such support for the EU would be forthcoming if the EU President was not British is not up for debate; as long as the EU President was a Bilderberger then he or she would receive FT support.
However, there is one person, besides Cameron, who could scupper the Lisbon Treaty; H M Queen Elizabeth II
CAMERON BOTTLES IT
It appears that Eton/Oxford/Bullingdon Boy David Cameron has bottled it.
For years he has ranted and ranted and ranted about getting us out of the EU.
He will no doubt soon have the power to destroy the Treaty of Lisbon when the Tories are elected into government next year. If given the chance to vote on the treaty the British people would rip it to shreds, wipe their arses with it and shove that soiled paper down the throats of those forcing it down our throats. He knows it. We know it. They know it.
But Cameron has come up with this compromise that if the Czech Republic and Poland ratify the treaty then he won't give us a vote, but he will instead negotiate to opt out of certain parts of the treaty.
Whenever the people have been given a chance to vote on the treaty it has been rejected, except just recently in Ireland when the EU and the Irish government both illegally used taxpayer money to pay for and distribute pro-EU propaganda and used the Bilderberg-engineered financial crisis to make false promises on the Irish economy.
========================================
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/05/conservatives-eu-lisbon-treaty-referendum
Tories may offer voters a 'consultation' on EU instead of referendum
As Conservatives indicate they will not hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, Boris Johnson suggests the party could find other ways of consulting voters
Boris Johnson today suggested the Tories could offer voters a "consultation" on relations with Europe after it emerged that David Cameron is to rule out a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if the measure is ratified by all 27 members of the EU before next year's general election in Britain.
Amid signs the measure will enter EU law by the end of the year – as the Czech Republic and Poland indicated over the weekend they will fall into line – Tory sources told the Guardian yesterday that Cameron will not try to unpick the treaty's main reforms.
In a move to assuage Eurosceptic anger inside and outside his party, Cameron will instead launch a campaign to repatriate powers which the Tories believe should be held at a national level. Party sources say Cameron is planning to
• Repatriate social and employment powers to a national level. This would effectively mean restoring Britain's opt-out from the social chapter and would need the agreement of all 27 member states
• Demand greater power over justice and home affairs. Under Lisbon these are voted on under a system which gives no member state a veto. France and Germany are likely to resist change here because it would mean unpicking this part of the treaty which gives Britain an "opt in" – the right to refuse to sign up to laws in this area
• Issue a warning to the EU that a Tory government will adopt a hardline stance if its demands are not accepted. This could involve holding a UK referendum on Cameron's more modest proposals or holding up the next round of EU treaties to admit Croatia and Iceland into the union
Today, in an interview on BBC Breakfast, Johnson suggested that if the Lisbon treaty has been ratified by the time of the election, a Conservative government could find other ways of consulting voters as a substitute for a full, retrospective referendum.
"If and when the treaty is ratified and that's before a Conservative government comes in, then it's a difficult matter, and obviously William Hague and David Cameron will have to give effect to the consultation I think people will want to have," the London mayor said.
"I think you will find that there are things that could be done, and it's certainly the case that you could put key parts of this treaty to the people and you could certainly find out what people thought about it."
Cameron is deeply irritated that the EU is set to dominate this week's Tory conference, the last before the general election. He wants to use the week to outline a series of carefully prepared policies to tackle unemployment and the fiscal deficit. Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, held the line in interviews this morning, insisting the party had "only one policy at a time".
After Ireland voted to accept the Lisbon treaty on Friday, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, accused Cameron of a "real failure of leadership".
The Tories are now having to contemplate what they will do as Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy step up the pressure on Warsaw and Prague to ratify the treaty in the wake of Ireland's yes vote. Poland and the Czech Republic have indicated that they will ratify the measure within months.
Senior Conservative sources say that Cameron will abandon a referendum on Lisbon if the measure enters EU law because he had accepted that it would be virtually impossible to unpick the main institutional EU changes in the Lisbon treaty. These are the new president of the European council, a new "high representative" for foreign affairs and greater powers for the European parliament.
One well placed Tory said: "There is virtually no hope of changing the main institutional architecture of the EU once Lisbon enters into force. If the treaty enters EU law you will find that a Conservative government will want to focus on repatriating powers that affect the UK. This is not going soft. If other EU leaders say they will not accommodate us, then we have the threat of a referendum on our reforms."
Cameron gave a hint of his plans when he appeared on The Andrew Marr Show yesterday. Asked what powers he would like to repatriate, he said: "We've said that we think that the social and employment legislation, we think that's an area that ought to be determined nationally rather than at the European level. There are many things in the Lisbon treaty – giving more power over home affairs and justice – that we don't think is right."
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, told Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "If it is [ratified] then we will spell out exactly how we intend to proceed, we will seek a mandate for that in our election manifesto. But we are entitled to say that we still want to hold, before ratification, the referendum that we have always wanted and that the people were promised at the last election."
Daniel Hannan, the Eurosceptic Tory MEP who was instrumental in persuading Cameron to abandon the main centre-right grouping in the European parliament, accepted last night that a referendum on Lisbon is unlikely to take place.
"The reason why we're pushing for a referendum on Lisbon was because Tony Blair promised one. If we are drawing up our own referendum it would have been issues stretching back to the treaty of Rome. Plainly the other member states want to go further than we do. We are in the business not of preventing others from embarking on deeper integration, but withdrawing from those parts we do not want to be part of."
Warsaw has told Sweden, which holds the rotating EU presidency, that it will ratify the measure within weeks. Vaclav Klaus, the Eurosceptic Czech president who had indicated he would delay ratifying the treaty until after the British general election, indicated he might change his mind.
"There will never be another referendum in Europe," he told the BBC after the Irish vote. "The people of Britain should have been doing something much earlier and not just now, too late, saying something and waiting for my decision."
For years he has ranted and ranted and ranted about getting us out of the EU.
He will no doubt soon have the power to destroy the Treaty of Lisbon when the Tories are elected into government next year. If given the chance to vote on the treaty the British people would rip it to shreds, wipe their arses with it and shove that soiled paper down the throats of those forcing it down our throats. He knows it. We know it. They know it.
But Cameron has come up with this compromise that if the Czech Republic and Poland ratify the treaty then he won't give us a vote, but he will instead negotiate to opt out of certain parts of the treaty.
Whenever the people have been given a chance to vote on the treaty it has been rejected, except just recently in Ireland when the EU and the Irish government both illegally used taxpayer money to pay for and distribute pro-EU propaganda and used the Bilderberg-engineered financial crisis to make false promises on the Irish economy.
========================================
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/05/conservatives-eu-lisbon-treaty-referendum
Tories may offer voters a 'consultation' on EU instead of referendum
As Conservatives indicate they will not hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, Boris Johnson suggests the party could find other ways of consulting voters
Boris Johnson today suggested the Tories could offer voters a "consultation" on relations with Europe after it emerged that David Cameron is to rule out a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if the measure is ratified by all 27 members of the EU before next year's general election in Britain.
Amid signs the measure will enter EU law by the end of the year – as the Czech Republic and Poland indicated over the weekend they will fall into line – Tory sources told the Guardian yesterday that Cameron will not try to unpick the treaty's main reforms.
In a move to assuage Eurosceptic anger inside and outside his party, Cameron will instead launch a campaign to repatriate powers which the Tories believe should be held at a national level. Party sources say Cameron is planning to
• Repatriate social and employment powers to a national level. This would effectively mean restoring Britain's opt-out from the social chapter and would need the agreement of all 27 member states
• Demand greater power over justice and home affairs. Under Lisbon these are voted on under a system which gives no member state a veto. France and Germany are likely to resist change here because it would mean unpicking this part of the treaty which gives Britain an "opt in" – the right to refuse to sign up to laws in this area
• Issue a warning to the EU that a Tory government will adopt a hardline stance if its demands are not accepted. This could involve holding a UK referendum on Cameron's more modest proposals or holding up the next round of EU treaties to admit Croatia and Iceland into the union
Today, in an interview on BBC Breakfast, Johnson suggested that if the Lisbon treaty has been ratified by the time of the election, a Conservative government could find other ways of consulting voters as a substitute for a full, retrospective referendum.
"If and when the treaty is ratified and that's before a Conservative government comes in, then it's a difficult matter, and obviously William Hague and David Cameron will have to give effect to the consultation I think people will want to have," the London mayor said.
"I think you will find that there are things that could be done, and it's certainly the case that you could put key parts of this treaty to the people and you could certainly find out what people thought about it."
Cameron is deeply irritated that the EU is set to dominate this week's Tory conference, the last before the general election. He wants to use the week to outline a series of carefully prepared policies to tackle unemployment and the fiscal deficit. Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, held the line in interviews this morning, insisting the party had "only one policy at a time".
After Ireland voted to accept the Lisbon treaty on Friday, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, accused Cameron of a "real failure of leadership".
The Tories are now having to contemplate what they will do as Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy step up the pressure on Warsaw and Prague to ratify the treaty in the wake of Ireland's yes vote. Poland and the Czech Republic have indicated that they will ratify the measure within months.
Senior Conservative sources say that Cameron will abandon a referendum on Lisbon if the measure enters EU law because he had accepted that it would be virtually impossible to unpick the main institutional EU changes in the Lisbon treaty. These are the new president of the European council, a new "high representative" for foreign affairs and greater powers for the European parliament.
One well placed Tory said: "There is virtually no hope of changing the main institutional architecture of the EU once Lisbon enters into force. If the treaty enters EU law you will find that a Conservative government will want to focus on repatriating powers that affect the UK. This is not going soft. If other EU leaders say they will not accommodate us, then we have the threat of a referendum on our reforms."
Cameron gave a hint of his plans when he appeared on The Andrew Marr Show yesterday. Asked what powers he would like to repatriate, he said: "We've said that we think that the social and employment legislation, we think that's an area that ought to be determined nationally rather than at the European level. There are many things in the Lisbon treaty – giving more power over home affairs and justice – that we don't think is right."
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, told Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "If it is [ratified] then we will spell out exactly how we intend to proceed, we will seek a mandate for that in our election manifesto. But we are entitled to say that we still want to hold, before ratification, the referendum that we have always wanted and that the people were promised at the last election."
Daniel Hannan, the Eurosceptic Tory MEP who was instrumental in persuading Cameron to abandon the main centre-right grouping in the European parliament, accepted last night that a referendum on Lisbon is unlikely to take place.
"The reason why we're pushing for a referendum on Lisbon was because Tony Blair promised one. If we are drawing up our own referendum it would have been issues stretching back to the treaty of Rome. Plainly the other member states want to go further than we do. We are in the business not of preventing others from embarking on deeper integration, but withdrawing from those parts we do not want to be part of."
Warsaw has told Sweden, which holds the rotating EU presidency, that it will ratify the measure within weeks. Vaclav Klaus, the Eurosceptic Czech president who had indicated he would delay ratifying the treaty until after the British general election, indicated he might change his mind.
"There will never be another referendum in Europe," he told the BBC after the Irish vote. "The people of Britain should have been doing something much earlier and not just now, too late, saying something and waiting for my decision."
Sunday, October 04, 2009
IN 1983 BLAIR WANTED US OUT OF THE EEC
YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!
In 1983 thewarmonger Bilderberg traitor very kind gentleman Anthony Charles Lynton Blair stood for election as parliamentary candidate for Sedgefield. If you want to know what Blair wanted please go to
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eucon/tbouteu.html
and click on page 3.
Blair wanted
more jobs
more industry
more housing
more for pensioners
more for health services
more education
a more sane defence policy
In the section on more industry Blair states,
we'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs
And in the section on defence Blair states,
Labour believes in defence and in membership of NATO but we don't need dangerous and costly Trident and Cruise missiles which just escalate the nuclear arms race.
Blair is now being proposed as EU President.
In 1983 the
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eucon/tbouteu.html
and click on page 3.
Blair wanted
more jobs
more industry
more housing
more for pensioners
more for health services
more education
a more sane defence policy
In the section on more industry Blair states,
we'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs
And in the section on defence Blair states,
Labour believes in defence and in membership of NATO but we don't need dangerous and costly Trident and Cruise missiles which just escalate the nuclear arms race.
Blair is now being proposed as EU President.
STRANGE DECORATIONS
Harriet Harman's alleged driving mishap is front page news. Allegedly she crashed her car into another while talking on her phone, and then drove off. This allegedly happened on the 3rd July, yet it is only now AFTER THE SUN CHANGED ITS ALLEGIANCE TO THE TORIES that she is being investigated. In fact it appears that her questioning was delayed due to the Labour Conference; why?
Have the Police been politicised?
If Harman had been questioned during the conference then it may well have looked rather suspicious; The Sun changes allegiance and suddenly Harman is questioned? Hmm. However, questioning Harman a few days after the conference so it is headline news on Sunday reinforces the decision by The Sun to change allegiance and also gives the two events some independence (even though they may not be).
Anyway, there are far far worse crimes, such as mass murder and fraud, that the Police could and should be investigating, for even they and their families are affected by the huge scale of the crimes committed against us all.
The crime of murder is most severe. You don't create and finance tyrants like Hitler and Stalin unless you are preparing mass murder, either between nations or internally.
As for fraud, The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 was undeniably violated. The private banks create the vast majority of our money, and they were entrusted with that God-like power to create a growing and stable economy. Instead they deliberately inflated several bubbles based on easy credit to engage in greedy and reckless gambling in exotic derivatives that was oh so predictably bound to go oh so wrong. The rescue of certain banks and the death of others following the bursting of those bubbles was agreed upon at Bilderberg meetings throughout the noughties. A conviction under The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 can be 10 years of porridge. I know who I would want banged up for at least 10 years.
But not only this. The legality of the majority of the financial contracts due to the FSMA 2000 and UTCCR 1999 applied within the framework provided by the Law of Unjust Enrichment brings into question the whole financial apparatus here in the UK.
And as for the planned euthanasia of little old granny to save money to pay for the trillions in bailouts...
All this is now out in the open.
If people don't know the full details, then they sure as hell suspect it.
And I would not want to be in particular pairs of shoes when the 100th monkey realises the true situation that we, even the Police, are in.
And I, little old me, won't be able to stop it. It will be a tsunami of hate, anger and sadness.
I am reminded of a song sung by Billie Holiday, Strange Fruit. It is about the lynchings in the deep South of the USA, in which civil rights activists were found lynched from trees.
Lampposts are not trees, but they do have some strange decorations hanging from them at special times, such as festivals.
Have the Police been politicised?
If Harman had been questioned during the conference then it may well have looked rather suspicious; The Sun changes allegiance and suddenly Harman is questioned? Hmm. However, questioning Harman a few days after the conference so it is headline news on Sunday reinforces the decision by The Sun to change allegiance and also gives the two events some independence (even though they may not be).
Anyway, there are far far worse crimes, such as mass murder and fraud, that the Police could and should be investigating, for even they and their families are affected by the huge scale of the crimes committed against us all.
The crime of murder is most severe. You don't create and finance tyrants like Hitler and Stalin unless you are preparing mass murder, either between nations or internally.
As for fraud, The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 was undeniably violated. The private banks create the vast majority of our money, and they were entrusted with that God-like power to create a growing and stable economy. Instead they deliberately inflated several bubbles based on easy credit to engage in greedy and reckless gambling in exotic derivatives that was oh so predictably bound to go oh so wrong. The rescue of certain banks and the death of others following the bursting of those bubbles was agreed upon at Bilderberg meetings throughout the noughties. A conviction under The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 can be 10 years of porridge. I know who I would want banged up for at least 10 years.
But not only this. The legality of the majority of the financial contracts due to the FSMA 2000 and UTCCR 1999 applied within the framework provided by the Law of Unjust Enrichment brings into question the whole financial apparatus here in the UK.
And as for the planned euthanasia of little old granny to save money to pay for the trillions in bailouts...
All this is now out in the open.
If people don't know the full details, then they sure as hell suspect it.
And I would not want to be in particular pairs of shoes when the 100th monkey realises the true situation that we, even the Police, are in.
And I, little old me, won't be able to stop it. It will be a tsunami of hate, anger and sadness.
I am reminded of a song sung by Billie Holiday, Strange Fruit. It is about the lynchings in the deep South of the USA, in which civil rights activists were found lynched from trees.
Lampposts are not trees, but they do have some strange decorations hanging from them at special times, such as festivals.
IRISH TURKEYS VOTE FOR EU CHRISTMAS
Did the Irish people not see the demon being proposed as EU President?
Did the Irish people not gain some independence from Great Britain early last century?
Not only have the Irish people voted to eventually cede what independence they gained from Great Britain through the blood of their fathers, they have also voted to be governed by one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet, and possibly one of the biggest warmongers on the planet.
The fact that whenever a vote has been held by the ordinary people of the EU the very concept of the EU has been rejected should have indicated the sentiment of the people of Europe. We don't want it, for a number of reasons.
I personally do not want the EU because it is so obviously a stepping stone along with the African Union and the North American Union to a world government, a world government that has been engineered by the same families who engineered two world wars and who have just engineered the current financial crisis, which may well have been cynically used to trick the Irish into voting Yes with vague half-promises of large grants and subsidies for the Irish economy.
But make no mistake. The people forcing the EU down our throats are out for themselves. Not us. Themselves, and themselves alone.
They lie.
They cheat.
They steal.
They engineer world wars.
They engineer global financial crises.
They assassinate Presidents and Prime Ministers.
Nothing is beyond them in their quest for a global tyrannical dictatorship.
And if that means lying to the Irish people then so be it.
How can voting for a supranational government improve national sovereignty? The simple answer is, it can't, no matter how many lies you tell.
Ah well, onto the next level. Let's see which Bilderbergers occupy the top positions. And let's see how much pressure Cameron comes under to drop his oppostion to the treaty. If he does not do so then expect a leadership challenge, probably from the Ken Clark camp.
Did the Irish people not gain some independence from Great Britain early last century?
Not only have the Irish people voted to eventually cede what independence they gained from Great Britain through the blood of their fathers, they have also voted to be governed by one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet, and possibly one of the biggest warmongers on the planet.
The fact that whenever a vote has been held by the ordinary people of the EU the very concept of the EU has been rejected should have indicated the sentiment of the people of Europe. We don't want it, for a number of reasons.
I personally do not want the EU because it is so obviously a stepping stone along with the African Union and the North American Union to a world government, a world government that has been engineered by the same families who engineered two world wars and who have just engineered the current financial crisis, which may well have been cynically used to trick the Irish into voting Yes with vague half-promises of large grants and subsidies for the Irish economy.
But make no mistake. The people forcing the EU down our throats are out for themselves. Not us. Themselves, and themselves alone.
They lie.
They cheat.
They steal.
They engineer world wars.
They engineer global financial crises.
They assassinate Presidents and Prime Ministers.
Nothing is beyond them in their quest for a global tyrannical dictatorship.
And if that means lying to the Irish people then so be it.
How can voting for a supranational government improve national sovereignty? The simple answer is, it can't, no matter how many lies you tell.
Ah well, onto the next level. Let's see which Bilderbergers occupy the top positions. And let's see how much pressure Cameron comes under to drop his oppostion to the treaty. If he does not do so then expect a leadership challenge, probably from the Ken Clark camp.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
BLAIR WILL BE PRESIDENT OF THE EU
If Ireland votes Yes tomorrow then The Butcher of Baghdad Tony Blair will become President of the EU as soon as possible.
Never mind us, the ordinary folk of the EU.
Don't ask us who we want as our leader.
I don't want democracy in the EU. I demand to be told what to do. I don't have an independent brain. I can't think for myself. I can't process information. I need dictatorship, not democracy.
Seriously, this is a classic of the EU and The Treaty of Lisbon. Things will be forced upon us without consultation.
And if Blair does become President of the EU then look out for little old granny...
===============================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217394/Blair-named-EU-President-weeks-Irish-ratify-Lisbon-Treaty.html
Blair to be named EU President 'within weeks' if Irish ratify Lisbon Treaty
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:45 PM on 01st October 2009
Tony Blair is set to become EU President within weeks if Ireland votes 'Yes' in its referendum on the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow.
The former prime minister's candidacy for the new post will be rushed through as quickly as possible, according to government sources.
Never mind us, the ordinary folk of the EU.
Don't ask us who we want as our leader.
I don't want democracy in the EU. I demand to be told what to do. I don't have an independent brain. I can't think for myself. I can't process information. I need dictatorship, not democracy.
Seriously, this is a classic of the EU and The Treaty of Lisbon. Things will be forced upon us without consultation.
And if Blair does become President of the EU then look out for little old granny...
===============================
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217394/Blair-named-EU-President-weeks-Irish-ratify-Lisbon-Treaty.html
Blair to be named EU President 'within weeks' if Irish ratify Lisbon Treaty
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:45 PM on 01st October 2009
Tony Blair is set to become EU President within weeks if Ireland votes 'Yes' in its referendum on the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow.
The former prime minister's candidacy for the new post will be rushed through as quickly as possible, according to government sources.
ISRAEL'S INVISIBLE NUKES
John Kerry, Presidential candidate in 2004 and member of Skull and Bones and the CFR, today writes in the FT on the topic of Iran and its nuclear program. And not surprisingly Kerry does not mention Israel once, not even to remind us that Israel, though having the only known unknown nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, is apparently prepared for a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
How can Israel's nukes be so invisible?
If Iran is developing nukes then it has at least two obvious reasons to do so;
1. to protect itself from Zionist nuclear aggression
2. to threaten Israel to stop its murder, bullying and land-grabbing
The US Military knows this and has even suggested that Israel should de-nuke to stop the nuclear arms race. But for whatever reason (though secretly we all know why) US politicians ignore this most sensible suggestion.
But at least Kerry isn't demanding an immediate attack on Israel, unlike Gideon Rachman (1st class degree History (Cantab)).
======================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0fbd6c88-ae0a-11de-87e7-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Time for diplomacy to end the stand-off with Iran
By John Kerry
Published: September 30 2009 22:50 | Last updated: September 30 2009 22:50
Today the Obama administration begins the most important American diplomatic engagement with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The public revelation of the Qom enrichment facility and Iran’s provocative ballistic missile test on Monday demonstrate what is at stake. Iran has increased its low-enriched uranium 20-fold since 2007, enough to produce, eventually, at least one nuclear weapon after further enrichment.
These are ominous developments. But after years of policy drift and transatlantic disagreement, the US and its allies will enter the talks in a position of relative strength and unity.
Consider the view from Tehran. It is on the defensive – caught red-handed in another nuclear deception. In contrast to the rancorous run-up to the war in Iraq, America and Europe are increasingly reading from the same script and Russia is signalling an openness to further sanctions.
The walkout of dozens of delegates during Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad’s anti-Semitic speech at the UN last week highlights Iran’s diplomatic isolation. Deciding the reputational and political risks are too great, many international banks and oil-trading companies have withdrawn voluntarily from Iran, which must import a third of its refined petroleum.
Domestically, Iran’s economy has been devastated by mismanagement, corruption, lower oil prices and fallout from the world financial crisis. Banks and foreign currency reserves are in rapid decline. Iran’s oil trust fund, which should hold tens of billions of dollars, has run dry. The bloody repression in Iran’s streets since June has compounded the damage. Iran’s ruling elite is divided, and the regime’s legitimacy is openly challenged – internally – as never before.
For years, the regime counted on bombastic language from Washington to distract its public from problems at home. No longer. Today there is no obscuring the fact that Iran is choosing repression over democracy.
For our diplomacy to have any success, two things are vital.
First, if Iran is not willing to negotiate in good faith, it must understand the consequences. Pressure is not an alternative to engagement; the two strategies complement each other.
UN Security Council sanctions are the most potent pressure, but there are also other levers. Insurance companies could be prohibited from insuring the Iranian tanker fleet. Export credit guarantees for Iran could be ended. Travel bans on human rights abusers could be enacted, Iranian assets seized, arms sales curtailed and investment bans enacted. Neighbours could cancel plans for natural gas pipelines linking Iran to the region’s energy distribution architecture. Some have proposed unilateral sanctions against foreign companies. While the prospect of such sanctions may goad other countries to action, we need to ensure unilateral efforts do not undermine the prospects of tougher international action.
Second, we must be willing to take yes for an answer. An important lesson of Iraq is that intrusive inspections can work. Our ability to detect and monitor the Qom enrichment facility for years before publicly revealing it is encouraging. One objective should be a more expansive inspections and monitoring regime to prevent Iran from diverting nuclear material to a “break-out” military programme.
While diplomacy with Iran was never going to be easy, the summer’s unrest has only increased the difficulty. In agreeing to talks, Iran has expressed an unexpected interest in discussing democracy and human rights. This is a conversation America should welcome, and an opportunity to demonstrate to the Iranian people that progress on the nuclear issue will not come at their expense.
Engagement may well fail. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s deep distrust of the US is no secret. The abuses of this summer may be the regime’s curt answer to US president Barack Obama’s outstretched hand. Given the turmoil, Iran may not even be capable of undertaking a sustained, strategic dialogue with the outside world.
And yet, it remains vital to seek a diplomatic solution to the stand-off. The international community is finally in a position to force Iran to choose either pariah status or a more constructive relationship with America and the world. Certainly the real possibility of either military conflict or a nuclear-armed Iran compels us to give diplomacy a chance.
The writer is chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee
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.
How can Israel's nukes be so invisible?
If Iran is developing nukes then it has at least two obvious reasons to do so;
1. to protect itself from Zionist nuclear aggression
2. to threaten Israel to stop its murder, bullying and land-grabbing
The US Military knows this and has even suggested that Israel should de-nuke to stop the nuclear arms race. But for whatever reason (though secretly we all know why) US politicians ignore this most sensible suggestion.
But at least Kerry isn't demanding an immediate attack on Israel, unlike Gideon Rachman (1st class degree History (Cantab)).
======================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0fbd6c88-ae0a-11de-87e7-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Time for diplomacy to end the stand-off with Iran
By John Kerry
Published: September 30 2009 22:50 | Last updated: September 30 2009 22:50
Today the Obama administration begins the most important American diplomatic engagement with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The public revelation of the Qom enrichment facility and Iran’s provocative ballistic missile test on Monday demonstrate what is at stake. Iran has increased its low-enriched uranium 20-fold since 2007, enough to produce, eventually, at least one nuclear weapon after further enrichment.
These are ominous developments. But after years of policy drift and transatlantic disagreement, the US and its allies will enter the talks in a position of relative strength and unity.
Consider the view from Tehran. It is on the defensive – caught red-handed in another nuclear deception. In contrast to the rancorous run-up to the war in Iraq, America and Europe are increasingly reading from the same script and Russia is signalling an openness to further sanctions.
The walkout of dozens of delegates during Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad’s anti-Semitic speech at the UN last week highlights Iran’s diplomatic isolation. Deciding the reputational and political risks are too great, many international banks and oil-trading companies have withdrawn voluntarily from Iran, which must import a third of its refined petroleum.
Domestically, Iran’s economy has been devastated by mismanagement, corruption, lower oil prices and fallout from the world financial crisis. Banks and foreign currency reserves are in rapid decline. Iran’s oil trust fund, which should hold tens of billions of dollars, has run dry. The bloody repression in Iran’s streets since June has compounded the damage. Iran’s ruling elite is divided, and the regime’s legitimacy is openly challenged – internally – as never before.
For years, the regime counted on bombastic language from Washington to distract its public from problems at home. No longer. Today there is no obscuring the fact that Iran is choosing repression over democracy.
For our diplomacy to have any success, two things are vital.
First, if Iran is not willing to negotiate in good faith, it must understand the consequences. Pressure is not an alternative to engagement; the two strategies complement each other.
UN Security Council sanctions are the most potent pressure, but there are also other levers. Insurance companies could be prohibited from insuring the Iranian tanker fleet. Export credit guarantees for Iran could be ended. Travel bans on human rights abusers could be enacted, Iranian assets seized, arms sales curtailed and investment bans enacted. Neighbours could cancel plans for natural gas pipelines linking Iran to the region’s energy distribution architecture. Some have proposed unilateral sanctions against foreign companies. While the prospect of such sanctions may goad other countries to action, we need to ensure unilateral efforts do not undermine the prospects of tougher international action.
Second, we must be willing to take yes for an answer. An important lesson of Iraq is that intrusive inspections can work. Our ability to detect and monitor the Qom enrichment facility for years before publicly revealing it is encouraging. One objective should be a more expansive inspections and monitoring regime to prevent Iran from diverting nuclear material to a “break-out” military programme.
While diplomacy with Iran was never going to be easy, the summer’s unrest has only increased the difficulty. In agreeing to talks, Iran has expressed an unexpected interest in discussing democracy and human rights. This is a conversation America should welcome, and an opportunity to demonstrate to the Iranian people that progress on the nuclear issue will not come at their expense.
Engagement may well fail. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s deep distrust of the US is no secret. The abuses of this summer may be the regime’s curt answer to US president Barack Obama’s outstretched hand. Given the turmoil, Iran may not even be capable of undertaking a sustained, strategic dialogue with the outside world.
And yet, it remains vital to seek a diplomatic solution to the stand-off. The international community is finally in a position to force Iran to choose either pariah status or a more constructive relationship with America and the world. Certainly the real possibility of either military conflict or a nuclear-armed Iran compels us to give diplomacy a chance.
The writer is chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee
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)