Monday, June 28, 2010


20% VAT.

25% cuts in most government department's expenditure.

Benefits slashed.

Thanks for nothing, you Bilderberg traitor.



British budget hits workers and poor
By Ann Talbot
23 June 2010

The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition’s emergency budget will hit the poorest members of society hardest. Chancellor George Osborne wrapped his measures in rhetoric about fairness and burden sharing, but this was a budget for the rich.

Osborne announced a total of £11 billion in cuts to welfare spending. In addition, Value Added Tax (VAT) will go up from its present 17.5 percent level to 20 percent, raising a further £13 billion. VAT is a regressive sales tax that inevitably hits the lowest paid most heavily.

Overall the budget aims to raise £40 billion. Most of this will come from cuts to public spending. This unprecedented attack on the welfare state is the price of the bank bailout, which saw the Labour government come to the rescue of financial institutions that had bankrupted themselves through their own speculative frenzy.

Osborne set out plans to entirely eliminate the UK’s record £155 billion deficit within the five-year lifetime of this parliament. Achieving this target will mean five years of austerity involving cuts in welfare benefits, public services, jobs, pay and pensions.

“This is an unavoidable budget,” Osborne said in the run-up to the announcement. Last week the credit rating agency Fitch warned that Britain needed to speed up its deficit reduction strategy to avoid the risk of sovereign downgrade escalating. “[B]oth the size of the deficit currently projected for 2011 and the failure to reduce the deficit to 3 percent of GDP within five years are striking,” Fitch commented.

Osborne and his Liberal Democrat coalition partners have responded to the demands of the financial elite with a budget that will transfer money from the majority of the population to the wealthy elite. “I want a sign to go up over the British economy saying ‘open for business’“, Osborne told Parliament.

Corporation Tax is to be cut from its present level of 28 percent to 24 percent. This will give the UK the lowest level of corporate taxation in any developed economy. National Insurance contributions paid by employers will be cut for lower paid workers. This too will shift more of the cost of the welfare state onto workers. Small companies will receive extra tax benefits. “Manufacturing as a whole will pay less tax”, Osborne assured business.

While the banking sector will have to pay a bank levy on financial transactions, this will easily be offset by the cut in corporation tax.

Capital Gains Tax is to go up from 18 percent to 28 percent. But this will have a bigger effect on individuals who have invested in property as a means of providing themselves with a pension. Major corporations and the rich have been exploring ways of avoiding this increase, which was long expected.

The public sector faces cuts of over £100 billion over the next five years. Osborne announced that public spending will rise, but this is entirely accounted for by debt repayments. Labour already planned to cut 20 percent across the board from all government departments. Osborne plans to go further. He announced a 25 percent cut in public spending. Health, defence and overseas aid spending would be exempt, he said, meaning that other departments would have to make bigger cuts.

This does not mean that the National Health Service will be protected from cuts. “Efficiency savings” announced by the previous government are already working their way through the system. On top of that the coalition government introduced a £6 billion package of cuts when it came into office.

Osborne’s budget, grim though it is, does not tell the full story. A comprehensive spending review will introduce further cuts in the autumn.

Many of the implications of the cuts will be hidden from public scrutiny in an attempt to dissipate opposition and prevent nationwide opposition from developing. They are being devolved to local government, regional government, Health Trusts and universities.

Osborne announced a series of cuts to welfare provision. Child Benefit, one of the few remaining universal benefits, will be frozen for three years. The Child Tax Credits system, which Osborne described as “unsustainable”, is to be revised. Payments to families collectively earning just £40,000 a year will be restricted.

The planned rise in state pension age to 66 will be accelerated. The state pension and state pension credit will in future be uprated in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and not the Retail Price Index (RPI). Since the RPI is usually higher than the CPI, this will save the government £11 billion.

Osborne announced cuts to a number of benefits. One of the main targets was the Disability Living Allowance, which allows disabled people to live in their own homes and continue to work. This is a benefit that already has stringent criteria and is notoriously hard to access. Osborne aims to save 10 percent of its current budget by imposing a stricter medical assessment on claimants.

Housing Benefit costs, Osborne claimed, were “completely out of control”. The government would restrict access to this benefit, which allows those on low incomes to rent homes.

Some issues were deferred, indicating that this budget is not the sum total of the attacks to come.

Public sector pensions are to be reviewed by a commission under the chairmanship of John Hutton, who was work and pensions secretary under Labour. The choice of Hutton points to the continuity between this government and its predecessor. Public sector pay will be reviewed by another commission under the hitherto Labour-supporting economist, Will Hutton. But Osborne announced a two-year pay freeze for public sector workers, with the exception of those on less than £21,000 per annum who will get a £250 flat rate pay rise in both these years.

Public sector workers will bear the brunt of the coalition’s fiscal policies, whether in the form of job losses, pay cuts, loss of pension rights or privatisation. Osborne indicated that the government intended to go ahead with a number of privatisations, including the student loan book, air traffic control, the Tote (state-run gambling) and the Royal Mail.

One of the new features of this budget was the role of the Office of Budgetary Responsibility (OBR), which the coalition has just set up. The OBR is an unelected body that has the job of determining government economic and fiscal policy in the same way that the unelected Bank of England determines government monetary policy.

The scale of the budget cuts has put strain on the coalition. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister, wrote to all his party members the night before the budget telling them that the austerity measures were necessary to prevent Britain becoming “another Greece”. His aim was to head off protests from his own supporters.

During the election a Liberal Democrat poster had warned of a Tory VAT bombshell. Now Clegg is part of the government that has implemented a massive hike in VAT and imposed cuts in government spending that he previously warned would lead to a double-dip recession.

Clegg denied that he had “sold out”. “We have always argued that cuts would be necessary, but the timing should be based on economic circumstances, not political dogma”, he said. “The economic situation today means that time has come.”

The Tories are scarcely in a stronger position. Prime Minister David Cameron claimed they had no plans to raise VAT throughout the election campaign. Inevitably, the tax rise will hit shops and other businesses that are already struggling under the impact of the recession. A government that came to power with little popular support is in danger of rapidly losing what little political capital it had.

Osborne offered a token cut in income tax in an effort to elicit some popular support for the coalition. The tax threshold will be raised by £1,000 to £7,475 and there will be a £200 tax cut for basic rate taxpayers. On the face of it this will benefit more than 1 million people. But the impact of the measures is in fact very limited. People earning minimum wage will still be paying tax, while the VAT rise and the cuts to other benefits wipe out any gains.

This budget foreshadows immense class struggles as the welfare state concessions of the post-war period come under systematic attack from a financial oligarchy that is no longer prepared to tolerate any diminution of its profits.

Copyright © 1998-2010 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

Tuesday, June 22, 2010





Kenneth Clarke to be international anti-corruption champion

15 June 2010
Kenneth Clarke

Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has today been announced as the United Kingdom’s new international anti-corruption champion.

This demonstrates the coalition government's clear commitment to transparency and accountability and recognises the significant cost of international corruption to our economy.

Kenneth Clarke said:

'I will be working closely with colleagues across departments, devolved administrations, law enforcement, prosecution authorities and regulatory agencies to ensure a coherent and joined-up approach to combat international corruption.

'The champion role sends out a clear message that the UK coalition government will not tolerate bribery or corruption and that we will work together to stamp out these practices across the board.'

The international anti-corruption champion will ensure the effective implementation of the Bribery Act 2010, legislation which will help to achieve the highest in international standards and demonstrates cross-party commitment to the fight against bribery.

The appointment of anti-corruption champion is a personal appointment by the Prime Minister.

Monday, June 21, 2010


When reading this keep in mind The Godfather, in which the HQ of da gangstaz was The Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The current financial crisis really came on with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. For some reason Lehman was allowed to go under by Paulson. Lehman has been significantly involved in The Federal Reserve from the start, and so was one of "the family".

I suppose if you are to cause a problem then you may have to sacrifice your own to cause that problem. It's been done to start wars, most famously at Pearl Harbor 1941. You can't ask a competitor to sacrifice themselves, can you? And I suppose this explains why the likes of Dick Fuld and Fred Goodwin got such large salaries and benefits, even after their total failure. They were doing as they were told, not knowing exactly what they were doing. I mean Goodwin had zero banking expertise or experience, for Pete's sake (who is Pete anyway?)!

Hank Paulson refused to bailout Lehman Brothers. AIG and Bear Stearns had been bailed out earlier, but Lehman wasn't. Lehman went under and was then bought up by Barclays. Barclays has usually had someone at Bilderberg. During the 1990's and early 2000's it was Martin Taylor (now at Goldman Sachs), but this year it was Marcus Agius, Chairman of Barclays. Barclays is reported to have received £17 billion in bailout from the Federal Reserve (controlled by Bilderberg).

In the UK it was the Royal Bank of Scotland, member of Rothschild's Inter Alpha group, that really crashed and caused the meltdown in the British banking system. RBS had Bilderbergers Sir Tom McKillop and Sir Peter Sutherland on its board as it grew and grew and grew into the largest bank in the world. But then it too collapsed, requiring the largest bailout in British history, and causing a serious lack of confidence in the British banking system that caused some other banks to require more and more bailouts. As a result our public debt and deficit have increased to £1 trillion and £150 billion respectively. During the crisis another Bilderberg Inter-Alpha bank, Banco Santander, has gobbled up Abbey National, Bradford & Bingley, and Alliance & Leicester and and is about to gobble up RBS, while JP Morgan has bought up the investment arm of RBS, RBS Sempra.

So what can we take from this?

1. Bilderberg caused the current financial crisis by sacrificing two of their own, Lehman and RBS
2. the two sacrificed banks Lehman and RBS were bought up by other members of "the family", to keep their assets in "the family"
3. "the family" banks were also given bailouts by other members of "the family" at The Federal Reserve, while non-family banks were not, allowing "the family" banks to buy up their competitors, and survive the financial storm they had whipped up for us all.
4. in the crisis another member of "the family", the IMF, is demanding severe austerity in return for its loans.

You've gotta laugh.

And if BP is bought you can bet it will be by another member of "the family".

Here's where da gangstaz live, The New York Fed.


If Israel has indeed significantly eased its land blockade of Gaza then there is no need for Iran to send it's aid to Gaza by sea, hoping for martyrs to run the sea blockade.

The illegal and inhumane blockade is easing. Not as fast as it should, but it is easing.

Meanwhile the risk of some sort of confrontation on the sea between Iran and the Zionazis has increased following reports of the Zionazi Navy sending war ships into the Red Sea.

There is now no need for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or Iranian charity workers to become martyrs just so that some bloodthirsty Zionazis can have a war.

Let's see what happens when the German Jews try to run the sea blockade.

Sunday, June 20, 2010


Below is the letter I have posted to my MP. As far as I am aware all statements are 100% true. Please feel free to send it to your MP, but be aware of the paragraph referring to the They Work For You website, because your MP may not have the same report as mine, so you may need to amend that particular paragraph.

Anyway, it looks like Tucker's sources are right; they're going for it.


I write to you as my MP to inform you of a conspiracy to wage war on Iran, which could ultimately start a very bloody and violent WW3 resulting in a tyrannical world government. I write as al-Quds al-Arabi reported on Saturday 19th June that a number of US and Israeli aircraft carriers and battle ships have just sailed through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea, apparently on their way to the Persian Gulf where they will meet with the three Israeli nuclear submarines stationed there as reported on Sunday 30th May by The Sunday Times.

As we now know without any doubts whatsoever we went to war on Iraq in 2003 based on lies sold to us by Tony Blair. One source of information that was sexed up and given priority was the claim from a cabbie who said he overheard two Iraqi Generals discussing WMD in the back of his cab!! Seven years later and no WMD have been found, despite Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney going on US TV and stating they knew where the WMD were. So why would Blair and the rest be so desperate to go to war on Iraq?

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have all attended at one time or another a meeting called Bilderberg. Bilderberg began in 1954 and has been controlled from the beginning by the Rockefeller family. Similar organisations financed by the Rockefellers, though not as secretive, are the Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission, but they all have the same goal; world government. It is an open secret that the Rockefellers sponsored the Nazis in several ways, but the topic they cared for most was eugenics. The Rockefellers financed the Nazi racial hygiene apparatus, having been instrumental in establishing eugenics in the USA. They also gave to IG Farben for free the technology to produce oil and rubber for the Wehrmacht without which Nazi Germany would not have been able to fight WW2. Anyway, after WW2 the Rockefellers then financed the creation of the United Nations, having previously financed the creation of The League of Nations. So the Rockefellers are seriously into world government. Indeed David Rockefeller in his memoirs openly expressed his pride in working towards world government.

In 1996 a group of Zionists wrote a document called A Clean Break for the then and current Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, which proposed a strategy for expanding Israel, calling for war on Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

In 2000 yet another group of Zionists, very closely allied to those who wrote A Clean Break, called PNAC wrote a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses which proposed that the USA should fight in multiple simultaneous wars across the globe to project its supremacy as the only world superpower. The two nations listed in both of those documents are Iraq and Iran. The Rebuilding America's Defenses document also recognised that in order for the American people to support such warmongering "a catastrophic event such as a new Pearl Harbor" would be required. Members of PNAC include Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle, and a long list of Zionists who before, on and after 9/11 were in powerful positions to influence public thought, such as Robert Kagan at the Washington Post. Within minutes of the 9/11 Kagan had posted an article on The Washington Post website demanding retribution. All the aformentioned people have attended Bilderberg at least once. The owner of the Washington Post Donald Graham attends Bilderberg every year.

Bilderberg likes to keep itself away from the public eye. A Bilderberg sleuth called Jim Tucker has been hunting Bilderberg for over 30 years, and has managed to build up some contacts within the Bilderberg apparatus from whom he gets some inside information. From the information Tucker is leaked he is able to accurately predict global events, such as the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (not 2002 as was widely forecast) and the rise and fall of oil prices. So we can trust Tucker’s sources.

According to Tucker the big decision taken at this year’s conference was to start war on Iran. Iran remains the only common factor between those countries named in A Clean Break and Rebuilding America’s Defenses which America has not fought. In fact in Rebuilding America’s Defenses Iran is named as more of a threat to the USA than Iraq.

Critics of Bilderberg have accused it of controlling global events, but did not have definite proof. However, for some reason, a three time Bilderberg attendee and the former Secretary-General of NATO (so not a man to be easily dismissed), Willy Claes recently told the Belgian radio station Zonnewind that Bilderberg does indeed set the global agenda for the coming 12 months, and he also stated in some detail how the conspiracy is implemented. Claes stated that at each Bilderberg conference each attendee, including the likes of Henry Kissinger, are given ten minutes and no more, to speak, and that each attendee is given a list of action points that they are expected to implement in their sphere of influence. Claes said that no formal votes are taken, but this is how Bilderberg implements their agenda. It is suspected that the Bilderberg Steering Committee draws up the final action list, but we don’t know for sure. It could be someone further up the chain of command who hands the committee the action list. But we now know that somebody draws up an action list and attendees are expected to implement it as best they can.

I have visited your page on the They Work For You website and see that you were very strongly against the Iraq war, but curiously strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war. Does what I have just told you explain how and why the Iraq war was started? Does it explain why within minutes of the 9/11 attack Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and the rest were demanding proof that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and why Iraq and not Afghanistan became the major priority of the US military? And does it not explain why reports are now appearing of Osama bin Laden living it up in Iran?

And if you don’t think Bilderberg has any power, this year’s meeting took place in Spain, and Henry Kissinger attended. There is an arrest warrant for Kissinger in Spain, yet there he was at Bilderberg meeting with Nazi sponsor Rockefeller being protected from the public by the Spanish police!!

Bilderberg also proposed the European Union and the Euro, as a step towards their dream of one world government and one world currency.

There are strong suspicions that an element of the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks in one way or another. It is highly suspicious that on 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy Secretary of Defense, when the US military was mysteriously absent while four hijacked planes flew around the most protected airspace in the world for nearly two hours before flying into the WTC and even the Pentagon(!!), after Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and others had produced the Rebuilding America's Defenses proposal for war on Iraq and Iran recognising the need for "a catastrophic event such as a new Pearl Harbor".

But to support the thesis that there is a massive conspiracy regarding 9/11 involving very high levels of the US government, in an interview by radio host and film producer Alex Jones of another film producer Aaron Russo, Russo stated that he was approached by a member of the Rockefeller family and was asked if he wanted to join ‘them’. Russo stated that this member of the Rockefellers told him in late 2000 that within a year a large event would occur that would result in America invading Iraq. Do you reckon 9/11 fits the description of that large event? I’ve sent this evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, which may or may not have resulted in them interviewing some of the so-called Neocons in the USA. Russo produced two of my favourite films; the first is Trading Places, and the second is America : Freedom to Fascism, which is about the creation of the privately-owned Federal Reserve of the USA. Russo also stated to Jones that the ultimate goal of the Rockefellers and their co-conspirators is a world government of a dumbed-down people who have all been microchipped. Both America : Freedom to Fascism and the interview with Alex Jones are available on Google Video and YouTube to watch for free online.

So this is the network behind the 9/11 attacks, and now war with Iran.

I ask you as my MP that if we start war on Iran that you demand some sort of investigation into the current and former MPs who have attended Bilderberg, particularly those who went this year to Spain. If they are actively encouraging war on Iran they should be prosecuted under the Nuremberg Principle VI Crimes Against Peace. We are currently not at war with Iran, but I believe that Bilderberg and the network to which it belongs are actively engaged in a conspiracy to start war with Iran.

But why would they want war with Iran?

As previously stated, Iran is the nation named in both A Clean Break and Rebuilding America's Defenses which the USA has not yet fought, and is considered to be more dangerous than Iraq. Iran is surrounded by NATO and US military forces, as a consequence of military action due to 9/11, and if not invaded would be a serious thorn in their side, and an acute embarrassment. But I believe that war on Iran is the last phase of a much longer range plan to implement a world government. A very, very high level Freemason called Albert Pike drafted a plan in the late 19th Century for three world wars, the third to be a global war between Zionism and Islam, and that the result would leave a world population so devastated and exhausted that it would be unable and unwilling to resist the implementation of a tyrannical world government.

In the late 19th Century Judaism was scattered across the globe and very few Jews lived in Palestine. So how could such a global war between Judaism and Islam be engineered? One of the results of WW1 was the Balfour Declaration, and at Versailles Palestine was given to the British who subsequently promoted mass Jewish immigration to Palestine. There was even an agreement between the Zionists, the British and the Nazis(!!) to encourage mass Jewish immigration to Palestine. But world and particularly European Jewry didn’t buy it. They knew the potential for friction with Islamic neighbours. So the Rockefellers and their ilk financed the Nazis into power and built the Wehrmacht, and hey presto, after WW2 the Zionists drove the Palestinians in to the largest refugee camps, Gaza and The West Bank, and claimed their Jewish homeland in Palestine, and after Rockefeller-sponsored Hitler had gassed a few million Jews world Jewry was persuaded that they could only find safety in Palestine. And now, with considerable financial and military support from the USA, Israel is causing great anger in, and a few wars with, the Islamic world. Indeed Osama bin Laden cites Israel as the prime reason as to why al-Qaeda exists. The 20th Century has without doubt followed that plan of Albert Pike to bring us to our current predicament, in which Zionism in the form of the alliance between the UK-USA-Israel is occupying the Middle East. Some say it’s for oil. I suspect more.

I now refer you back to the facts that the Rockefellers financed both The League of Nations after WW1 and The United Nations after WW2, which shows their intent to establish a world government, and the statement of Aaron Russo who stated to Alex Jones that the aim of the Nazi-sponsors the Rockefellers is a world government of a microchipped population, and the fact that the architects of A Clean Break and Rebuilding America's Defenses, and thus the drivers of the current military conflicts in the Middle East, are all Bilderbergers which David Rockefeller controls. It is also of interest to note that both Tony Blair, who lied us into invading Iraq, and his son Euan now work for the JP Morgan Chase empire, also controlled by Rockefeller.

But I also believe that before the world goes up in flames there is some serious criminal looting of nation states going on, and that the same people currently engineering world war and the subsequent world government also engineered the current financial crisis to make a quick billion bucks or two. Lord Adair Turner at the Financial Services Authority investigated the causes of the current financial crisis and concluded that derivatives were to blame. Derivatives were first traded by JP Morgan Chase under David Rockefeller, and JP Morgan Chase continues to be the master of the global derivatives market. Whenever you hear the word ‘derivative’ you very frequently also hear of Goldman Sachs. As stated previously Aaron Russo produced a film about the creation of the Federal Reserve, which is not a part of the US government as we are told, but is actually a cartel of privately-owned banks. The main stockholders in the Federal Reserve are banks run by Rockefellers and the JP Morgan empire (which is really Rothschild, because Morgan was just a front), but Goldman Sachs is also one them. The Federal Reserve finances Israel with billions of dollars a year, a handout that Israel uses to bully and dehumanize the Palestinian people who are just about surviving in the two largest refugee camps in the world; Gaza and The West Bank.

But what is also of great relevance is that at the Bilderberg 2008 meeting it was decided that Barak Obama would become the President of the USA. Obama has a completely different background to the one we are sold, and the intimate details can be found in the superb book entitled Barak H Obama : The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster Griffin Tarpley. Tarpley also wrote a similar book about the Bush family, exposing their Nazi links and the Hitler Project they were involved in that brought Hitler to power. Obama was significantly financed by Wall Street, particularly Goldman Sachs, but also George Soros among others. But other attendees at Bilderberg 2008 were
• Timothy Geithner (ex-Goldman Sachs and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now United States Secretary of the Treasury),
• Hank Paulson (former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs, and former United States Treasury Secretary),
• Ben Bernanke (current Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve).
These three all had a highly significant role to play during the development of the current financial crisis and the subsequent multi-trillion bailouts by the Federal Reserve, and some of that bailout also went to British banks. The Federal Reserve is illegally withholding information from the US Congress as to where all the bailout money has gone and only a fraction of it can be traced. That which can be traced indicates that the majority of that traceable bailout went to Bilderberg banks; JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citi. These banks used that bailout money not to finance the US economy out of trouble but to buy up their Wall Street competitors who are not invited to Bilderberg meetings. Washington Mutual is a good example. But other non-US Bilderberg banks have also significantly increased their power. Deutsche Bank is run by Josef Ackermann who is a regular attendee to Bilderberg. Deutsche Bank is making record profits and is ignoring German government demands to cease speculating in derivatives. Banco Santander is part of the Rothschild Inter-Alpha group, and its Vice-President Juan Rodriguez Inciarte also attends Bilderberg regularly. During the current crisis Banco Santander has gobbled up Abbey National, Alliance & Leicester, Bradford & Bingley, after suspiciously dumping its Spanish property portfolio just before Hank Paulson let Lehman Bros go under, and Santander is about to gobble up over three hundred branches of Royal Bank of Scotland. RBS had Bilderbergers Sir Tom McKillop and Sir Peter Sutherland on its board, yet it required the biggest bailout in history. Under their stewardship RBS had quickly become the largest bank in the world in terms of assets, but it then went down big time to be bought up by Bilderberg banks, Banco Santander and JP Morgan. Sutherland was also head of Goldman Sachs at the time, so he definitely needs investigating immediately.

In the USA it was Bilderberg banks who pushed for the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act and for the SEC to relax its rules, actions which are recognised as the prime reasons for the current crisis, and in the UK it was Bilderbergers Ed Balls and Gordon Brown under Bilderberger Tony Blair who allowed and indeed encouraged “light-touch” regulation of the City of London, so that the Bilderberg banks such as JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs could go on a derivatives rampage and destroy the global economy. But why would they do that? As just stated, Bilderbergers controlled the distribution of bailouts from the Federal Reserve so that Bilderberg banks such as JP Morgan Chase could buy up their Wall Street competitors during the turmoil, and also divert some of the bailouts in to black holes, possibly to be never seen again. But another revealing statement was made last year when the head of the IMF stated that the IMF is working towards controlling the global economy, i.e. a world government. At the moment the IMF only ‘advises’ and arranges loans. In its projected role the IMF will order nation states what to do. The current head of the IMF is Dominique Strauss-Kahn, also a Bilderberger. Most of the heads of the IMF are Bilderbergers. The IMF is now actively involved in bailing out floundering European nations demanding that those nation states do what the IMF orders them to do; implement severe austerity. Bilderberger Gordon Brown is now being promoted as the next head of the IMF, and it appears he is keen on taking up that position, despite saying he wanted to devote his life to charity after leaving politics! So Brown helps create the crisis, and then wants to control the organisation that is using the crisis to increase its power and take over the world! You’ve gotta laugh.

But that’s not all.

For taking the USA into Iraq Paul Wolfowitz was made head of the World Bank.

For taking the USA into Vietnam Robert McNamara, also a major Bilderberger as well as a member of The Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, was made head of the World Bank.

The current head of the World Bank is Robert Zoellick, yet another frequent attendee at Bilderberg as well as The Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, but also initial member of PNAC and driver for war on Iraq.

I could go on and on...

And if you wonder why the Financial Times doesn’t cover Bilderberg, Martin Wolf and Gideon Rachman attend but are forbidden from reporting.

I think there’s something going on at Bilderberg. And former NATO Secretary-General and three time Bilderberger Willy Claes has now told us that Bilderberg does indeed set the global agenda, and he has also given us some details on how they implement their conspiracy.

Sources are now indicating that Bilderberg is giving a green light for war with Iran.

If we start war with Iran then Members of Parliament must investigate all MPs who have attended Bilderberg, particularly most recently, and if found to have conspired to start war with Iran, or conspired to implement any part of the Bilderberg agenda (and I think Blair will be one of them for his role in the Iraq invasion) then if that agenda was war they must be prosecuted under Nuremberg Principle VI Crimes Against Peace.

Yours Truly

Friday, June 18, 2010


write to your MP.

Write to your MP that
1. Willy Claes, a three time Bilderberg attendee, spilled the beanz that Bilderberg sets the global agenda ( and we now know how it is done ),
2. this year Bilderberg reached a consensus on war with Iran,
3. for which they can be prosecuted for Crimes Against Peace, like the Nazis were at Nuremberg, via Nuremberg Principle VI

That a massive number of US troops are stationed in the area after a highly suspicious 9/11, and at the same time we are being ripped off for trillions by the banks, is not just coincidence.

They hope to rip us off with trillions and then vanish into thin air like a cheezy magician in the pantomime puff of smoke of war, with that evil laugh in the background. And out of that smoke rises a true world government. Not a loosely connected network of organisations like we have now, but a bona fide world government to implant you with a microchip implant, and powers to kill you if you are designated a "terrorist", which will mean you do not believe in their tyrannical one world government.

But also tell your MP it was all planned centuries ago, and probably millenia, just over 6000 years ago to be more precise.

We are not in hell yet.

They can be stopped.

Thursday, June 17, 2010


Williams was on Alex Jones again tonight, and repeated what he said last week; that the Deepwater Horizon incident was an accident.

You do not drill that deep without a full assessment of the situation.

The incident is too convenient, just like 9/11 was the new Pearl Harbor.

Too many insiders cashed in before the incident, just like before 9/11 with those options on AA.

Too many warnings were ignored, just like before 9/11.

And now the incident is going to be used to tax, tax, tax, and impose more global government in some shape or form.

They didn't have to drill there, drill that deep, where if it all went wrong nobody could fix it easily.

They done a conspiracy.

TANd for that they will be done.

But don't forget the mega-trillion bailouts. They've sacrificed one small part of Bilderberg Inc. to save the rest of Bilderberg Inc. consisting of their banks; JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Banco Santander, Citi. Sure, BP will be persona non grata for a while, but we'll end up paying for their evil in some way, and BP will be back soon enough.

And why does Williams always try to scare people with this alleged 2012 timeline, and the only way to stop it is through an act of God? Give me a break, dude. They have no moral code. We've placed our trust in their many alleged Gods throughout the centuries, and look where it has got us!

There is no God or Gods.

It's us v them.

And we can and will do them.


Following the recent explosive revelations by Willy Claes, any Bilderberg attendee who can corroborate and/or expand on the statement of Claes on the power and operations of Bilderberg will be given amnesty.

That even goes for, and is particularly aimed at, David Rockefeller.

The New World Order is coming down. Not as fast as the WTC on 9/11, but the rumble of the collapse is definitely audible.

We are aware.

We are pissed off.

We want truth, reconciliation and justice.

It's up to you.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010


What is a "community of the Americas"?

Here's what Hillary Clinton said recently to the Organisation of American States, where the Declaration of Lima was adopted,
I am very grateful to the mayor and to all of you for joining me here today to discuss our vision of a shared partnership among our countries and the peoples of the Americas. Last April at the Summit of the Americas, President Obama pledged that the United States seeks an equal partnership with engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. Since then, we have been working to foster a truer community of the Americas, a community that truly does recognize that whether one lives in Quito or Los Angeles, in Ottawa or Buenos Aires, in many ways, we seek the same future for ourselves and our children.

[source : Secretary Clinton’s Policy Address on Opportunity in the Americas, US State Dept,]

She then waffles on about opportunity and freedom and wealth and...yawn,yawn. etc

We've seen and heard it all before with the EU.

Big government is good.

Big government is great.

Big government loves you.



Here's the Declaration of Lima (which should be read with Mexican invasion of the Southern states of the USA in mind)

1. Their commitment to international peace, security, cooperation in order to address the traditional threats and the new threats that affect the region.

2. Their commitment to reinforce inter-American partnership for integral development and, in that context, to strengthen cooperation mechanisms and actions to urgently address extreme poverty, inequity, and social exclusion.

3. Their commitment to respect for international law and their faith in the peaceful settlement of disputes.

4. The obligation of member states in their international relations not to have recourse to the use of force, except in the case of self-defense, in accordance with existing treaties or in fulfillment thereof.

5. The importance of continuing to promote in the Hemisphere a climate conducive to arms control, limitation of conventional weapons, and the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, making it possible for each member state to devote more resources to its economic and social development, taking into account compliance with international commitments, as well as its legitimate defense and security needs.

6. Their commitment to ensuring that the Organization of American States continues to contribute to the overcoming of tensions and solution of crises, with full respect for the sovereignty of states and the principles of the OAS Charter; and, in addition, to continue supporting bilateral, subregional, regional, and international efforts, agreements, and mechanisms to prevent conflicts and achieve the peaceful settlement of disputes.

7. Their commitment to continue implementing confidence- and security-building measures identified in the Declaration of Santiago, the Declaration of San Salvador, and the Consensus of Miami.

8. Their firm commitment to promote transparency in arms acquisitions in keeping with pertinent United Nations and OAS resolutions on the matter; and to invite those states that have not yet done so to consider signing and ratifying, as the case may be, the Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons Acquisitions.
9. Their invitation to those member states that have not yet done so to give prompt consideration to ratifying or acceding to, as the case may be, the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (CIFTA).

10. The importance of continuing bilateral, subregional, and regional efforts to further advance cooperation on security matters and implement the agreements, declarations, and understandings adopted over the years with respect to peace, stability, confidence, and security.

11. Their commitment to strengthening cooperation in order to comprehensively address, with full respect for international law and international human rights law, the threats to the security of their peoples, including extreme poverty, social exclusion, the effects of natural disasters, transnational organized crime, arms trafficking, the world drug problem, trafficking in persons, the smuggling of migrants, money laundering, corruption, terrorism, kidnapping, criminal gangs, and cybercrime.

12. Their decision to continue fostering a culture of peace and promoting education for peace among the countries of the region, reaffirming our goal of continuing to devote more resources to the well-being of our peoples.


And in a related aericle, the head of Lukoil has warned that unless Russian exploration laws are changed Russian oil production will decline. This is curious because Russia recently became the largest oil producer, above Saudi Arabia. And from the report below it appears that if oil is discovered the state grabs it. This is curious.



Oil and gas production in Russia to fall after 2011 - LUKoil head

13:19 16/06/2010

Oil and gas production in Russia will start declining gradually after 2011 if the government does not change laws to stimulate geological exploration, LUKoil head Vagit Alekperov said on Wednesday.

"The production will reach its peak in 2010-2011, and then it will face a gradual slowdown caused by a total absence of incentives in that sphere," Alekperov told a meeting of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.

He said that investment in geological exploration already slumped 65 percent in 2010 as newly-discovered fields are signed away to the state, not to a licence holder, which had discovered it, discouraging geological exploration on new fields.

Another stumbling block was the fact that expenses on new deposits discovery were only reimbursed if exploration proved successful, he said.

The government should make several legislative changes, stimulating geological exploration, which will allow the state to create the necessary raw materials base for stable and uninterrupted oil and gas production, Alekperov said.

MOSCOW, June 16 (RIA Novosti)


In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon conspiracy the WWF has asked that plans to drill for oil in the Arctic be stopped immediately until safety can be improved.

Russia has the technology to safely drill very deep. Obviously the Bilderbergers don't. So why not use the Deepwater Horizon conspiracy to stop Russia from accelerating into the distance as the largest producer of oil.

Is this the situation?



WWF urges suspension of Arctic oil drilling

14:50 16/06/2010

The World Wildlife Fund has called on Arctic states to suspend oil drilling in the region until the risk of accidents can be eliminated.

The Arctic Council is gathering in Russia's Vorkuta on Wednesday to discuss measures to prevent or contain oil drilling accidents in the wake of the catastrophic BP oil spill Gulf of Mexico in April.

"It is time for the Arctic states to recognize that offshore oil drilling with the current technology and response capacities poses unacceptable risks," Alexei Knizhnikov, Oil & Gas Environmental Policy Officer for WWF-Russia, said.

"Norway and the United States have already taken the first step, by putting off any further Arctic offshore drilling until an investigation into the Gulf disaster is over," he said.

In 2010, the first exploratory drilling is scheduled to take place off the west coast of Greenland. Norway plans to open up further territory for oil exploration. In Russia, exploratory drilling is scheduled in the Kara Sea and the Ob river estuary near the Yamal Peninsula.

WWF Australia's Greg Bourne, an ex-BP manager, said despite having best drilling technology, BP has still been unable to deal with the unprecedented environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

"To even conceive of being able to control a similar event in the Arctic would be a triumph of hope over experience and reason. The consequences of such an event in the cold climate would lead to a persistence of ecological damage over many decades," Bourne said.

Russian non-governmental environmental organizations and Arctic indigenous peoples issued a statement on June 4 urging a moratorium on new oil drilling projects on the Russian sea shelves until measures are taken to ensure security.

MOSCOW, June 16 (RIA Novosti)

Sunday, June 13, 2010


This stinks!

Santander is the biggest bank in Europe and over the last two years has got bigger following the crash. It is a Bilderberg bank in that its Executive Vice Chairman, Matías Rodriguez Inciarte, has been there nearly every year for the last decade.

But RBS is also a Bilderberg bank in that it had Sir Peter Sutherland and Sir Tom McKillop on its board. Sutherland is/was a member of the steering committee and like Inciarte was at Bilderberg nearly every year in the last decade as the credit bubble was inflated and then deliberately burst by ALLOWING Lehman to collapse.

And while Sutherland was at RBS he was also a top cat in Goldman Sachs!

Under Sutherland and McKillop Fred Goodwin, who had no banking experience, made RBS the biggest bank in the world in terms of assets, and then drove RBS into oblivion.

Santander and RBS are members of the Rothschild Inter Alpha Group.

Santander got Abbey National, Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester.

And now Santander is going to get 318 branches from Royal Bank of Scotland.

Another Bilderberg bank JP Morgan got RBS's European commodoties business.

And what's the logo of Santander? A flame.

If you ask me some insider dealing was arranged through the Bilderberg network. The proof? Read this paragraph from the report below. It stinks of foreknowledge.
Unlike other smaller Spanish banks, Santander has survived the global financial meltdown after it sold parts of its property portfolio just as the market started to crack in 2007.

Always ask the question, cui bono?

The Bilderberg banks have increased significantly in strength, while the rest have gone under, been bought up by the Bilderberg banks or just about survived.



Santander set to buy 318 branches from Royal Bank of Scotland

• Santander ends up as sole bidder after £2bn offer in April
• Deal would lift group's share of Britain's SME market to 9%

Santander, the Spanish bank that bought Abbey National, is set to acquire 318 high street branches from the Royal Bank of Scotland as the only bidder left in a sale process that ends tomorrow.

The Spanish business, the largest bank in the eurozone, submitted an indicative offer of about £2bn in April to buy the branches the European Union is forcing RBS to sell, following the government's multimillion-pound bailout at the height of the credit crunch.

Santander's purchase would lift its share in Britain's small and medium-sized company market to about 9%, up from 3% now. The bank controls 14% of the country's mortgage market and 10% of retail savings and overall branches.

RBS, 84% controlled by the taxpayer, has until 2013 to sell the branches, and it may decline any offers below the asking price. The bank stunned financial markets last year when it announced it expected a record £28bn loss, linked to bad loans and the plunging value of toxic assets, and has sold its European commodities business to JP Morgan for $1.7bn.

Unlike other smaller Spanish banks, Santander has survived the global financial meltdown after it sold parts of its property portfolio just as the market started to crack in 2007.

The bank also has extensive interests in South America, a region less affected by the US sub-prime mortgage crisis. The bank recently said it expected this year to match last year's €8.9bn profits.

Santander plans to grow in the UK after buying Abbey National, Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester. The company has said in the past that floating its UK business on the stock market was a possibility, although it conceded it was "very early days".

Santander earned €1.4bn out of the partial stock market listing of its Brazilian unit last year.

The bank's UK business posted annual profits of £1.5bn in 2009, up 30% from 2008.

Santander expects double-digit growth in Britain this year, pushed by a recovering economy, and through "opportunities that may arise", chairman Emilio Botín said in February.

Instead, RBS is trying to shore up its books as the government prepares a scaled exit from its ownership. The bank recently made its debut in the covered bond market, where banks issue bonds backed up by their loan portfolio. The bank raised €1.25bn, after attracting €1.9bn of orders from nearly 100 different investors.

Saturday, June 12, 2010


But apparently it was all just "an administrative error".

Somehow a tranche of German debt, considered one of the safest debts in the world, was downgraded by S&P. S&P was one of the three main credit rating agencies that contributed to the current financial crisis by rating junk as AAA. So it is in on the scam.

But why would S&P downgrade German debt?

As a warning, "Hey Germany, look what we can do. We've rated junk as AAA before so we can rate AAA as junk...whenever we want. Waddya gonna do about it?".

Germany is driving to ban derivatives in Europe, and is gaining some support. I think Bilderberg Osborne opposes the move, and Deutsche Bank under Bilderberger Josef Ackermann does too, ignoring its own governemnt and gambling on shorting Spain and Portugal.



Red faces at S&P as agency strips Germany of 'AAA' rating - for a minute
Things have got bad but, really: that bad? For a moment on Friday, markets were forced to think the unthinkable as an error briefly stripped one of the world's most reliable sovereign nations of its triple-A credit rating.

By Edmund Conway
Published: 6:39PM BST 11 Jun 2010

Standard & Poor's temporarily removed the AAA rating from a slice of Germany's national debt, before issuing a humiliating correction.

The clerical error is all the more ironic because not only has Germany held the top credit rating since S&P started monitoring it in 1983, it is regarded as one of the safest bets in the world, with one of the lowest credit default swaps of all sovereigns and a smaller budget deficit than any other G7 economy.

And yet for a moment, S&P's ratings service withdrew the AAA rating on a tranche of €24bn (£20bn) of 3.75pc German Federal 2019 notes. The agency explained that it had incorrectly entered the maturity date for the note, describing this as an "administrative error". It added: "We have corrected and reinstated the 'AAA' issue rating on the tranche of notes."

Such errors are not unheard of since S&P has ratings on a mind-boggling number of different debt issues, however with so much attention currently focused on sovereign debt issues, the mistake raised eyebrows. However, the rating change did little to distort the price of German debt, despite the fact that many traders are thought to integrate ratings agencies' grades into their models. As it happened, German bond yields improved slightly yesterday, affected by US retail sales data.

The mistake may prompt further questions about the accuracy and reliability of the ratings provided by S&P, Fitch and Moody's, whose judgements on sub-prime debt ahead of the crisis are agreed to have contributed to the ultimate implosion. The agencies' recent downgrading of Greece's debt pushed the country further towards insolvency. They are currently weighing whether to downgrade Britain, which faces one of the biggest deficits in the western world but is imposing spending cuts.

Germany's rating, it should be added, is not considered at risk.

Friday, June 11, 2010


I heard Rev. Lindsey Williams on Alex Jones last night. Williams quoted a source Mr X who said that the potential eco-catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico was not conspiracy.

I do not believe this.

Having read the report compiled by Jones and the Watsons on foreknowledge and oddities I think a number of people knew something was going to occur weeks before. I also think that although Williams may be genuine, Mr X may not be telling the whole truth and is engaging in some damage limitation via Williams.

The Kola SG3 super-deep well was made decades ago, giving plenty of time to evaluate pressures. If Khordokovsky acquired Yukos for some economic espionage to acquire the experimental data from Kola SG-3, and other similar wells, then BP would have had some estimate of the pressures in any superdeep well in the Gulf of Mexico. If BP had some estimate of the potential pressures and then arranged their safety valves and procedures to fail then this would explain how they could fuck up big time, or appear to fuck up big time.

If BP were interested in abiotic oil from superdeep wells why did they not drill on land. Is the Gulf of Mexico the only place on earth where this kind of oil is recoverable? Apparently not. Apparently this kind of oil is recoverable anywhere on the earth's surface if you drill deep enough. So why did BP drill in the Gulf of Mexico, in deep water, off the coast of the USA, where if it went wrong the resulting spill would not be so easily contained?

This, with the foreknowledge shown by selling shares, and strange untraceable components, and the lack of desire to solve the problem indicates to me that the Gulf of Mexico is being deliberately polluted for political aims. What those political aims are is debatable, but an increase in oil price, bans on deep drilling for abiotic oil, environmental lawmaking are definite possibilities.

Plus the anger and media coverage keeps the mega-trillion bank bailouts out of everyone's heads.

Thursday, June 10, 2010


Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, has documents from the Israeli government in response to questions about the blockade Gaza.

Apparently the blockade is not about security, as we are officially told, but is instead an exercise in economic warfare, and thus collective punishment.

This is straight from the Israeli horse's mouth.

It's official.

Just like those statistics from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on rockets from Gaza being fired into Israel in the summer of 2008, which showed that Hamas was keeping its side of the agreement with Israel to cease the blockade, this shows that the statements that the blockade is about Israel's security are completely false.

The blockade is officially about economic warfare against Hamas.

But because all the people of Gaza, men, women and children, is affected the blockade is actually collective punishment.




Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn't about security

By Sheera Frenkel | McClatchy Newspapers

JERUSALEM — As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.

Israel imposed severe restrictions on Gaza in June 2007, after Hamas won elections and took control of the coastal enclave after winning elections there the previous year, and the government has long said that the aim of the blockade is to stem the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza.

Last week, after Israeli commandos killed nine volunteers on a Turkish-organized Gaza aid flotilla, Israel again said its aim was to stop the flow of terrorist arms into Gaza.

However, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

"A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'" the government said.

McClatchy obtained the government's written statement from Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, which sued the government for information about the blockade. The Israeli high court upheld the suit, and the government delivered its statement earlier this year.

Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Gisha focuses on Palestinian rights.

(A State Department spokesman, who wasn't authorized to speak for the record, said he hadn't seen the documents in question.)

The Israeli government took an additional step Wednesday and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal. A government spokesman, who couldn't be named as a matter of policy, told McClatchy that authorities will continue to ease the blockade but "could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control" of Gaza.

President Barack Obama, after receiving Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, said the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable." He pledged an additional $400 million in aid for housing, school construction and roads to improve daily life for Palestinians — of which at least $30 million is earmarked for Gaza.

Israel's blockade of Gaza includes a complex and ever-changing list of goods that are allowed in. Items such as cement or metal are barred because they can be used for military purposes, Israeli officials say.

According to figures published by Gisha in coordination with the United Nations, Israel allows in 25 percent of the goods it had permitted into Gaza before the Hamas takeover. In the years prior to the closure, Israel allowed an average of 10,400 trucks to enter Gaza with goods each month. Israel now allows approximately 2,500 trucks a month.

The figures show that Israel also has limited the goods allowed to enter Gaza to 40 types of items, while before June 2007 approximately 4,000 types of goods were listed as entering Gaza.

Israel expanded its list slightly Wednesday to include soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy, said Palestinian liaison official Raed Fattouh, who coordinates the flow of goods into Gaza with Israel.

"I think Israel wants to defuse international pressure," said Fattouh. "They want to show people that they are allowing things into Gaza."

It was the first tangible step taken by Israel in the wake of the unprecedented international criticism it's faced over the blockade following last week's Israeli raid on the high seas.

While there have been mounting calls for an investigation into the manner in which Israel intercepted the flotilla, world leaders have also called for Israel to lift its blockade on Gaza.

At his meeting with Abbas, Obama said the Security Council had called for a "credible, transparent investigation that met international standards." He added: "And we meant what we said. That's what we expect."

He also called for an easing of Israel's blockade. "It seems to us that there should be ways of focusing narrowly on arms shipments, rather than focusing in a blanket way on stopping everything and then, in a piecemeal way, allowing things into Gaza," he told reporters.

Egypt, which controls much of Gaza's southern border, reopened the Rafah crossing this week in response to international pressure to lift the blockade.

Egypt has long been considered Israel's partner in enforcing the blockade, but Egyptian Foreign Minister Hossam Zaki said the Rafah crossing will remain open indefinitely for Gazans with special permits. In the past, the border has been opened sporadically.

Maxwell Gaylard, the U.N.'s humanitarian coordinator in the Palestinian territories, said the international community is seeking an "urgent and fundamental change" in Israel's policy regarding Gaza rather than a piecemeal approach.

"A modest expansion of the restrictive list of goods allowed into Gaza falls well short of what is needed. We need a fundamental change and an opening of crossings for commercial goods," he said.

Hamas officials said that they were "disappointed" by Israel's announcement, and that the goods fell far short of what was actually needed.

"They will send the first course. We are waiting for the main course," Palestinian Economy Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh said in Ramallah, specifying that construction materials were the item that Gazans need most. Many Palestinians have been unable to build their homes in the wake of Operation Cast Lead, Israel's punishing offensive in the Gaza Strip in December 2008 and January 2009.

Israel said the cement and other construction goods could be used to build bunkers and other military installations.

Some of those goods already come into Gaza via the smuggling tunnels that connect it to Egypt.

(Frenkel, a McClatchy special correspondent, reported from Jerusalem. Warren P. Strobel and Steven Thomma contributed to this article from Washington.)

Read more:


In 1997 a complaint against Ken Clarke MP for Bilderberg Central was made by Mrs Lynn Riley, of Chepstow, Monmouthshire. She complained that Clarke had failed to register his attendance at Bilderberg 1993. Clarke and Tony Blair were investigated by the Committee for Standards. Both Clarke and Blair claimed they thought they were official representatives of the government and opposition!

By the time of the investigation Blair had registered his attendance due to an earlier similar complaint made against him.

The 1997 investigation believed
1. Clarke truly believed that he was attending Bilderberg 1993 as a Minister
2. in which case Clarke had been a naughty boy, but should not be punished

But Paragraph 9 is the killer in this report on the investigation. Recalling Willy Claes' dynamite information recently, here is Paragraph 9.
9. I do however consider that any breach of the rules was of a relatively minor nature, and note that the former Select Committee concluded that no further action was needed in respect of Mr Blair's delay in registering the same visit. I also accept that:

(i) Mr Clarke saw himself as attending the conference as a representative of the Government, and had been careful to observe the requirement under Questions of Procedure for Ministers `to ensure that no undue influence was involved';

(ii) as, to the best of Mr Clarke's knowledge, it was the conference organisers who had paid for his accommodation, the receipt of such a benefit could not realistically have been thought likely to influence his actions as a Member of Parliament.

Conference organisers who had paid for his accommodation?

No undue influence?

Not realistically have been thought likely to influence his actions as a Member of Parliament?

Clarke has been a member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee, and would probably have drawn up the report that attendess are given that the action points of which they are aupposed to have implemented!!

I think in light of Claes' revelations that Clarke and the rest of the Bilderberg traitors need a new investigation.



Memorandum submitted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Complaint against Mr Kenneth Clarke

1. Mrs Lynn Riley, of Chepstow, Monmouthshire, wrote on 28 February 1997 to a Member of the House, alleging that Mr Kenneth Clarke MP had failed to register `the free trip and accommodation he received from the Bilderberg Group ... unlike Tony Blair who attended the same meeting'. She enclosed a letter from Mr Clarke dated 6 September 1995 in which he states that `my recollection is that I paid for my flight but that I was accommodated while I was there'. The Member passed the correspondence on to me.

2. The Bilderberg Conference is an annual conference which was established in 1954 at the invitation of Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeck, the Netherlands. Its main founder was the Polish political philanthropist Joseph Retinger and its members include political leaders, statesmen, academics, businessmen, bankers, and union leaders from Western Europe and the NATO countries. They discuss the political, economic and military problems of Europe and the world. The conference in question was held in Greece in April 1993, at a time when Mr Clarke was Home Secretary.

3. Had Mr Clarke not responded to Mrs Riley as he did, I would have held that there was no prima facie evidence to support the complaint.

4. Mr Clarke repeated to me his recollection that he paid his own air fare but that his accommodation costs were met. He had since checked with the conference organisers who confirmed that it was in accordance with their policy at the time for participants to meet their own travel costs; and that although they no longer kept complete records, they thought that the accommodation had been paid for by sponsors unknown, organised by their Greek members.

5. Mr Clarke subsequently explained that he and Mr Blair considered that they were attending the conference as representatives of the Government and the Opposition respectively, and stated that `I was quite confident that I was at the time meeting the rules applying to Ministers, and it did not occur to me that the new rules concerning registration could apply to this visit'.

6. The conference took place shortly before the House approved, in June 1993, a number of detailed changes to the rules on registration and guidance which had been recommended by the former Select Committee on Members' Interests towards the end of the previous Parliament. Before that date, Members were required to give details on their registration forms of `overseas visits relating to or arising out of membership of the House where the cost of any such visit has not been wholly borne by the Member or by public funds'. A guide to the new rules, published in September 1993, provided the following amplification: `Where only part of the costs was borne by an outside source (for example the accommodation but not the cost of travel) those details should be stated briefly'. The new rules, which applied for the first time to the Register of Members' Interests published in January 1994, also contained a list of specific exemptions from the requirement to register overseas visits.

7. As Mr Clarke correctly pointed out, neither he nor Mr Blair registered their attendance at the conference on their return. Mr Blair did so two years later in 1995, following a complaint to the former Select Committee that he had failed to register that visit, together with an earlier visit to Washington as a member of an All-Party Group. The Committee in their Report[1] acknowledged that certain aspects of the Rules had been the subject of widespread misapprehension and recommended that no further action should be taken in respect of the complaints made against Mr Blair.

8. Mr Clarke's recollection that he paid his own travel expenses is borne out by the conference organisers, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not the case. His accommodation expenses, on the other hand, do appear to have been met by his hosts. The Bilderberg Conference does not fall within a category which is exempt from registration and it follows that, in accordance with the rules both before and after June 1993, the partial benefit that he received ought to have been registered.

9. I do however consider that any breach of the rules was of a relatively minor nature, and note that the former Select Committee concluded that no further action was needed in respect of Mr Blair's delay in registering the same visit. I also accept that:

(i) Mr Clarke saw himself as attending the conference as a representative of the Government, and had been careful to observe the requirement under Questions of Procedure for Ministers `to ensure that no undue influence was involved';

(ii) as, to the best of Mr Clarke's knowledge, it was the conference organisers who had paid for his accommodation, the receipt of such a benefit could not realistically have been thought likely to influence his actions as a Member of Parliament.

11 July 1997


Deutsche Bank is run by Josef Ackermann, a senior Bilderberger, and one of the major profiteers from the financial crisis. Germany recently banned its banks from shorting any Euro-denominated European government debt. But for whatever reason Deutsche Bank under Ackermann is giving its own government the middle finger.

But why?



Deutsche Bank shorts €2bn eurozone sovereign debt
Germany’s largest bank has revealed it is currently shorting Spanish and Portuguese government bonds, despite the country’s ban on holding short positions in the debt of other European governments.

By Harry Wilson, Financial Services Correspondent
Published: 11:46AM BST 10 Jun 2010

Deutsche Bank said today that it has a net £900m short position on Spanish government debt and a £660m short on the Portuguese sovereign, as the German government attempts to ban all short sales in European sovereign debt.

The position will be doubly embarrassing for the German government, as Deutsche Bank's own shares are currently the subject of a short trading ban imposed by the country’s authorities at the same time as sovereign ban.

Details of Deutsche Bank’s shorting came in a presentation given in at the Goldman Sachs European financials conference in Madrid today by the company’s chief risk officer Dr Hugo Banzinger.

Dr Banziger described the bank’s overall exposure to Southern European government debt as “relatively small, except Italy”. Deutsche Bank’s net sovereign exposure to Italy is £2.6bn, based on a gross position of about £23bn.

Germany’s unilateral ban last month on the short selling of euro-denominated government bonds, credit default swaps based on those bonds, and shares in the country’s 10 leading financial institutions initially surprised other Eurozone governments, but has since gained support.

Wednesday, June 09, 2010


As powerful as they are, Bilderberg are not the top cats, but they are very near.

Ask yourself two questions.
1. where does the perceived most powerful man or woman on the planet live?
2. what is the most powerful satanic symbol?

The answers are
1. The White House
2. the inverted, irregular and incomplete pentagram

The organisation that put the inverted, irregular and incomplete pentagram pointing down into the White House in 1791 are the top cats. That we don't know exactly how it got in there says a lot about the control of information.

But that it has been identified, along with other occult symbols in the Washington DC street plan, indicates that we cannot be too far off from learning.

And the fact that it and the other occult symbols are there in the capital of the perceived most powerful nation on earth, the nation that spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined, the nation that has military bases in almost every other nation on the planet and wants even more, should tell you something...


Just when Bilderberg reaches a consensus on pushing for war on Iran look who is now reported to be living there. They thought Osama bin Laden had been hiding in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area for a few years, but now he's popped up on the radar in Iran, just in time for another Bilderberg war, as part of the A Clean Break/Rebuilding America's Defenses agenda.
[source : Osama bin Laden and top aides are hiding in Sabzevar, Iran, Debka, 9/6/2010]

His timing is immaculate.

Just when PNAC and Israel want a "a new Pearl Harbor" to implement their A Clean Break/Rebuilding America's Defenses agenda ObL pops up and allegedly arranges 9/11 for them.

Now when they want war on Iran, ObL obliges and allegedly moves to Iran.

And now Iran has vowed to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza with a convoy from the Red Crescent by sending Iranian Revolutionary Guards on board the three boat convoy AND escorting the convoy with IRG navy vessels.
[source : Iran's Gaza-bound ships ready for clash with Israel - Ahmadinejad, Debka, 9/6/2010]

Doesn't Ahmadinejad have a religious belief in a second coming of Isa who will only return after there has been a period of war and chaos, and doesn't he also believe that he is on a divine mission to bring that second coming about?

Can you smell a war?

Tuesday, June 08, 2010


This is a very distressing report on Israel treating Gaza as a dumping ground for all sorts of waste, including toxic chemicals and even radioactive nuclear waste, claimed to be from Dimona.
[source : Palestine- An Israeli dumping ground for radioactive/toxic waste,, The Palestine Telegraph, 8/6/2010]

The author has little, if any, confidence in the UN and its agencies at work in Palestine.

But what would you do if someone was dumping radioactive waste in the middle of your property?

Eat and drink it?

Please, Sir, can I have some more?

Or would you go absolutely superflying MoFo? Well, you might if you had the energy, but the same Zionazis dumping the radioactive waste are the same Zionazis blockading your property!


The three credit ratings agencies that were primarily responsible for rating junk as AAA were Fitch, Moodys and S&P, and as a consequence the world economy is going down, down, down after the banks were bailed out by governments with money that should have financed their executives and economies.

Now one of them, Fitch, is threatening to downgrade the UK credit rating if we don't implement more austerity than Italy, Spain and Portugal.
[source : Osborne unveils plan to slash deficit as Britain is told to cut faster or risk AAA credit rating, The Daily Mail, 8/6/2010]

And to top it all off, the EU is going to vet whatever budget Osborne proposes BEFORE our Parliament! This was agreed last night in a meeting chaired by Bilderberg Gollum van Rompuy.
[source : EU 'to vet British Budget before Parliament', The Daily Telegraph, 8/6/2010]

Just who do these people think they are?


Dear Sirs

Over last weekend a group called Bilderberg met near Barcelona in Sitges, Spain. Bilderberg have been accused of, among other things, vetting our political leaders before election (most notoriously in the cases of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), planning wars and engineering the prices of oil. My own research indicates they are seriously implicated in the cause of the current financial crisis, the administration of the subsequent bailouts (which banks survived and grew stronger and which banks died and were gobbled up by the survivors), and the current crisis with the Euro, because Goldman Sachs, along with JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and Banco Santander (all have grown significantly in strength during the crisis while their competitors have gone under), is one of their banks.

Anyway, due to a source within Bilderberg we know that over the weekend Bilderberg reached a consensus to wage war on Iran. For years critics of Bilderberg have long suspected that Bilderberg does control the major global events, but did not have definitive proof of that or proof of how they implement their plans. However, a Bilderberg member, wittingly or unwittingly, has finally divulged the information we Bilderberg critics have long been waiting for. That member of Bilderberg is Willy Claes, former longtime Minister in the Belgian government and former Secretary-General of NATO (ALL SecGens of NATO are Bilderberg). In a recent radio interview Claes admitted that Bilderberg does indeed set the agenda for the next twelve months before Bilderberg next meets, but he also described how the Bilderberg organisers implement their conspiracy. Each attendee at the conference gives a 10 minute speech, and at the end of the conference each member is given a list of action points that they should consider implementing as part of their professional role or in their particular sphere of influence, based on the speeches given by the attendees.

I have to tell you that this is dynamite information.

I have personally believed that war on Iran was always on the cards due to the documents entitled A Clean Break, written in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahu, and Rebuilding America's Defenses, written by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). I also believe, after a decade of research, that the current series of wars laid out in those documents are the final stages of a centuries long plan to implement a despotic world government after three world wars with the third due to a global war between Zionism and Islam. Both of the aforementioned documents were written by the same group of Zionists who on 9/11 occupied a number of very senior positions of the Bush Administration; Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney as Vice-President, Paul Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle, John Bolton. The list is long. PNAC wrote in Rebuilding America's Defenses that they wanted "a new Pearl Harbor" in order to persuade the American public that the USA should create a massive military machine to go on the rampage and engage in multiple simultaneous wars across the globe. What happened? 9/11. What happened after that? They ignored bin Laden and instead went after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have WMD, but they have also invaded and occupied Afghanistan (and there is a lot of evidence that the US military let bin Laden and co escape from Tora Bora, and that the US military are now actively engaged in the opium trade, which several British and American aristocracy have been profiting from for centuries; the Taliban had virtually eradicated the trade).

All the above mentioned personnel are members of Bilderberg. Perle was there last weekend.

A Clean Break stated that targets of Israeli aggression should be
1. Iraq
2. Lebanon
3. Syria
4. Iran via Hezbollah

Rebuilding America's Defenses stated that the targets of US aggression should be
1. Iraq
2. Iran
and suggested that Iran was more of a threat to the USA than Iraq.

Since the highly suspicious 9/11, military conflict with these nations has been executed or proposed by the Israeli-US-UK alliance in one form or another.

A state of peace currently exists between the UK, the USA, Israel and Iran, but there have been several provocations, notably the Lebanon War 2006, and the capture of British Marines in disputed waters off Iran in 2007. With this vote by Bilderberg they are about to use their influence in government, media, academia, industry and commerce to push for war with Iran.

My question is; can the members of the Bilderberg Steering Commitee, and indeed those who voted for war on Iran over the weekend and do use their professional role and influence to engineer a war with Iran, be prosecuted for crimes against peace as per the Nuremberg Principle VI?


We learned over the weekend that Bilderberg voted for war on Iran. We also learned that one Heather Reisman attended Bilderberg, and not for the first time. I always wondered who Reisman was, so here is what she does.

Reisman and her husband Gerry Schwartz own the majority of Indigo, with Reisman as CEO. Her uncle Simon Reisman helped create the USA-Canada Free Trade Agreement which forms the basis of the North American Union.

Schwartz owns ONEX and is one the richest men in Canada and a prominent member of the Canadian Jewish community.

And both are committed Zionists.

They established and fund an organisation called Heseg, which generally offers scholarships to "lone soldiers", who are non-Israeli born Jews with no family in Israel who join the IDF. If after their service in the IDF they wish to study in Israel and make it their home then Heseg gives them a scholarship and living expenses for their study. But Heseg also provides other services for the IDF. The Board of Directors of Heseg is staffed by the Israeli Military-Intelligence community, including
1. Maj. General Doron Almog, who avoided arrest in London in 2005 on suspicion of war crimes by not leaving the plane he flew to London on,
2. Shabtai Shavit, Head of Mossad 1989 to 1996,
and a list of former and current Generals and Brigadier Generals in the Israeli military. Civilian members of the board include
1. Irving Abella, former President of the Canadian Jewish Congress,
2. Aviv Bushinsky, former Chief of Staff for Benjamin Nutternyahu,
3. Ofra Strauss, a trustee and member of the Management Committee of the Jewish Agency which was established by the World Zionist Organization at the 16th Zionist Congress, in August 11, 1929, repeat 1929, as the "De Facto Government of the State-on-the Way".

So this is one probable vote for war on Iran

Monday, June 07, 2010


Not the war on Iran, but the Vietnam War. I didn't know Peter Dale Scott had written The War Conspiracy but his conclusion that it was all about Indochinese oil is interesting but not quite correct. In the following brief documentary he suggests that it was not the only reason for the Vietnam War.

If not, then what were the others?

The prime reason for that war was to hold Communism in check, as was done by NATO to the West, and the Korean and Vietnam wars in the East.

Oil, like the carrot to a donkey, was the reason proposed to get certain factions supportive of war. It happened then. It happened in 2001 after 9/11 when instead of going after bin Laden the coalition of the Zionazis went after Saddam Hussein who had sweet FA to do with 9/11 and did not have WMDs but did have a few barrels of oil under his bed.

But anyway...

With war on Iran having just been conspired at Bilderberg, a Crime against Peace, and US troops in Iraq and other bases surrounding Iran, it looks like one long hot summer...


What would a planned war on Iran come under?

We've just learned how the Bilderberg conspiracy works.

We've just learned they plan war on Iran.

But is it actually a crime?

YES! It is a Crime Against Peace.

Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950, Principle VI (a)

Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

"Participation in a common plan or conspiracy"?



Anyone can do 'em for that...NOW!

They set up Nuremberg to do the Nazis who they had created for WW2 and to execute the Holocaust to persuade Jews they needed a homeland and it had to be nowhere else but Palestine.

If they could be done by the same Principles...

Oh the irony!


Yes, M'Lord.

M'Lord I call Willy Claes.

Mr Claes, are you and other members of Bilderberg engaged in an open conspiracy? One in which you meet in semi-secret in a 5 star hotel behind police instead of private security, talk to each other for ten minutes and at the end of the conference are then told by the conference organisers that you should consider implementing the action points the organisers have listed that have been inspired by your speech, and that this occurs for each of the attendees, and that in this way the conference organisers implement their conspiracy? Is that how the conspiracy works?



PM David Cameron today told us that we are in for decades of life-changing austerity. This is sad music to my ears, but is what I am waiting for to support the application of The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 (1)
(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.


The explanatory notes for The Fraud Act 2006 have this to say about section 4.

20. Section 4 makes it an offence to commit a fraud by dishonestly abusing one's position. It applies in situations where the defendant has been put in a privileged position, and by virtue of this position is expected to safeguard another's financial interests or not act against those interests. The Law Commission explain the meaning of "position" at paragraph 7.38:

"7.38 The necessary relationship will be present between trustee and beneficiary, director and company, professional person and client, agent and principal, employee and employer, or between partners. It may arise otherwise, for example within a family, or in the context of voluntary work, or in any context where the parties are not at arm's length. In nearly all cases where it arises, it will be recognised by the civil law as importing fiduciary duties, and any relationship that is so recognised will suffice. We see no reason, however, why the existence of such duties should be essential. This does not of course mean that it would be entirely a matter for the fact-finders whether the necessary relationship exists. The question whether the particular facts alleged can properly be described as giving rise to that relationship will be an issue capable of being ruled upon by the judge and, if the case goes to the jury, of being the subject of directions."

21. The term "abuse" is not limited by a definition, because it is intended to cover a wide range of conduct. Moreover subsection (2) makes clear that the offence can be committed by omission as well as by positive action. For example, an employee who fails to take up the chance of a crucial contract in order that an associate or rival company can take it up instead at the expense of the employer, commits an offence under this section.

What this says is that there does not have to be a professional relationship between the fraudster and the defrauded. It also says that fiduciary duties, as those implied by the FSMA 2000 and UTCCR 1999, are sufficient. It also says that there is no definition of abuse, and that omission is also fraud.


Some photos have been released today showing the state of several Israeli commandoes who boarded the Mavi Marmara and assassinated/executed nine passengers. I use the words assasination and executed because they best approximate the degree of murder in which those who were shot were killed; in the head several times, handcuffed.

The photos were released by Hurriyet in Turkey and were taken by passengers not the commandoes. They show battered commandoes being taken to a room on the Mavi Marmara that was used to hold them captive.

They can be viewed at

Zionazi Israel and its supporters are busy claiming that the photos show just what brutes the passengers were. But note that the commandoes are still alive and have not been executed with the machine guns the passengers had taken off them. In fact, not one commando was killed. Yes they were beaten.

But here's why.

A British al-Jazeera journalist Jamal Elshayyal was on board the Mavi Marmara and has related his experience to The Independent in "Kidnapped by Israel and abandoned by Britain". He says that he saw two passengers shot in the head from the helicopter that was hovering just 15 feet above the boat. The treatment of the passengers was barbaric, and smells of something much more than what Israel claims it was doing. Perhaps the reaction of Iran was that desired by the dark forces pulling Nutternyahu's strings, for how else can you explain the completely different approach taken with the Rachel Corrie? If a similar approach taken to the Mavi Marmara had been taken to the Rachel Corrie Israel would be under serious serious pressure, perhaps even from the USA (if only superficially), to open up Gaza and give full cooperation to an external investigation into what happened. But as it stands
1. Israel is only under slight pressure, and is rejecting calls for a UN investigation
2. Iran has been enticed into breaking the blockade by sea.

How will ships from Iran get to Gaza? Passed those three Israeli nuclear subs in the Persian Gulf area? Is that why those subs were sent there now?

Depending on the port from which the ships will sail, they could sail down the Persian Gulf, around Yemen, then up the Red Sea and finally the Suez Canal.

No matter how the Zionazis try to spin the slaughter,
1. the Zionazis boarded the Mavi Marmara illegally
2. the Zionazis killed unarmed passengers taking toys to children in Gaza
3. the Zionazis detained by the passengers were not killed, despite the death they had brought to the boat, and despite the fact that they had been disarmed and their machine guns that had killed passengers were not turned on them (which shows remarkable restraint by the assaulted passengers and I commend them for it).

My question is; was it all to provoke a response from Iran, just as Bilderberg votes for war with Iran, as detailed in A Clean Break and Rebuilding America's Defenses, which could very easily escalate into something very very nasty, even if it is only a false flag terror attack on the USA to be blamed on Iran, but could escalate into that final WW3 that Albert Pike laid out well over 100 years ago?


[Blazing Saddle by Frankie Lane]
He rode a blazing saddle
He wore a shining star
His job to offer battle to bad men near and far

He conquered fear and he conquered hate
He turned dark night into day
He made his blazing saddle a torch to light the way

When outlaws ruled the west
And fear filled the land
A cry went out for a man with guts to take the west in hand
They needed a man who was brave and true with justice for all as his aim

Then out of the sun rode a man with a gun
And Bart was his name
Yes Bart was his name

He rode a blazing saddle
He wore a shining star
His job to offer battle to bad men near and far

He conquered fear and he conquered hate
He turned dark night into day
He made his blazing saddle a torch to light the way


Just as the World Cup is to kick-off, Iran is sending a convoy of aid to Gaza to be possibly escorted by the IRG.

Just as the starting gun for the Olympics 2008 was fired Georgia began bombarding South Ossetia.

So in the next month or so there will be two more attempts to break the illegal, immoral and inhumane blockade of Gaza by the Zionazis; one from German Jews, the other by Iran.

It might, just might, be a very, very interesting and emotional summer...



Report: Two Iranian ships to sail to Gaza

The Iranian Red Crescent decided to send the vessels, which will carry food, medications, and medical equipment, following a meeting with the foreign ministry.
By Haaretz Service

Iranian aid ships are due to set sail to Gaza by the end of the week, according to a report in the Sunday Times.

The Iranian Red Crescent decided to send the vessels, which will carry food, medications, and medical equipment, following a meeting with the foreign ministry,

“One ship will carry donations made by the people and the other will carry relief workers. The ships will be sent to Gaza by end of this week,” Iranian Red Crescent director Abdolrauf Adibzadeh told the IRNA news agency.

On Sunday, a representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards are ready to provide a military escort to cargo ships trying to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.

"Iran's Revolutionary Guards naval forces are fully prepared to escort the peace and freedom convoys to Gaza with all their powers and capabilities," Ali Shirazi, Khamenei's representative inside the Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Mehr news agency.

Israel Navy commandos last Monday killed nine activists in clashes on board the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara in a convoy trying to deliver aid to Gaza. The incident sparked international outrage, especially in Muslim countries and in Turkey, which threatened to cut its long-standing ties with Israel.

Israeli troops boarded another ship on Saturday and pro-Palestinian activists have promised more as they challenge the blockade imposed four years ago with the stated aim of stopping arms getting to Hamas.