Sunday, June 30, 2013


Far from being anti-American, Barings were very intimately involved in the growth of the United States of America, despite having extensive close links to The British East India Company, slavery and the opium trade. They insured slave ships carrying slaves, and owned a plantation in St Croix.

Before the Declaration of Independence was signed Barings were developing business links with Thomas Willing, who despite his opposition to independence, became the President of the Bank of North America and the first President of the Bank of the United States. Two of his granddaughters married into the Baring family. One married Alexander Baring.

Alexander Baring negotiated and financed The Louisiana Purchase. At the time Louisiana covered the whole of the middle of what is now the USA. It was massive! The purchase virtually doubled the size of the USA. This is what Aaron Burr attempted to steal with Andrew Jackson. Alexander also financed the USA during the 1812 war with the British, a war which was declared by the USA in retaliation for the British seizing American merchant ships and the impressment of American sailors. Alexander was attributed with negotiating peace.

Barings were the agents in Europe for the United States Government and the first and second Bank of the United States for the best part of the 19th Century, and could easily have let the USA crash if the British government had ordered them to do so. But no such order was ever given, or if it was it was ignored.

Barings financed the annexation of Texas from Mexico, and the purchase of Alaska from Russia. These are not tiny plots of land with space for just a few houses. Louisiana, Alaska and Texas were very, very significant pieces of land.

But, get this. During the Civil War Barings financed the purchase by the United States Federal Government, i.e. Lincoln and the north, of Ironclads, which were the new military ships of their day, as well as arms!
Barings as a house unequivocally supported the North and deplored the British government's policy of non-intervention. So much might have been expected of a staunch New Englander like Joshua Bates, but Thomas Baring was a little less enthusiastic. 'People in this country look upon you as a friend of the country', Samuel Ward assured him, '...I was applied to lately for your autograph to go in an album containing autographs of "our friends in Europe".' Benjamin Moran, at the American Legation, noted with approval a speech that Baring made in the House of Commons in May 1864: The man is a gentleman...It is mortifying to me that while he is loyal to us, the only citizen of the United States belonging to his firm, Mr Russell Sturgis, is a rebel sympathizer.' Sturgis was indeed a considerable embarrassment to his colleagues. While Samuel Ward deplored the fact that he 'did not take the view of American affairs natural for a Northern man', he thought Sturgis' 'personal friendliness and efficiency' would make up for this. The American Government took the matter more seriously. 'The man's disloyalty has caused the Government to think seriously of transferring its business to some other House', recorded Moran. The minister, Charles Adams, formally called on Sturgis to express his displeasure.

...On the whole, though, Barings proved loyal friends of the Federal government. William Aspinwall visited London to buy ironclads for the Northern government and paid a rousing tribute to Barings' role in the transaction. 'These gentlemen unhesitatingly authorized us to draw on them, at sight, for a very large amount - some millions - and on terms at once liberal and most considerate as to the time of the reimbursement by our Government, thus showing a most exceptional degree of confidence and sympathy at a period when the public feeling in London was almost universally in favour of the South...From motives of delicacy, no public mention has been made of this honourable act, which certainly no other house in Europe could have or would have done.' In August 1861 Barings advanced $500,000 so that George Schuyler could purchase arms for the American government even though the documents he produced did not authorize any such activity. By the time the proper authorization was received in October the amount had risen to $634,000.

With so creditable a record Barings had reason to feel a little aggrieved when they lost the agency of the United States government in 1871. It was by no means the first time such a setback had seemed possible since they had recaptured it from Rothschilds in 1843. Rothschilds, Peabody, Rothschilds again, and Brown Brothers each in turn thought that the prize was theirs. Yet as late as 1869 the Secretary to the Navy had gratuitously assured Barings that 'we have every reason to be satisfied with the transactions that have taken place between yourselves and the Government, and hope the feeling may long continue'.

...'Though we should of course be proud to be once more the agents of the United States Government', Barings told Ward, 'we can quite understand the difficulty which the existing cabinet would have in appointing us.' They were right, and not only for the existing cabinet. Morton, Rose and Co. were appointed. The days were past when a British bank could represent the American government in London.

[source : The Sixth Great Power : Barings, 1762 - 1929, p213-215]

All this under the noses of the British Government!?

The EIR/LPAC crowd lump Barings in with the Hofjuden, calling them opium runners, etc.

Yes, Barings owned a slave plantation, and directed The British East India Company through Francis, and even The Bank of England through Alexander.

But can anyone explain why The United States of America would conclude so much very important business with Barings, and why it is being covered up?

Saturday, June 29, 2013


The following comes from The East India Company 1784 - 1834 by C H Philips:
Francis Baring was Chairman of The British East India Company in 1792 for one year. The President of the Board of Control at the time was Henry Dundas, Viscount Melville, Home Secretary.

Francis Baring was a Director of The British East India Company in 1784, 1789, 1794, 1799, 1804 and 1809 (he died 1810).

From "The Sixth Great Power : Barings, 1762 - 1929" by Philip Ziegler:
Thomas Willing of the Bank of the United States had been one of Francis Baring’s staunchest allies since the early 1790s. Cazenoves had previously been the closest associate of the Bank and were not at all pleased to see their cosy relationship disturbed. In July 1793 Baring wrote to thank Willing for trying to steer all the Bank’s business in his direction.

...In February 1803, however, Willing, with some help from Rufus King in London, secured Barings the prize they had long coveted – the agency of the government of the United States in London. When Barings took over the payment of dividends on US government stock, Alexander had argued that in this way they would ‘secure a species of monopoly in the direction of American Stocks in Europe and become more obvious for individual operations of commerce.’ The government agency was the logical next step. After the failure of the previous agents Bird, Savage and Bird, Rufus King told Barings, the American government had decided to employ ‘an English house of the first Reputation and Solidity’ to make the ‘large Remittances to the Continent’ which were periodically necessary and to keep in funds various US diplomatic missions. The work was often troublesome and the recompense in commission income insignificant, but the prestige was all important. From 1803 no one could doubt that Barings were the leading ‘American’ house in London.

Thomas Willing was the President of The Bank of North America, and later President of the Bank of The United States. Two of his granddaughters married into the Baring family.

I am currently researching Barings and slavery.

Thursday, June 27, 2013


So what would I do?

1. Implement Glass-Steagall immediately and forever.
2. Implement a UK bank very similar to Second Bank of United States (geography and economy will no doubt produce differences but the essential function, to finance infrastructure and beneficial social policies such as education, will still be there), with national branches to handle national problems, and within nations create regional banks to handle local economic problems.
3. Withdraw the military from Afghanistan and Iraq, and cease all aggression against Syria and Iran.
4. Establish independent professional committees to investigate Al Yamamah and its link to 9/11, and the events of 7/7.
5. Injection of cash (from new UK bank proposed in 2.) for
a. rapid building of short term accommodation, medium to long term house building.
b. rapid investment in education, short term to repair schools, medium to long term building new schools and massive increase in teacher numbers.
c. transport infrastructure.
d. digital economy.
6. High tariffs for imports, be it for garlic or plastic toys or anything we can grow or manufacture ourselves, with an injection of cash (from new UK bank proposed in 2.) for manufacturers and farmers to stimulate growth and employment.

This is vague and cannot be done overnight. Priorities will need to be made.

But America did it. We can do it. The American System led to rapid growth, and Britain resorting to assassinating Presidents who supported this system, and fomenting a disastrous civil war to wreck the country.

Who is up for a new American Revolution, but this time here, at home, in the UK?

Fascist Bilderberg Oiksterity isn't working.

It never has.

It never will.

We are currently on the road to oblivion; wars on Syria and Iran that are designed to start WW3; bailins to replace bailouts, in which savers lose all their money; paedophilia and abortion becoming mainstream; bankers still gambling with our money.

This must stop immediately and be reversed.


Yesterday George Geoffrey Bungle Oik Osborne announced a new round of Oiksterity to add to the Oiksterity announced during the previous years.

But there is just one tiny problem with all this Oiksterity.


Here is the growth of the gross national debt.
                   Gross National Debt
FY 2013*   £1.16 trillion
FY 2012*   £1.04 trillion
FY 2011*   £0.91 trillion
FY 2010*   £0.76 trillion
FY 2009*   £0.62 trillion
FY 2008*   £0.53 trillion

[source :]

Readers will note that since the coalition came to power the gross national debt has risen...and risen...and risen. They came to power in 2010, and have had 3 years to sort this out. They can no longer lay the blame at Labour's feet. While Labour were in power the Conservatives even pleaded for less regulation of The City, the lack of which led to this austerity, as well as the bail outs.

Upon hearing this latest round of useless, vindictive Oiksterity being announced yesterday in the Paedo Parliament I tweeted Oik.

It is with the deepest, deepest sadness that I announce he has not resigned.

1. why did Osborne not answer Michael Meacher's question in person in the House of Commons, the question instead answered by Churchill Dog Ken Clarke?
2. were any of these Oiksterity measures discussed and agreed at Bilderberg, and is this why he did not answer Meacher's question?
3. what foreknowledge did Ed Balls gain from Bilderberg and give his consent to (I ask this because Labour seems to be rolling over like a little puppy and letting Oik tickle their little tummies all day long).

Wednesday, June 26, 2013


By they I mean America.

In Treason in America : Part 3 by Anton Chaitkin, Chaitkin provides a brief history of the barbarity of the British East India Company in India, and a brief pro-slavery history of Thomas Carlyle, who wrote what appears to be a poor history of the French Revolution at the request of John Stuart Mill.

But Chaitkin then links Carlyle to the Barings.
Carlyle's way in these later years was made considerably easier by the patronage of the Baring family. The second Lord Ashburton, head of the family in the mid 1800s, hosted Carlyle and his wife in royal fashion at the Baring castle; Lord and Lady Ashburton became the most intimate confidantes of Thomas Carlyle. Lord Ashburton was the grandson of Francis Baring, who had been Chairman of the East India Company and founder of the Baring bank. The Barings, from Francis on, financed all the company's trade, and that of the Boston merchants who cooperated with the British in Asia.

Now, forgive me for being confused, but what the f*^k were the USA thinking making Barings their agents in London? The sequence seems to be
1. Cazenove
2. Baring
3. Rothschild
4. Baring (again)

Why did Nicholas Biddle and John Quincy Adams not cancel this agreement with Barings? Jackson did! But he transferred the account to the Rothschilds! But it was later transferred back to Barings.


I have to say that Treason in America is a fascinating book, but I cannot understand why, if Barings were so evil and pro-British and at the financial nerve centre of British intrigue against the United States, they had so much very important business with the United States Government.

And why several times Barings could have let the United States go under but didn't, instead extending significant lines of credit to keep the USA afloat, AND AT ONE TIME TO EVEN KEEP A WAR WITH THE BRITISH GOING (1812)?


From "The Sixth Great Power : Barings, 1762 - 1929" by Philip Ziegler:
Thomas Willing of the Bank of the United States had been one of Francis Baring’s staunchest allies since the early 1790s. Cazenoves had previously been the closest associate of the Bank and were not at all pleased to see their cosy relationship disturbed. In July 1793 Baring wrote to thank Willing for trying to steer all the Bank’s business in his direction.

…In February 1803, however, Willing, with some help from Rufus King in London, secured Barings the prize they had long coveted – the agency of the government of the United States in London. When Barings took over the payment of dividends on US government stock, Alexander had argued that in this way they would ‘secure a species of monopoly in the direction of American Stocks in Europe and become more obvious for individual operations of commerce.’ The government agency was the logical next step. After the failure of the previous agents Bird, Savage and Bird, Rufus King told Barings, the American government had decided to employ ‘an English house of the first Reputation and Solidity’ to make the ‘large Remittances to the Continent’ which were periodically necessary and to keep in funds various US diplomatic missions. The work was often troublesome and the recompense in commission income insignificant, but the prestige was all important. From 1803 no one could doubt that Barings were the leading ‘American’ house in London.

...The fact that Barings were the foreign bankers most trusted by the American government did not mean that they were treated as sacrosanct or given the benefit of the doubt. In 1806 the former Vice President, Aaron Burr, was accused of plotting to dismember the Union and was widely believed to have British backing. Vincent Nolte found himself looked on with suspicion by the commanding general in New Orleans ‘since he ascertained that the house of Baring, at London, had placed itself in readiness to furnish the funds necessary to secure the success of Burr’s conspiracy; and I was well known to be the agent for that firm’. Such rumours were fantastical and easily disproved – nothing would have suited Barings less than the disintegration of the United States – but they illustrated the alarm with which Americans viewed British intentions and also the mounting hostility between the two nations.

War came in 1812. Barings took the line that, as British citizens, they would do nothing of which their government would disapprove, but that the war was a temporary aberration and they would never cease to plan beyond its ending. Alexander Baring said frankly that it was his object to help maintain the credit of the United States, and it is an interesting comment on the attitude towards war in the early nineteenth century that ministers felt this to be not merely reasonable but actually desirable. Barings continued to pay interest to holders of American bonds, even though the funds were not available from the United States, and to perform routine transactions like the liquidation of outstanding converted 6 per cent bonds, but they refused to sell new Federal issues. Their main preoccupation was to support any initiative that might lead to peace.

…Alexander Baring, said James Gallatin, ‘had done more than any other man in England, or perhaps, with one exception, even in America, to hasten the peace, and had, with the knowledge and consent of his own government, rendered very important financial assistance even while the war was going on’.

With so much goodwill working in their favour, immense financial resources and unrivalled connections, Barings should have continued to dominate Anglo-American trade in the decades after the Napoleonic wars. Certainly no one house can be said to have displaced them, but their prominence was not so absolute as at first seemed probable. This was due more to a lack of interest and energy on the part of Barings than to any mechanism of their rivals. Things began well. In 1817 John Sergeant came to London on behalf of the Bank of the United States to select as agent for the bank the house that would ‘be of the greatest solidity and integrity and possess in the highest degree the confidence of the public’. To no one’s surprise, the choice fell on Barings. The distinction may have seemed of questionable value when mismanagement in the bank led to its being $1.76 million in debt to Barings and other European houses by the middle of 1818 but the problems proved transitory. By the time its greatest, if most erratic, greatest President, Nicholas Biddle, took over in 1823, affairs seemed soundly based. The Montagu Norman of his day, he believed that his task was to fuel the growth of the American economy. He scorned the cautious attitude of his predecessor and embarked on a bold, and at times alarmingly, expansionist course. Some dismissed him as a playboy but he was in fact supremely professional.

…Rothschilds were inconsiderable in the commercial field, but after their setbacks in 1830 in France they began to look with interest at the United States. In 1834 this brought them into direct conflict with Barings. The new administration under President Andrew Jackson was known to be violently opposed to Nicholas Biddle’s Bank of the United States, with which Barings were closely allied, and Baring had also been somewhat less than sympathetic when the Secretary of the Treasury carelessly drew a bill without first appropriating the necessary funds. It seemed possible the United States government might wish to change its agent. Rothschilds evidently volunteered for the role, for in July 1834 the Treasury Department wrote to thank them: “The high standing and character of your house is well understood in the United States, and I take pleasure in saying that the Government of this country will probably avail itself of yr offer”.

The first Barings heard of it was a brusque note from the Secretary of the Treasury telling them that the account would be transferred in just over two months….’They might have written us a more civil letter’ was their [Barings] temperate comment. They comforted themselves with the reflection that they had kept the far more profitable US Navy account, and that since the change had been a political one, ‘and as parties are rapidly changing, it is probable that we shall have it back in two or three years time’.

In this they were proved right. In 1843 Tyler became President, with Barings’ staunch friend, Daniel Webster, as Secretary of State. At once the account was restored to Barings. When Webster resigned Rothschilds’ man in America, August Belmont, saw a chance to regain the prize. ‘It would be an easy matter to get the account back’, he wrote, ‘provided, however, the place is not filled by a creature of Webster’s, who for weighty reasons is very attached to Barings.’ Some months later he was pointing out to all and sundry the merits of transferring the account to Rothschilds in Paris, arguing ‘how impolitic it is on the part of the United States Government to keep her accounts for the disbursement of her diplomatic agents and a great portion of her foreign fleet not only in England, the only country with which ever a collision is likely to occur, but moreover in the hands of a banking house whose close connection with a member of the House of Lords puts the accounts of this Government almost under the immediate eye of the British Cabinet’.

…Barings were far from being the only house dealing in American securities, and Rothschilds became more interested as the scale expanded. Their motives seem to have been as much to spite Barings as to make money. Urging his nephews in London to buy American State bonds, James de Rothschild wrote, ‘I do this, so that Barings should not be in the position to say: “I forced Rothschild out of the way”. Therefore, even if there is not a penny profit, so long as there is no loss – I shall carry on with the business.’

As directly relevant as any state loan to the development of North America was the close relationship that grew up between Barings and the Bank of the United States under its ambitious, headstrong and sometimes maverick President, Nicholas Biddle. Biddle was an economic nationalist, who felt that the Bank should be used to free the United States from the shackles of European capitalism. Up to a point Barings supported him in the enterprise, and even the cautious Mildmay was in 1829 prepared to increase the Bank’s credit from £100,000 to £250,000: ‘We will not deny the mortification would be great were we to see the Institution in correspondence with any other House in London as their Agents’. With Biddle at the helm, things rarely ever ran altogether smoothly – in 1831 Barings seriously considered giving up the agency – but a more or less amicable relationship was maintained until the crisis of 1836 and 1837.

Sunday, June 23, 2013


Patriotism was not altruism. The bonds promised the investors a triple profit, and in 1814, Girard, Astor and Parish, looking to guarantee their investment, tendered and undisguised Hamiltonian proposal to the Madison administration - to enhance the value of their investment by making government bonds exchangeable for stock in a new BUS. The proposal faltered when Treasury Secretary Gallatin, privy to the deal, departed for Ghent as as part of Madison's peace commission. When Pennsylvania's senators, Michael Leib and Abner Laycock, blocked the appointment of their nemesis (and Gallatin's favourite) Alexander Dallas as Gallatin's replacement at the Treasury Department, the bank plan looked dead. But after the burning of Washington, and following direct intervention by what Dallas called an anonymous "deliberate concert amongst the Capitalists", the Pennsylvanians gave way, Dallas was confirmed and the bank proposal was back on track. After a few legislative false starts, the pro-bank forces in Congress, now led by the repentant Speaker of the House Henry Clay and his nationalist comrade John C Calhoun, won enough support from hitherto southerners and westerners to prevail in April 1816[55].

[source : The Rise of American Democracy : Jefferson to Lincoln, by Sean Wilentz, p 204]

The source for this appears to be "Alexander James Dallas : Lawyer-Politician-Financier" by Raymond Walters Jr.

I cannot find free access to this but Walters wrote "The origins of the second bank of the united states" in Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press. And the story that Girard, Parish and Astor proposed a new national bank which was pushed through with their agreement, together with Alexander Dallas and John C Calhoun appears true. Walters concludes:
Years later Calhoun told the senate that "the bank owes as much to me as any other individual in the country; and I might even add that, had it not been for my efforts, it would not have been chartered." The statement is true enough, but it does not tell the whole story. Had not John Jacob Astor, David Parish, Stephen Girard and Jacob Barker organized pro-bank sentiment among the capitalists and won the support of Secretary Dallas, had not the dogged persistence and persuasive pleading of Dallas won over President Madison, Congress and a large portion of the public, the bank would not have been chartered.

...Under vigorous, honest and able management the bank survived to give the nation orderly banking for nearly two decades, until Andrew Jackson brought its career to an end in 1836.

From this we can take that Walters considered Nicholas Biddle as "vigorous, honest and able", and that the traitor Jackson did a baaaaad thing by killing the bank, as he boasted.

This interesting little tale of bankers and traitors establishing the BUS2 adds to the confusion arising from the Barings, allegedly at the financial nerve centre of the British Empire against the new independent America but extending significant lines of credit to the USA when it could have denied the credit and allowed the USA to go under.

Very, very curious.


In Treason in America, Anton Chaitkin writes
Russell Sturgis married T H Perkins' sister, Elizabeth, and joined the firm. His grandson by the same name moved to England and became the Chairman of the Baring Bank, the bank of the same Lord Shelburne who had organized the massive subversion of the United States, the bank which was the bank of the British East India Company.

Barings was officially appointed London agents of the United States Government in 1803, and during the 1812 war were still the London agents of the United States Government and could have destroyed the United States by denying credit but didn't. This behaviour was repeated later under Biddle as I showed earlier this week in a post that attracted the largest daily traffic to this blog since it began.
Baring's reputation in North America came to exceed his father's. Following the appointment of Baring Brothers in 1803 as London financial agents for the United States administration, numerous government commissions were received. During Britain's war with the United States from 1812 to 1814, Barings maintained the American government's credit in London, treading a careful course between loyalty to the British crown and service to a valued client. In the peace negotiations Baring, acting unofficially, brought together Castlereagh and the American negotiator, Albert Gallatin. Gallatin's son was convinced that Baring ‘had done more than any other man in England to hasten the peace and had rendered very important financial assistance even when the war was going on’ (H. Adams, The Life of James Gallatin, 1943, 522).

[source : Alexander Baring,, accessed 22nd June 2013]

Alexander married the granddaughter of Thomas Willing, a very wealthy and influential merchant in Philadelphia, who appointed Barings as his bankers in Europe in 1774, who opposed independence but became the first President of the Bank of North America and the first President of the Bank of the United States.

Chaitkin in Treason in America shows that Gallatin was a traitor who tried to destroy the American military before the 1812 war.

And to add to this 1812 war debacle, Gallatin was forced to find $16 million to continue the war. He found $6 million and the remaining $10 million came from Stephen Girard, David Parish (with Girard money) and...JOHN JACOB ASTOR, the saviour of traitor Aaron Burr not just once but twice! In return for this I read that Girard, Parish and Astor wanted the establishment of the Second Bank of the United States, but at the moment cannot properly source this, and assisted the passage of the bank's charter. Girard had bought the First Bank of the United States when its charter expired in 1811. When BUS2 was created he was a major stockholder and bought $3 million of stock.

So how can Barings be at one time at the nerve centre of British intrigue against the USA while at the same time keeping the USA afloat by extending lines of huge credit, even when the USA had declared war on the British?!

Surely Barings were giving the British government and The British East India Company all information they had on the alleged enemy, the United States of America?

Saturday, June 22, 2013


The Friends of Syria Group met in Doha, Qatar today. William Jihadi Hague (for that is what the J stands for) attended. He felt so strongly and was so excited about it he tweeted his arrival.

Jihadi has since tweeted that there is strong agreement at the meeting.

So what is this 'strong common ground'?
Western and Arab countries opposed to President Bashar Assad agreed at talks in Qatar on Saturday to give urgent military support to Syrian rebels fighting for his overthrow, and to channel it through a Western-backed rebel military command.

Ministers from the 11 main countries which form the Friends of Syria group agreed "to provide urgently all the necessary materiel and equipment to the opposition on the ground, each country in its own way in order to enable them to counter brutal attacks by the regime and its allies".

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who attended the meeting, said participants agreed that military support for the Syrian opposition would be according to each member country's initiative.

[source : Friends of Syria group agrees to give urgent military aid to rebels, Haaretz,, 22nd June 2013]


After the G8 meeting earlier this week Der Fuhrer David Cameron quashed any hopes of a vote in our Paedo Parliament to arm al Qaeda in Syria when he sneakily muttered that he reserves the right to arm al Qaeda in Syria without a vote.

The reason why there has been this sudden escalation in Syria is that the brave and competent Syrian Arab Army are kicking al Qaeda butt!

Last week there was a Presidential 'finding' that Assad had used chemical weapons. This was used as an excuse to escalate. But the next day Foreign Policy reported that the chain of custody could not AND STILL CANNOT be guaranteed. Lavrov and Putin said as much. And now the UN states this:
The UN is still unable to determine which side used chemical weapons in Syria’s conflict, the organization’s investigative committee has said. The statement came as reports of Syrian rebels being armed intensify and fears of more bloodshed mount.

Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the UN commission’s inquiry into rights violations in Syria, refused to comment on evidence received from the US, UK, and France which, they claim, shows Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces using chemical weapons.

"We are not able to say who has used chemical agents or chemical weapons and we are very worried about the chain of custody of the substances," Pinheiro told reporters after an informal meeting with UN Security Council ambassadors.

[source : UN: Impossible to determine Syria chemical attack perpetrator even with US evidence, RT,, 22nd June 2013]

In 2007 it was agreed between the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia that the latter would unleash cutthroat Jihadis onto Syria and Iran. So how have The Friends of Syria Group got the balls to express concern at the presence of Hezbollah, Iran fighting alongside the SAA at the invitation of Assad?
It was Kerry’s first meeting with his counterparts about aid to the Syrian rebels since President Barack Obama announced that the US would send lethal aid to the opposition despite concern that weapons could fall into the hands of Islamic extremists in Syria. That decision was partly based on a US intelligence assessment that Assad had used chemical weapons, but Kerry expressed deeper concern about Iran and Hezbollah fighters.

“That is a very, very dangerous development,” Kerry said. “Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran. … Hezbollah in addition to that is a terrorist organization.”

Kerry blamed Hezbollah and Assad with thwarting efforts to diffuse sectarian rebels and to negotiate a settlement.

[source : Kerry: Political solution urgently needed in Syria, Times of Israel,, 22nd June 2013]

But Assad did not invite the NATO proxy cutthroat terrorist scum into Syria to chop heads off, to cut the throats of children, to rape and pillage and shout Allah U Akbar as they summarily execute a Sunni civilian! THEY WERE FORCED ONTO SYRIA!

But the logistics sure is quick. The rebs are reporting delivery of heavy weapons already.
BEIRUT — Syrian rebels said Friday that newly arrived shipments of heavy weaponry could swing the momentum on the battlefield in their favor, after a shift in U.S. policy opened the door for others to send them arms.

Weapons from the United States have not materialized since the White House announced last week that it had authorized direct military support for the opposition, but the U.S. decision appears to have prompted other nations to increase their assistance, with new deliveries including highly prized antitank and antiaircraft weaponry, according to Khalid Saleh, a spokesman for the main Syrian Opposition Coalition.

[source : Syrian rebels report new shipments of heavy weapons, credit U.S. influence, Washington Post, 21st June 2013]

Hague and Cameron need to be interrogated about just how much we, the muggins British taxpayer, have supplied to the cutthroats.

And Kerry states the bleedin' obvious:
“We’re looking at a very dangerous situation,” that had transformed “into a much more volatile, potentially explosive situation that could involve the entire region,” Kerry said.

Just like Albert Pike proposed.

Friday, June 21, 2013


Russell Brand was on BBC QT last night. He seemed to be the most popular member of the panel, with most things he said receiving a laugh and a round of applause. The Zionist Melanie Phillips, on the other hand, was booed and hissed as she ranted about the nation she loves to hate, Iran.

Yesterday Brand was interviewed by Richard Bacon for an hour or so.

And this week the big story was that Brand dumped Perry by text, thus implying Brand was a coward.

In both these encounters with the BBC, Brand's admitted former addiction to drugs was raised. In fact, British government drug policy was a question on QT. During QT only a handful of issues are discussed, so it is suspicious that drug policy was discussed last night. There have been allegations of fixing by QT producers, the most famous being the young Jew Joel Weiner being invited to ask a question of BNP leader Nick Griffin. Weiner had applied to be a QT audience member a year before but was refused but was curiously invited to ask Griffin on QT only the day before Griffin appeared on QT. So it is highly possible that the drug policy question was planted to discredit Brand.

Brand has been an enthusiastic supporter of David Icke and Icke's proposed media adventure The People's Voice. So I think it is plausible that Brand is being discredited to indirectly discredit Icke.

If he is then that shows just how pathetic and empty the BBC and their masters are.


Thomas Willing was the first President of the Bank of North America and the first President of the First Bank of the United States. His mother was Anne Shippen.

In Treason In America by Anton Chaitkin one branch of the very influential Shippen family are shown as traitors. They were known as Loyalists to the British Crown.

Anne had several brothers and sisters but her eldest brother Edward married Sarah Plumley and they had lots of children (like they all seemed to do in that era), one of whom was called Edward. Edward the son married Margaret Francis and they also had lots of children, one of whom was called Margaret. And it is this branch of the Shippens that Chaitkin brings into question.

During the British occupation of Philadelphia this branch of the Shippens, known as Loyalists to the British, had very cordial relationships with the British occupiers, collaborators some might say. The allegedly beautiful Margaret began a relationship with an alleged dashing and handsome British soldier Major John Andre, an aide to General Sir William Howe, so no ordinary soldier. The relationship had barely time to blossom before the British were chased out of Philadelphia by the American revolutionaries. These Shippens then became cautious friends with the Americans. Margaret still kept in touch with Andre but began a relationship with revolutionary war hero General Benedict Arnold who she later married. Margaret then acted as a conduit between Arnold and Andre who were plotting Arnold's surrender of West Point, which Arnold commanded. Arnold escaped. Andre was hung. Margaret somehow managed to convince George Washington and his aide Alexander Hamilton of her innocence.

And not only that, Aaron Burr who shot Hamilton dead and was a traitor along with Andrew Jackson, was raised by the Shippens! As an orphan both he and his sister Sally were brought up by Dr William Shippen...who was the younger brother of Thomas Willing's mother Anne!

So Anne Shippen, the mother of Thomas Willing, the first President of the Bank of North America and the first President of the First Bank of the United States, was also the Grand Aunt of the traitor Margaret Shippen, wife of Benedict Arnold, AND also the Aunt of Aaron Burr!


The Shippens have to be the most influential family in revolutionary America.

Who were they?

But on top of all this, Thomas Willing himself does not have an attractive background. His wealth can be attributed in part to slavetrading. Willing also had private business with the Barings of London. Two of Willing's Granddaughters marry sons of Francis Baring, co-founder of Barings Bank. Barings were made bankers for the USA in Europe, and remained so until Andrew Jackson replaced them with the Rothschilds.

This is all highly suspicious.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013


Thomas Willing was a merchant and banker who attended the Continental Congress of 1775 and 1776 but opposed the Declaration of Independence. He was a business partner of Robert Morris. Despite his opposition to independence Willing was appointed the first President of the Bank of North America and the first President of the Bank of the United States (BUS1). In 1774 he appointed Francis Baring as his banker in London. Willing married Anne McCall. Their children included Anne Willing who married William Bingham, a Senator from Pennsylvania. Their children included Ann and Maria. Ann married Alexander Baring. Maria married Henry Baring. Alexander and Henry were brothers and their father was...Francis Baring. So not jut one, but two granddaughters of the President of the Bank of North America and the Bank of the United States marry into the Baring family.

So who was Francis Baring? Francis Baring was a director of the British East India Company. His sister Elizabeth married John Dunning who was a good friend of Lord Shelburne. Francis' son Alexander, who married Ann Bingham, the granddaughter of Thomas Willing, formed Sun Alliance Assurance with Nathan Mayer Rothschild in 1824. And the Barings were allegedly involved in running opium and slaves.

Willing appointed Barings the European bankers of The United States.

Biddle and the Second Bank of the United States (BUS2) continued this arrangement.

For a glimpse into just how cosy the relationship was between Biddle and Barings see
"The House of Baring and the Second Bank of the United States, 1826-1836" by R. W. Hidy in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 1944), pp. 269-285. Barings could easily have let the USA crash any number of times because Biddle went way over the overdraft the USA had with Barings a few times without agreement, and asked for huge credit when the USA was facing financial trouble. This annoyed Barings but they acquiesced and in the end made a huge profit from doing so.

But Barings' business with BUS2 was without question helping the USA to very quickly develop into a huge economic rival to the British Empire.

So why would the British want to destroy BUS2, as Michael Kirsch and Anton Chaitkin show?

Or was it just the Rothschilds, not the British?

One of the consequences of the destruction was that Jackson made the Rothschilds bankers to the USA, replacing Barings.

So was the destruction of BUS2 just a turf war between Barings and the Rothschilds?

Or was there more to it, as Chaitkin and Kirsch show?

I have suggested that the USA has had a destiny pre-planned millenia ago. On this I agree with David Icke. All the Freemasonic stuff, the parades, ceremonies, regalia, processions, cannot be ignored. Two symbols that cannot be ignored are:
1. the inverted, irregular and incomplete pentagram to the north of the White House, particularly when America's warmongering and terrorism is taken in to consideration (I mean, how can a God fearing Christian nation turn into Satan's attack dog?)
2. the cornerstone of the Capitol laid by George Washington in a Freemasonic ceremony which had a plaque with text that implied Freemasonry is approximately 6000 years old! We are led to believe it was only formed in 1717.

My gut feeling is that:
1. The Rothschilds had nothing to do with Bank of North America, BUS1 or BUS2 until Jackson made them European bankers to the USA, replacing Barings.
2. Barings involvement in American banking is being covered up by several authors and documentary makers.
3. Barings may have been allowing the USA to develop too quickly for the Satanists running the conspiracy so BUS2 was destroyed and responsibility for American financial dealings with Europe was handed to the Rothschilds
4. but because BUS2 was doing so well and threatening the British Empire BUS2 had to be discredited so it and national banks before it have been portrayed as Rothschild projects from the start, when in fact at that time the Rothschilds were still building their European network and had some but nowhere near as much power as they pretend.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013


This morning I detected a psyop of some kind, in the NATO media, particularly the BBC, when it was reported that Putin was 'under pressure' to acquiesce over Syria. It now seems he was not. He claims that Russia was not the only nation who is not convinced that Assad used chemical weapons, but AFAIK did not say who.

But I wonder if he reads this blog because he made a very accurate and related comment on the butchering of Drummer Lee Rigby. Here is what Putin said about that horrific attack:
Recently the British people suffered a huge loss. It was a tragedy next to his barracks on the streets of London. A violent assassination, a very brutal killing of a British serviceman.

Clearly the opposition is not composed all of this but many of them are exactly the same as the ones who perpetrated the killing in London.

If we equip these people, if we arm them what is going to control and verify who is going to have these weapons, including in Europe as well.

So we call all our partners, before making this dangerous step, think about it very carefully.

[source : G8 summit - day two: Politics live blog, The guardian,, 18th June 2013]

Shortly after the attack on Rigby a youth worker called Abdullah phoned Vanessa Feltz and told her live on air that he had spoken to the attackers trying to persuade them from violence, and Syria was discussed.

From my reading of what was written on the internet I was the only one to make the link to Syria, some too busy spreading a hoax theory, and urged others to spread the link because if it was widely known that the attackers had been preaching Jihad and calling for Muslims to go to Syria and join the Jihad against Assad then the support for the Syrian rebels from the UK and possibly other nations would diminish. But AFAIK nobody did spread that link.

Well here is Putin spreading that link.

And in an interview with Charlie Rose, Obama did NOT look or sound too enthusiastic about escalating the violence in Syria, questioning rushing into another war in the Middle East, the effectiveness of any NFZ and the dangers of arming the rebels because the weapons may end up in the hands of the enemies of America.

That was a very pensive and concerned Obama, with lots on his mind...and lots of grey hair!

It appears that Putin may have moved on one or two minor points (perhaps that was the Bushmills Whiskey Custard?), but he has not been persuaded by the majority to change the Russian view on Syria, and has been the only leader to have told the truth about Syria.


In "Andrew Jackson as A Treason Project" by Anton Chaitkin, Chaitkin looks into the sordid, treasonous, slaveholding, Indian-murdering history of President Andrew Jackson.

Not only did Jackson make the Rothschilds the US bankers in Europe, he fired two Secretaries to the Treasury who would not remove US Government funds out of the Second Bank of the United States, where it was unquestionably being used to quickly develop the USA into a rival to the British Empire. His third choice, Roger Taney took the funds out and placed it in The Union Bank of Baltimore, which was part owned by...ROGER TANEY!
Taney was from the nastiest element of Maryland’s Anglophile, fox-hunting, slave-plantation aristocracy, and was a leader of the Boston-run Federalist Party. When John Quincy Adams ran for President in 1824, Taney backed Jackson against him, and went from being a Federalist to a Jackson Democrat without missing a step. In Congress in 1834, Adams skewered Taney with this sarcastic proposal: “Resolved that the thanks of the House be given to Roger B. Taney, Secretary of the Treasury, for his pure and disinterested patriotism in transferring the use of the public funds from the Bank of the United States, where they were profitable to the people, to the Union Bank of Baltimore, where they were profitable to himself.” Adams’ speech containing this mock resolution was suppressed by the Jackson forces in Congress, so he privately printed it, and Nicholas Biddle distributed 50,000 copies; a copy is in the Library of Congress rare book collection.

[source : Andrew Jackson as A Treason Project, Anon Chaitkin, EIR, 21st December 2007]

I wonder if Eustace "the oracle" Mullins read this.


Der Fuhrer, David Cameron, is possessed.

As he attempts to further empower and arm cutthroat Jihadis, who slaughtered black Libyans and have been slaughtering the children of pro-Assad families, Der Fuhrer has completely lost the plot and took the limeade out of the many, many struggling muggins British taxpaying families and tweeted the menu from the dinner he had last night.

Call The Pope for an exorcism!


Since the EU embargo on arms to Syria was allowed to expire, Jihadis Hague and Cameron have consistently said that no decision to arm the rebels has been made and that Parliament would be allowed to vote on arming the rebels.

The Financial Times has stepped up the demands to arm the rebels in an editorial. According to the FT all the violence in Syria is due to Assad.
President Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime has pressed ahead with its butchery, refusing to engage in any negotiation with struggling opposition militias.

...But events during recent weeks have brought dismay. Far from entering into negotiations, the Assad regime has relentlessly pursued its savagery, taking the strategic stronghold of Qusair and advancing towards Aleppo. Far from stepping back, Mr Assad’s supporters – Hizbollah and Iran – have engaged more heavily on the ground.

...Above all, the west must ask whether it can continue to tolerate Mr Assad’s use of chemical weapons – including sarin gas – against his opponents. The US, Britain and France have provided strong evidence of this use. Any deployment of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian regime cannot be seen to constitute an acceptable norm of warfare.

[source : Arming the Syrian rebels is justified, FT,, 14th June 2013]

First, the rebels have been using chemical weapons. A UN investigation found this, the rebels have filmed themselves testing them out and they were caught with kgs of the stuff. What ever evidence that has been provided by the UK, France and Israel is dodgy, with no guaranteed chain of custody.

Second, the 'butchery' is due to the rebels; al Houla, al Duvair, Bayda, Baniyas, tc. The list of massacres and atrocities, of the slaughter of women and children, throats cut and bullets in the head, by the rebels is very, very long.


The NATO media is riddled with talk of Vladimir Putin being 'under pressure', to acquiesce, to relent to the demands of the minions Obama, Cameron and Hollande. BBC Radio 5 Live is repeating an interview with Oxfam about refugees from Syria. And the BBC begins its reporting from a camp for Syrian refugees on the Syria-Jordan border today.

Putin is right.

1. Assad has not been using chemical weapons. The rebels have filmed themselves testing them out, preparing to use them in urban areas, were caught with kgs of the stuff, and the UN found that the rebels had used them.

2. Syria is being invaded by a proxy force of cutthroat Jihadis from all over the globe, financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with logistical support from Turkey and armed by the USA, France and UK.

3. Obama, Cameron and Hollande do not care about Oxfam, because if they did they would not be supporting the rebels, as they did in Libya, and look how that has turned out!

Monday, June 17, 2013


Yesterday I questioned Gary Allen's trustworthiness by raising the question of a reference from Epperson's The Unseen Hand, in which Epperson quotes Allen quoting Gustavus Myers who claims that the Rothschilds were long time a power in the Second Bank of the United States.

I forgot that I had already addressed this in ANOTHER FACTOID.

The precise reference is:
Under the surface, the Rothschilds have long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were powers in the old Bank of the United States. August Belmont and Company were their American representatives. In 1873 it was estimated that $375,000,000 of American railroad securities were held abroad, chiefly by foreign bankers. The Final Report of the Industrial Commission in 1902 estimated (see page 404 of that report) the amount of these securities held by foreign banking houses and others abroad at about $3,100,000,000.

[source : History of the great American fortunes, Gustavus Myers, Vol 3, p.183]

The reason, I believe, why the search yesterday could not find this reference to the Rothschilds is because this is just a footnote. But it also does not have any reference to back up the claim.

So some of the confusion from yesterday has been cleared up.

But we still have the claim from Myers that the Rothschilds were powers in the Second Bank of the United States without any source or evidence. Myers mentions Belmont who didn't arrive in the USA until just days before the 1837 Panic began in New York, and by then the BUS2 was on its last legs. Until then the Rothschild agents in the USA were the little known Philips and Joseph, and if the Rothschilds really were that powerful before 1837 I am sure we would have heard alot more of Philips and Joseph.

What I am beginning to piece together is that:
1. the Rothschilds had very little if any power in BUS2
2. what power they may have had, that Myers may refer to, is due to Jackson making them bankers for the USA in Europe around 1834
3. Biddle was without question doing very well in developing the USA as President of the BUS2
4. but Biddle appears to have been very dependent on Barings for lines of credit (which at times were very significant) and at times annoyed Barings but they persisted with him because they eventually did well out of their business with him
5. but Barings were drug runners, according to Dope Inc

So the irony is that the USA may well have relied on the King's drug money for credit for its development.

And why didn't Myers write anything of any significance about the Rothschilds? Astor. Morgan. Vanderbilt. But nothing on Rothschild, but he is prepared to say without reference that "Under the surface, the Rothschilds have long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws."

This is getting very bizarre but very interesting, particularly when the works of Kirsch and Chaitkin are added to the mix.


A few years ago many in the mainstream and alternative media were portraying Vladimir Putin as a demon, involved in all sorts of criminality and using secret hand signals to indicate his allegiance to the Prince of Darkness.

It is very, very different today.

Yesterday Putin put Der Fuhrer down at a press conference after a meeting between the two before the G8 begins at Lough Erne today.

Der Fuhrer spoke first and lied to us all; lied to himself, lied to his wife, lied to his children, lied to The Conservative Party, lied to The House of Commons, lied to The House of Lords, lied to the muggins British taxpaying public, and lied to the whole world. The lie he made was this:
I believe that Assad is responsible for tearing his country apart, and that to end Syria’s nightmare he has to go. The new evidence this week of how the regime is gassing its people makes that clearer than ever.

[source : Press conference: the Prime Minister and President Vladimir Putin,, 16th June 2013]

First: As I have extensively shown on this blog, the bloodbath in Syria should be directly blamed on Israel and Zionist factions in the USA, France, Saudi Arabia and the UK. Syria is just one of seven nations, all enemies of Israel, that were targeted for war after the mother of all inside Ziojobs 9/11.

Second: Assad has the support of 70% of Syrians. 20% are neutral. Only 10% support the rebels. That is not me just making this up. NATO found that from data they collected from inside Syria!

Third: AND NO NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED! All that has happened is that old evidence, which was at first rejected because the chain of custody could not guaranteed, has been accepted due to a series of scandals which were started because of Obama's obvious reluctance to escalate US involvement in Syria to save the NATO proxy cutthroat Jihadi terrorist scum at al Qusayr, and soon in Aleppo and Homs from total destruction. AND THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE STILL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED!

But let's now look at the Putin put down.

Der Fuhrer and Putin were asked what were they going to do with Syria. The question, from the BBC, was:
First of all, to President Putin: the Prime Minister has said in the past that those supporting President Assad have the blood of Syrian children on their hands. Given that Russia is arming one side in this conflict, is it not hypocritical to criticise those who want to arm the other side?

And to the Prime Minister: how would you describe the feeling amongst Tory backbenchers and your Liberal Democrat coalition partners about the idea of arming the rebels? One Tory MP said today that it would be suicidal.

Der Fuhrer reproduced his incorrect, sickening, pathetic, condescending allegations that all the blood that has been spilled in Syria is Assad's fault, and did not answer the question put to him.

Putin on the other hand did answer the question put to him. AND WHAT AN ANSWER!
With regards to the supplies of weapons to the Assad government, and as regards to who has the blood of the children and peaceful citizens of Syria, I believe you will not deny that the blood is on the hands of the both parties, of both of the parties, and there is always a question: who is to be blamed for that, who is to blame? I believe you will not deny the fact that one hardly should back those who kills their enemies and, you know, eats their organs and all that is filmed and shot. Do we want to support these people; do we want to supply arms to these people? So, in this case, it has hardly any relation to the communitarian and cultural values that Europe has been professing for centuries. In Russia, we cannot fancy such things happening.

But if we speak calmly in cold blood, in a business-like fashion, let me draw your attention to the fact that Russia supplies arms to the legitimate government of Syria in full compliance with the norms of international law. We are not breaching anything. Let me emphasise that; we are not breaching any rules and norms, and we call on all our partners to act in same fashion.

The UK is just one of several nations engaged in a proxy war contrary to international law. Russia on the other hand is legally satisfying commercial contracts.

It is a very, very sad day when the Prime Minister of this Disunited Fascist Queendom can stand in front of the DFQ media, regurgitate the totally discredited lies about Syria and get away with it unchallenged.

Yesterday it was Fathers Day.

What did our fathers and grandfathers fight in WW2 for? I thought it was to destroy Nazi Imperialism. But from the overwhelming evidence that I have seen, Nazi Imperialism is alive and well and living it up in London.

Sunday, June 16, 2013


In The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson, Epperson writes
In his book The History of the Great American Fortunes, author Gustavus Myers had identified the major power behind the Second Bank of the United States as being the Rothschild family.1

[source : The Unseen Hand, Ralph Epperson, Chapter 1, The Rothschild Family]

The source for this statement is given as Gary Allen.
1. Quoted in Gary Allen, "The Bankers, Conspiratorial Origins of the Federal Reserve," American Opinion, (March, 1970), p. 1.

The History of the Great American Fortunes is massive. Three volumes. I cannot find a copy of this Allen article online, but The History of the Great American Fortunes is available online and can be quickly scanned for a word.

The three volumes can be accessed by the links provided by the Wikipedia page on Myers at

You can scan for any word you like; Myers, Astor, Vanderbilt, railroad. The scan produces the exact location of that word in the volume being scanned.

I typed in Rothschild.


If there are no entries found for Rothschild then how can Myers say that the Rothschilds were the powers behind the Second Bank of The United States.

Possibilities to explain this are:
1. Epperson has used the wrong reference.
2. Allen has used the wrong reference.
3. Rothschild is mentioned by Myers but for whatever reason the scan does not find it but does find any other word you enter that is in the volume.
or more sinister,
4. Allen has made this reference up!

This on its own may not mean so much, but if we consider the following:
1. Michael Kirsch and Anton Chaitkin show comprehensively that Andrew Jackson was a dupe of the British and was used, wittingly or unwittingly, to destroy The Second Bank of The United States.
2. Eustace Mullins stated in Secrets of The Federal Reserve that Nicholas Biddle was an agent of the Rothschilds but provides no reference.
3. Eustace Mullins twists statements of one his sources, Henry Clews, and omits information that Clews says which would oppose what Mullins tries to suggest.

Mullins also wrote a book called The Biological Jew which develops the idea that Jews are satanist parasites who kidnap young children and sacrifice them in the local synagogue.

It is entirely possible that Epperson or Allen have provided the wrong reference, which would be a case of sloppy research, and in which case can they be trusted on every other reference they provide?

But on the other hand the statement that the Rothschilds were the power behind the Second Bank of The United States could be yet another statement in the operation, I suspect, to portray Jackson as a hero for destroying the bank that under Biddle was quickly developing the USA into a rival of the British Empire so that such a bank is never considered again.

There is something very, very wrong with all this, don't you think?


Franklin Lamb has reported some very serious and grave comments on what is being planned for Syria now that it has been 'found' that Assad used chemical weapons.

But first, Lamb also discusses why Obama has suddenly changed his mind.
Other sources are asserting that Obama actually did not want to invoke direct military aid the rebels fighting to topple the Assad government or even to make use of American military power in Syria for several reasons.

...In addition, Obama has been weakened recently by domestic politics and a number of distractions and potential scandals not least of which is the disclosures regarding the massive NSA privacy invasion.

[source : Why Obama is Declaring War on Syria, Franklin Lamb, Al Manar,, 15th June 2013]

This supports what I have been saying.

But what will the USA do now? According to Lamb:
The Washington Post is reporting that Kerry believes supplying the rebels with weapons might be too little and too late to actually flip the balance on the Syrian ground and this calls “for a military strike to paralyze Al-Assad’s military capacities.” A Pentagon source reported that the USA, France, and Britain are considering a decisive decision to reverse the current Assad momentum and quickly construct one in favor of the rebels” within a time period not exceeding the end of this summer.

...King Abdullah [of the utopian democracy of Saudi Arabia] was reportedly advised by Kerry to be prepared for a rapid expansion of the growing regional conflict.

...“We are going to see a rapid escalation of the conflict”, a staffer on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee emailed this observer:

...A part of this “humanitarian assistance” the US is going to established in the coming weeks a “limited, humanitarian no-fly zone, that will begin along several miles of the Jordanian and Turkish borders in certain military areas into Syrian territory, and would be set up and presented as a limited bid to train and equip rebel forces and protect refugees. But in reality, as we saw in Libya a Syrian no fly zone would very likely include all of Syria.

...In response to a question from this observer about how he thought event might unfold in this region over the coming months, a very insightful long-term congressional aid replied: “Well Franklin, maybe someone will pull a rabbit out of the hat to stop the push for war. But frankly I doubt it. From where I sit I’d wager that Syria as we have known it may soon be no more. And perhaps some other countries in the region also.”

This coming week the nation's darling BBC radio presenter Shelagh Fogarty will be reporting all week from a camp in Jordan for Syrian refugees. Coincidence? I think not. She will be used to develop the R2P argument.

Obama can still pull back from this fast approaching catastrophe. He did not start it. Israel started all this by attacking the USA on 9/11. Obama knows this. We all know this. Even the spider in my bathroom knows this.

Obama could well go down as the most hated President of The United States of America, by dragging the USA into a regional war in The Middle East, a war he could easily avoid, and one for which he should throw his Nobel Peace Prize into the Potomac.

Or he can kick Israel in the bollocks and go public on 9/11, stop all the Zionist warmongering and adopt Dr Webster Tarpley's suggestions for economic development.


In an explosive statement to French Parliament Network LCP the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas has confirmed my thesis regarding Syria.

A brief overview of my thesis is:
1. 9/11 was an Israeli inside job using patsies from Saudi Arabia with Saudi acquiescence and Zionists in the USA in the highest levels of government (VP, SecDef, etc).
2. shortly after 9/11 General Wesley Clark was informed of a plan for war on seven nations in five years. The seven nations named to Clark were generally hostile to Israel and had been targeted in Zionist documents pre-9/11. The nations were Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon/Hezbollah, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.
3. By 2007 this plan was moribund, with only Iraq and Lebanon suffering war and only Saddam being ousted, so it was agreed between Israel, USA and Saudi Arabia that Jihadis would be unleashed onto those nations not yet ravaged by war.
4. the Jihadis were inserted into Libya, given training and guidance by special forces from UK and Qatar, and given air support from NATO by a deliberate misreading of UN SCR 1973.
5. after killing Gaddafi the Jihadis and weapons were transported to Lebanon and Turkey to invade Syria, and have since been horrifying the world with their cannibalism, medieval justice, and mass slaughter of anyone who is pro-Assad, be they child or aged, be they Shia, Sunni, Christian, Alawite, Orthodox, etc.

I could also extend my thesis that Israel was created for the purpose of detonating WW3:
1. that WW1 handed Palestine to the Zionists for mass immigration of Jews,
2. that despite the rise of Hitler and a Transfer Agreement between the UK, Hitler and the Zionists, European Jews in general did not want to got to Palestine so WW2 and the Holocaust were engineered to convince world Jewry that Palestine was the only safe haven for them (with other suggestions for Jewish settlements across the globe refused by the Zionists),
3. that the Zionist-engineered Holocaust has since been used by the Zionists to emotionally blackmail the USA into building Israel and morally supporting Israel as it terrorises its neighbours into war and terrorism against Israel,
4. and that 9/11 was the trigger for WW3 (and with the recent escalation over Syria this thesis cannot be discarded).

But I have made this clear with much more detail in other writings.

Dumas confirms that:
1. around 2009 he was told by top British officials that the UK was preparing to insert rebels into Syria.
2. years before this he was told by a former Israeli PM that Israel would seek to destroy any nation that did not get along with it.

“I’m going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria,” said Dumas.

He continued by saying, “This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.”

Responding to a question on the motive behind inciting violence in Syria, Dumas said, "Very simple! With the very simple aim! To overthrow the Syrian government, because in the region, it's important to understand, that the Syrian regime makes anti-Israeli talk,” said Dumas

The former foreign minister added that he had been told by an Israeli prime minister a long time ago that Tel Aviv would seek to “destroy” any country that did not “get along” with it in the region.

[source : UK planned war on Syria before unrest began: French ex-foreign minister, Press TV,, 16th June 2013]

Last year the most explosive item of news that I read was also in Press TV and referred to Obama and Dempsey going public on 9/11.
Some of the same high-level sources who point to Richard Clarke as the US boss of the Israeli-instigated 9/11 false flag operation also claim that President Obama, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dempsey, and other powerful Americans are considering exposing the truth about 9/11 during a second Obama term. In other words, Obama's re-election could put Israel out of business, and get Netanyahu hanged from the nearest lamp-post.

[source : Israel seeks war on Iran to keep lid on 9/11, PressTV,, 21st September 2012]

This statement from Dumas is this year's equivalent.

Obama must go public on 9/11...NOW!

No bombs.

No bullets.


No scimitars.

No lies.

In the words of John Lennon, "All I want is the truth. Just gimme some truth now."

Saturday, June 15, 2013


On September 11th 2001 four alleged hijacked passenger planes flew unimpeded around the most protected air space in the world for nearly two hours to eventually fly into the WTC1, WTC2 and even The Pentagon(!!). The fourth was said to have flown into a small hole in the ground, but it was actually shot down. Its target was probably The Capitol or The White House. The US military was mysteriously AWOL on that murdered September day. But when you look at who was running the USA on that day it is no surprise that the attacks occured.

Having formed The Project for a New American Century a few years earlier, a cabal of Zionists had published a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses one year earlier in which PNAC called for a "new Pearl Harbor" to convince the American public to go on a global warmongering rampage to assert US hegemony (oh, and take out some of Israel's main enemies, such as Iraq and Iran). A few years before forming PNAC the same cabal of Zionists wrote A Clean Break in which Netanyahu was encouraged to 'engage' Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon/Hezbollah.

The PNAC Zionists running America on 9/11 included:
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle

Shortly after 9/11 General Wesley Clark was told of a plan for war on seven nations in five years. The seven nations named to Clark were Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon, with Libya, Sudan and Somalia. You will observe that Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon were named in A Clean Break.

It took some lying but, after a brief detour into Afghanistan to get the opium production back to record levels, the USA invaded Iraq and took out Saddam (allegedly).

To destabilize Lebanon the former PM Hariri was assassinated. Syria was accused and withdrew from Lebanon during The Cedar Revolution. This left Hezbollah exposed to attack, and in 2006 Israel engineered a war on Hezbollah...but despite the Israeli war machine being the strongest in the region Israel somehow managed to lose. This shows how much Israel needs not only the finance but also the military muscle of the USA.

So by 2007 the plan for war on seven nations in five years was not going so well. So the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia agreed to unleash cutthroat Jihadis onto some of the target nations named to Clark.

In 2011 NATO, but basically the USA, cited R2P to twist UN SCR 1973 into a Get Gaddafi campaign, and gave the Jihadis weapons, training and air support so that the Jihadis eventually 'got' Gaddafi.

The Jihadis have since moved onto Syria and for two years have been chopping the heads off, cutting the throats of, slaughtering and massacring Syrian military and civilians, be they Shia, Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Orthodox. It didn't matter to the cutthroats. They killed anyone who was pro-Assad. The USA has been supporting these Jihadis covertly. The recent 'finding' that Assad had used chemical weapons has allowed the USA to make overt what was covert, and then some.

So in this bloody adventure, the USA has been Israel's attack dog.

It has been estimated that Israel has received over $220 billion in aid from the USA since 1948.

But there is now a move to make it a legal requirement for the USA to give Israel anything that Israel believes it needs for its security. This is an amendment to the NDAA. It has just been passed by The House of Representatives. The amendment reads:
“It is the policy of the United States to take all necessary steps to ensure that Israel possesses and maintains an independent capability to remove existential threats to its security and defend its vital national interests,”

[source : U.S. House passes bill to ensure Israel can 'remove existential threats', Haaretz,, 15th June 2013]

Apparently the POTUS has to report every 90 days to state how the policy is being implemented.
That report would identify “all aerial refueling platforms, bunker-buster munitions, and other capabilities and maintenance by Israel of a robust independent capability to remove existential security threats, including nuclear and ballistic missile facilities in Iran, and defend its vital national interests.”

The amendment was passed 315-108.

There is one way to stop this; GO PUBLIC ON 9/11!

Some of the same high-level sources who point to Richard Clarke as the US boss of the Israeli-instigated 9/11 false flag operation also claim that President Obama, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dempsey, and other powerful Americans are considering exposing the truth about 9/11 during a second Obama term. In other words, Obama's re-election could put Israel out of business, and get Netanyahu hanged from the nearest lamp-post.

[source : Israel seeks war on Iran to keep lid on 9/11, PressTV,, 21st September 2012]


Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has blasted off both barrels over the claim of Assad's use of chemical weapons and the subsequent decision to escalate US involvement in Syria.

First, over the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons
Russia’s foreign minister said Saturday that the evidence put forth by the United States of chemical weapons use in Syria apparently doesn’t meet stringent criteria for reliability.

...In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the material does not include guarantees that it meets the requirements of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. He said the organization specifies that samples taken from blood, urine and clothing can be considered reliable evidence only if supervised by organization experts from the time they are taken up to delivery to a laboratory.

[source : Russia questions Syrian chemical weapons evidence, Times of Israel,, 15th June 2013]

This supports the claim made to The Cable yesterday that the chain of custody of the Sarin samples that the claims of use are based on is not secure.
When the White House first publicly announced in late April its belief that the Assad regime in Syria had used chemical weapons on its own people, it stressed that this was only a strong suspicion -- not a certainty. Yes, they had blood samples that indicated exposure to deadly sarin gas. But they couldn't say for sure who handled those samples in the two weeks it took to get the blood into Western hands. "The physiological examples are compelling but without being able to determine the chain of custody, that's the key to confirming the use," one unnamed U.S. official told the New York Times earlier this week.

That chain of custody still hasn't been nailed down, an American intelligence source tells The Cable.

[source : Source: U.S. Couldn't Nail Down Chemical Weapons Chain of Custody, The Cable,, 14th June 2013 (registration required)]

Second, any No Fly Zone would be against international law.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has said that any attempt to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria using US fighter jets and Patriot missiles from Jordan would violate international law.

..."There have been leaks from western media regarding the serious consideration to create a no-fly zone over Syria through the deployment of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles and F-16 jets in Jordan," Lavrov said. "You don't have to be a great expert to understand that this will violate international law."

The US has moved Patriot missiles and fighter jets into Jordan in the past week, officially as part of an annual exercise, but it made clear that the military assets could stay on when the war games were over.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that a US military proposal to arm rebels fighting against Assad would include a limited no-fly zone inside Syria that could be enforced by US and allied planes on Jordanian territory. The US says it has evidence of Syria's use of chemical weapons, but Lavrov said it was not clear that the US evidence would meet international standards of reliability.

He said the evidence must meet the standards of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which specifies that samples taken from blood, urine and clothing can be considered reliable evidence only if supervised by organisation experts from the time they are gathered to when they are delivered to a laboratory.

[source : Syria no-fly zone would violate international law, says Russia, The Guardian,, 15th June 2013]

So the evidence is shaky, a No Fly Zone would be illegal, and there are concerns from some that supplying the rebs with small arms and ammunition is too little, too late.


Tony Blair, the Butcher of Baghdad, the liar-liar-pants-on-fire who lied, lied, lied to start war on Iraq (and look how well that turned out), has called for a No Fly Zone over Syria. During the Chilcot Inquiry into the war on Iraq he had the balls to use the opportunity of being in the media spotlight to call for war on Iran. In this latest warmongering rant Blair again has a snipe at Iran, also taking aim at Hezbollah.



What document has been written that calls for 'engagement', i.e. war, on these four?

A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

Written for Netanyahu by Zionists such as Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser.

Britain should arm the Syrian rebels and consider imposing a no-fly zone over Syria to prevent "catastrophic consequences", Tony Blair has said.

..."You've got the intervention of Hezbollah, at the instigation of Iran. The other big change is the use of chemical weapons. Once you allow that to happen – and this will be the first time since Saddam used them in the 1980s – you run the risk of it then becoming an acceptable form of warfare, for both sides," he told the Times.

...Blair said the conflict was no longer a civil war. "We should be taking a more interventionist line. You don't have to send in troops, but the international community should think about installing no-fly zones," he said. "You've got to create the circumstances in which Assad is not able to change the balance of power within the struggle by the use of outside forces."

Blair suggested that regime change in Syria was inevitable. "People are no longer going to accept that a minority ruled the country without the say of the majority. It's exactly the arguments we went through over Iraq," he said.

He also reiterated his criticism of Iran, claiming that the transition across the Middle East was being complicated by the policies of the Islamic republic.

"It's not just trying to acquire nuclear weapons, it's trying to export an ideology and an extremism around the region. They continue to meddle in Iraq. It's a hugely destabilising force. I would be 100% more optimistic about the speed with which the region could change if that Iranian regime weren't there."

[source : Tony Blair calls for west to intervene in Syria conflict, The Guardian,, 15th June 2013

The war in Syria has never been a civil war. The war in Syria is a proxy war by the USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, France and this DFK using cutthroat Jihadi terrorist scum to grind Syria down, reduce it to ruins and at the very least oust Assad. The war in Syria is the 'engagement' suggested in A Clean Break, and one stage in the plan for war on seven nations in five years that was revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after the mother of all inside Ziojobs 9/11.

That plan is at least 5 years behind schedule. Taking the start date of the plan as Operation Shock and Awe then it began to be implemented in 2003. Five years later is 2008. So the plan should have been completed by March 2008. But it is now 2013. And only two governments of the targeted seven have been replaced; Iraq and Libya.

This has to be one of the worst plans ever in the history of mankind, from the scale, execution, cover up and desperation to keep it alive.

I would laugh but the potential consequences of this plan dragging in Russia, China and the USA are too horrific to contemplate.


In an interesting article on the NSA PRISM scandal Steve Kinney reveals that
1. there was a plan to discredit Wikileaks
2. that plan involved submitting false documents
3. Glenn Greenwald was mentioned as a target for discrediting

Intelligence services have been feeding false information to known enemy informants in their own ranks for a long time, and they are very good at it.

Today, the potential whistleblower is one of the most dangerous informants an intelligence service can confront.

Was Edward Snowden spotted before he decided to leak documents, and set up by the NSA?

Substantial evidence supports the possibility that he was. Numerous questions cast doubt on the authenticity of the Power Point slide show describing PRISM, but the UK Guardian has not seen fit to release it to the public. Perhaps Glenn Greenwald should anonymously leak this file: In the words of Snowden himself, “The public needs to decide.”

...“The presentation, which has been seen by The Independent, recommends a multi-pronged assault on WikiLeaks including deliberately submitting false documents to the website to undermine its credibility, pioneering cyber attacks to expose who the leakers to WikiLeaks are and going after sympathetic journalists.

“One of those mentioned is Glenn Greenwald, a pro-WikiLeaks reporter in the US. Writing on Greenwald stated that his initial reaction was “to scoff at its absurdity.” – Jerome Taylor, The Independent[10]

...Was Edward Snowden under surveillance at intelligence contractor Booz Allen in advance of releasing the PRISM document?

[source : NSA Deception Operation? Questions Surround Leaked PRISM Document’s Authenticity
Was Edward Snowden spotted before he decided to leak documents, and set up by the NSA?, Global Research,, 12th June 2013]

Why would Snowden be under surveillance?

(Reuters) - While working for U.S. intelligence agencies, Edward Snowden had another secret identity: an online commentator who anonymously railed against citizen surveillance and corporate greed.

Throughout the eight years that Snowden worked for the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency contractors, he posted hundreds of messages on a public Internet forum under a pseudonym.

...He was also a prolific commentator on technology forum Ars Technica, posting approximately 750 messages using the screen name "The True HOOHA" from late 2001 to 2012.

Most of the postings were not political in nature: he dispensed advice about government careers, polygraphs and the 2008 stock market crash. He claimed to own the same gun as James Bond and posted glamour photos of himself. He jokingly compared the video console Xbox Live to NSA surveillance.

[source : While working for spies, Snowden was secretly prolific online, Reuters,, 14th June 2013]

Snowden could have been under surveillance for his postings, possibly for years.

If Snowden was set up then why has the information he has revealed been revealed now?


One intelligence source has told The Cable that the chain of custody of the blood samples used to show use of sarin cannot be proven.
When the White House first publicly announced in late April its belief that the Assad regime in Syria had used chemical weapons on its own people, it stressed that this was only a strong suspicion -- not a certainty. Yes, they had blood samples that indicated exposure to deadly sarin gas. But they couldn't say for sure who handled those samples in the two weeks it took to get the blood into Western hands. "The physiological examples are compelling but without being able to determine the chain of custody, that's the key to confirming the use," one unnamed U.S. official told the New York Times earlier this week.

That chain of custody still hasn't been nailed down, an American intelligence source tells The Cable.

[source : Source: U.S. Couldn't Nail Down Chemical Weapons Chain of Custody, The Cable,, 14th June 2013 (registration required)]

What is being claimed is that, even though the chain of custody cannot be proven, because there are just so many claims of use of sarin and blood samples then there must be some truth to the allegations.

But just how many samples does the USA have? It could be as little as six! From The Cable article I count as little as six samples.
After an alleged chemical attack on the city of Aleppo in March, the U.S. and United States came into possession of at least three physiological samples that tested positive for indicators of sarin gas. Now, Western intelligence services have at least twice that number of blood, urine, and hair samples coming from a variety of battle zones around the country.

"The big thing that changed is an increase in the number of incidents," the source says. "It's impossible that the opposition is faking the stuff in so many instances in so many locations."

And that is the high level of intelligence that the USA has!

No smoke without fire, they are saying.

So just how easy could it be to pull a hoax? Dead easy. Simply provide a few samples, get the rebs to claim they were attacked, and...BINGO! Congratulations! You have just been hoaxed. And your prize is a free delivery of MANPADs an al Qaeda affiliate in Syria of your choice.

Can we be surprised at this low level of proof?

No. Some of the evidence produced to convince us to go to war on Iraq was comical. Never mind Colin Powell at the UN. Much more comical was the taxi driver who claimed he overheard two Iraqi Generals in the back of his taxi discussing Iraq' WMDs! This sarin allegation against Assad is in the same league as that.

Friday, June 14, 2013


We know that 9/11 was an inside job, and that factions in Israel, USA, Saudi Arabia and the UK ran it. Whenever Ahmadenijad declared that 9/11 was an inside job at the UN GA he got standing ovations from the vast majority of reps, with only the likes of the USA, Israel, UK and Canada leaving in protest. We know from the man who revealed NATO Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga that many in Europe and the USA know that 9/11 was an inside job.

We know that General Wesley Clark was told shortly after 9/11 of a plan for war on seven nations in five years. Clark called this a foreign policy coup.

We know the nations named to Clark; Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.

We know that four of them were named in a 1996 document for Netanyahu called A Clean Break; Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

We know that the same cabal of Zionists who wrote A Clean Break formed The Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

We know that PNAC targeted Iraq and Iran.

We know, from Clark that Paul Wolfowitz said in 1991 that the USA "had 5 to 10 years to take out those old Soviet client regimes; Iraq, Iran, Syria before the next superpower comes along".

We know that this cabal was in charge of the USA when on 9/11 four alleged hijacked passenger planes flew around the North East sector of US air space unimpeded for nearly 2 hours while the US military was mysteriously and conveniently AWOL, producing the "new Pearl Harbor" that PNAC had dreamed of to begin their warmongering rampage.

We know that Iraq was invaded in 2003 based on a pack of lies about WMD.

We know that Israel engineered a war on Hezbollah in 2006.

We know that by 2007 the plan as revealed to General Clark was moribund so a Plan B was implemented, using cutthroat Jihadis as cannon fodder.

We know that Israel has attacked Sudan several times.

We know that Obama cited R2P and UN SCR 1973 was twisted out of all recognition and used to support the cutthroat Jihadis to eventually kill Gaddafi and destroy Libya.

We know that Bilderberg and Wall Street picked Romney for 2012.

We know that since Obama's re-election Israel, the UK and France and Neocon elements inside the USA have been losing patience with Obama and demanding that Obama arm the Syrian rebels, implement a NFZ and bomb Syria.

We know that Israel, supported by the UK, produced false evidence that the rebels had used chemical weapons.

We know that the rebels have been developing chemical weapons and were arrested with kgs of the stuff.

We know that the rebels have been massacring Syrian military, filming themselves decapitating prisoners, eating their prisoners' hearts, and massacring villages be they Christian, Shia, Alawite or Sunni.

We know that two car bombs exploded in Reyhanli, Turkey just days after Robert "death squad" Ford secretly visited the area and just days before Erdogan travelled to Washington DC.

We know that Israel attacked several HQs of the Syrian Arab Army in coordination with the Syria rebs.

We know that The Washington Post have printed several editorials demanding that Obama bomb Syria and arm the rebels with heavy weapons.

We know that Obama has been feeling the pressure by claiming to be afraid that what happened to MLK will happen to him.

We know that Obama had so far resisted all this pressure, not just domestic from McCain et al but international, from Cameron, Hollande, Hague, Fabius, Erdogan etc.

We know that, just as all this pressure builds up, the rebels face a rapid crushing defeat, and with Hezbollah fighting in Syria as an ally of Assad, Obama was implemented in several scandals, the latest being the very high profile NSA Prism expose, which occured just days after al Qusayr was liberated from the NATO proxy cutthroat Jihadi terrorist scum.

Within a week of Prism being exposed Obama begins to show signs of cracking, and changes US policy to arming the rebels, but to what extent is yet to be determined.

We know all this.

Obama was stalling the plan for war on seven nations in five years that was kicked off by the inside job 9/11. 9/11 occured in 2001. So it is nearly 12 years since 9/11. And only two nations of the seven named to Clark have seen regime change; Iraq and Libya. Obama could have easily used all the false allegations of massacres and use of chemical weapons in Syria last year. But he didn't. This is one reason why Bilderberg and the Neocons wanted Romney in The White House. Romney would have implemented fascist austerity much quicker but also bombed Syria and Iran by now, being a good friend of Netanyahu.

Obama cited R2P to eventually capitulate to intervene in Libya. I see the beginnings of something similar being planned in NATO media over Syria. Suddenly the numbers of dead are inflated, and then inflated some more. Fake concern for the Syrian people, particularly the children, when NATO, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have been arming their proxy cutthroat Jihadi terrorist scum to attack, attack, attack anyone who supports Assad, be they Shia, Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Orthodox, whatever. Just cut their throats, bring Syria to ruin and remove Assad.

Twelve years since 9/11.

And only Iraq and Libya have fallen.

Oh, how the Neocons, Israel and their masters and allies are getting very, very concerned.

Particularly when Obama is threatening to go public on 9/11, another reason why Obama is not supposed to be in The White House.
Some of the same high-level sources who point to Richard Clarke as the US boss of the Israeli-instigated 9/11 false flag operation also claim that President Obama, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dempsey, and other powerful Americans are considering exposing the truth about 9/11 during a second Obama term. In other words, Obama's re-election could put Israel out of business, and get Netanyahu hanged from the nearest lamp-post.

[source : Israel seeks war on Iran to keep lid on 9/11, PressTV,, 21st September 2012]

This much we know.