Saturday, May 31, 2014


If the agenda given to Daniel Estulin is real then it indicates that Bilderberg is in big big trouble, and would explain why this year there seems to be something more powerful, something nastier, something more sinister about the attendee list than usual.

And with Obama on the agenda list because of his reluctance to bomb Syria and seeking peace with Iran, and the head of the OPCW and the head of MI6 attending, I think we can see the Bilderberg witches brewing something...


Daniel Estulin claims to have been leaked the real agenda of Bilderberg 2014. On this real agenda is Obama.

Obama's foreign policy is not going down well with Bilderberg, as shown by the editorials of The Washington Post. As I have pointed out time and time again ad nauseum on this blog, including today, yesterday and the day before, Obama is not supposed to be in The White House. The warmongers did 9/11 to kick off a series of wars, one of which was on Syria. Obama has refused and refused and refused to attack Syria. And even after Bandar was forced to arrange the horrific incident at Ghouta last year, Obama still refused to bomb Syria.

Yes, Obama kills children with drones, with abortion.

But he is stalling the war plan.

A war on Syria would kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of children : kill, maim, injure.

Can you see it now that Obama is officially on the unofficial agenda of Bilderberg 2014?


The brilliant Abby Martin yesterday covered what Ed Snowden said in a recent interview with NBC but was edited out. RT report on this providing a transcript of Snowden's deleted comments:
"You know, and this is a key question that the 9/11 Commission considered. And what they found, in the post-mortem, when they looked at all of the classified intelligence from all of the different intelligence agencies, they found that we had all of the information we needed as an intelligence community, as a classified sector, as the national defense of the United States to detect this plot," Snowden said. "We actually had records of the phone calls from the United States and out. The CIA knew who these guys were. The problem was not that we weren’t collecting information, it wasn’t that we didn’t have enough dots, it wasn’t that we didn’t have a haystack, it was that we did not understand the haystack that we have."

"The problem with mass surveillance is that we’re piling more hay on a haystack we already don’t understand, and this is the haystack of the human lives of every American citizen in our country," Snowden continued. "If these programs aren’t keeping us safe, and they’re making us miss connections — vital connections — on information we already have, if we’re taking resources away from traditional methods of investigation, from law enforcement operations that we know work, if we’re missing things like the Boston Marathon bombings where all of these mass surveillance systems, every domestic dragnet in the world didn’t reveal guys that the Russian intelligence service told us about by name, is that really the best way to protect our country? Or are we — are we trying to throw money at a magic solution that’s actually not just costing us our safety, but our rights and our way of life?"

[source: Read Snowden’s comments on 9/11 that NBC didn’t broadcast, RT,, 30th May 2014]

From this you might think, yeah, Snowden, good on you mate!

But look at it again and again, and understand what Snowden is saying, or not saying.

He is not saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy (which it was).

Is he by implication saying that 9/11 really was done by terrorists with boxcutters? He didn't contradict the interviewer's comments on this.

He appears to be saying that the NSA had all the intelligence but didn't put it all together because they had too much metadata. And if so, is this actually a reason to expand the surveillance state, to employ more human spies, more software etc?

He is not saying anything about the war plan as revealed to General Wesley Clark.

My scepticism of this Snowden/Greemwald operation grows stronger by the day.

What has Snowden really told us? That the NSA spies on us? But we knew about this BEFORE 9/11 when Echelon was exposed. And to expect that the NSA has not kept up with the times to read texts and tweets is beyond naive.

What was the conduit of his 'revelations'? The flagship NATO media operation The Guardian (and The Washington Post).

Have previous NSA whistleblowers been given the same coverage as Snowden? NO! The best example is Russell Tice, who was completely ignored, even by The Guardian.

Do we see mass protests in the streets against mass state surveillance? No.

How have spying laws been changed to stop this mass surveillance. THEY HAVEN'T. Indeed, critics say that new laws make what was previously illegal now legal.

Is Greenwald in a rush to reveal all the revelations? NO. He is biding his time, sitting on bombshells, agreeing contracts, and actually cooperating with the very organisation he is being paid millions to expose!

When did the Snowden revelations first appear? Just as the Syrian rebels began to suffer defeat after defeat and Obama had ignored or escaped several minor scandals, all designed to pressure hum into attacking Syria.


As with Prince Charles likening Putin to Hitler, you know that you must be doing some good (as little as it may appear to be) if Dick Cheney calls you a "very, very weak president.".
Former US Vice President Dick Cheney stated that the weakness due to which US influence in the international arena decreases "is right in the center of the White House," reports Fox News. Dick Cheney stated on Wednesday that he believes President Obama is a "very, very weak president."

It seems to him that Obama doesn't completely understand the current obligations that the US has in the world.

Cheney also claimed that he has spoken with many people in the Middle East and those people have doubt in Obama's actions. They also tend to think that his leadership has reduced American's influence around the world.

"They all are absolutely convinced that the American capacity to lead and influence in that part of the world has been dramatically reduced by this president," he said. "We've got a problem with weakness, and it's centered right in the White House.”

[source : US weakness 'is right in the center of the White House' - Former Vice President Cheney, Voice of Russia,, 30th May 2014]

Let's get back to basics.

On 9/11 several passenger planes were allegedly hijacked by terrorists, who with minimal training were somehow able to evade the most powerful military in the world for nearly 2 hours before allegedly flying those planes into the WTC and even...can you believe this...THE PENTAGON! A plan for war on seven nations in five years was then implemented, but first invading Afghanistan to restore opium harvests to record levels. But by 2007 that plan was seriously behind schedule, and the NATO public were weary of war. So cutthroat Jihadis were unleashed onto Libya and Syria in order to give a pretext for R2P.

That plan worked in 2011 with Libya (after both Russia and China very, very curiously abstained on UN SCR 1973).

But in Syria even that Plan B has stalled.

And that is due to President Obama's reluctance to bomb Syria!!

All this warmongering is due The Project for a New American Century. They wrote of wanting a "new Pearl Harbor" to attack Iraq and Iran, while an interlocking cabal of Zionists wrote of wanting war on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. They were in charge of the US military as it was mysteriously and conveniently AWOL on 9/11 thus providing that "new Pearl Harbor". They were in charge of producing the 'intelligence' on and 'proof' of the guilt of Osama bin Laden and Iraq for 9/11. And General Wesley Clark specifically accused senior members of PNAC, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, of a foreign policy coup after 9/11.

PNAC was founded by Bill Kristol.

One of PNAC's founding members was Dick Cheney.

So when Bill Kristol's The Emergency Committee for Israel releases several videos attacking Obama, when flagship NATO media express their displeasure of Obama's foreign policy, and when the undead, unclean Dick Cheney calls Obama a "very, very weak president." while stating that America's allies in the Middle East (like Saudi Arabia?) are unsure of Obama, then I think Obama must be doing something right.

Yes, Obama lies. He kills innocent children with drones. He is dangerously provoking Russia in Ukraine. He is sending weapons to Jihadis in Syria.

But the history of Obama's reluctance to attack Syria as I outlined yesterday in WEEKLY STANDARD EDITORIAL LAMBASTS OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY provides an argument that Obama is reluctant to go to war on Syria and this is pissing quite a lot of powerful people off.

Support cutthroat Jihadis, maybe. But naked war like Cheney and Bandar and Erdogan and Cameron and Hague and Netanyahu want? I don't think so.

Friday, May 30, 2014


I just watched the passionate, emotional, blinking Abby Martin on RT talking about Ed Snowden and how moved Snowden was by 9/11 that he signed up to kill Iraqis. Woogh! Go Snowden! Go USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

This is a crucial aspect of the psychology of Snowden, that he believed that Iraq did 9/11 and was prepared to kill innocent Iraqis.

When the violence kicked off in Ukraine earlier this year Martin actually came out against Russia. A few days later another RT presenter resigned over Russia's policy regarding Ukraine.

A few weeks after this, pro-Kiev neo-Nazis burned approximately 50 people alive after chasing them into a building. The neo-Nazis shot at people as they tried to jump from 2nd and 3rd floor windows to escape the smoke and flames. Those who did jump either fell to their deaths, and if they survived that they were beaten to death, and if they survived all that then they were forced to crawl through the legs of the neo-Nazis who humiliated and beat them further.

Now, one MP who has, for whatever reason, appeared on RT is the delightful, suave, charming Zac Goldsmith.

Three times Goldsmith has appeared on RT.

And three times Goldsmith was not asked what he and his in-laws know about 9/11...even by George Galloway!!

So, who are Goldsmith's in-laws?


Yes. You might not know it from watching RT but Zac Goldsmith MP is married to a Rothschild.

But not just any old Rothschild.

We are talking direct descendants of the Nathan Mayer Rothschild who was sent by his father Amschel to London and created N M Rothschild which virtually controlled the gold market for centuries. Nathan and his best mate Moses Montefiore began the movement that would end up creating that curse upon mankind, Israel.

I wonder what Goldsmith and his in-laws talk about on a friday evening eating fish and chips and mushy peas from the local chipper.

Indeed, Goldmsith has been absent from the sycophancy of RT presenters for a month or so now.

Where oh where is Zac Goldsmith?

Has he gone into hiding since I raised the point that if he wants to really change British politics then, instead of pushing the unnecessary recall, he should ask his in-laws what they know about 9/11?

So before praising Snowden for signing up to kill innocent Iraqis after the blatant inside Ziojob 9/11, perhaps Martin should consider asking Zac Goldsmith MP (and MR = Member of the Rothschilds) what he and his in-laws know about 9/11?

And to what degree they were involved?

Just a suggestion, from one investigative reporter to another...


The Weekly Standard editorial written by Stephen Hayes lambasts President Obama's foreign policy as outlined at West Point earlier this week. The WS is arguably THE warmongering neconservative media outlet, run by William Kristol, the man who created PNAC and the ECI.

However, there is one very, very, very interesting piece of information revealed in that editorial that I think shows that President Obama is not, repeat, escalating military intervention in Syria, not to any significant degree anyway:
...Perhaps nothing made the confusion of Obama’s foreign policy more obvious than the president’s brief discussion of Syria. Before the speech, White House aides told reporters that the president would make news by announcing increased lethal aid to the good guys in the Syrian opposition. Obama didn’t do that. Instead, he promised aid to Syria’s neighbors and announced only that he would “work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators.”

In a White House conference call after the speech, reporters pressed a senior Obama administration official to explain what, exactly, “ramping up support” might mean. The administration, this official disclosed, would seek to “have a conversation .  .  . with Congress” and would be “discussing with Congress” the options available. Beyond that: “We do want to have this discussion with Congress” and “this is something we have to work with Congress on going forward” and we “will discuss our overseas contingency funding with Congress in the coming weeks” and “there needs to be dialogue and coordination between the administration and Congress” and “we want to explore whether we can come to some understanding with Congress about the best way to maximize our resources and get additional support to the Syrian people.” And on it went.

Work with Congress? What explains this sudden respect for the legislative branch? This is the same president who has repeatedly declared his willingness to circumvent Congress or ignore it altogether. “Congress is tough right now, but that’s not going to stop me,” he boasted last summer. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress, to make things happen.” Obama has made good on this promise—on immigration, climate change, welfare reform, health care. When Obama intervened militarily in Libya, administration lawyers prepared a lengthy justification for his decision to bypass Congress. The United States scrambled to drop bombs on regime targets to prevent Muammar Qaddafi from killing hundreds of his countrymen—and the president ordered those attacks without approval from Congress.

[source : Excuses Excuses, Editorial, The Weekly Standard,, Jun 9, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 37]

The Weekly Standard has also reproduced a comment from John Bolton published in The Wall Street Journal which also attacks President Obama's foreign policy as outlined at West Point.

So how has it come to this? That the necons are attacking Obama from all angles?

On September 11th 2001 four passenger planes were allegedly hijacked and three flown into the WTC and even The Pentagon. Shortly after this General Wesley Clark was told of a plan for war on seven nations in five years: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Somalia. Clark stated that after 9/11 there was a foreign policy coup, and named Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. These three had helped to establish The Project for a New American Century (founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan). PNAC wrote of their desire for "a new Pearl Harbor" to go on a warmongering rampage, but in particular naming Iraq and Iran as the greatest threats to American national security. But it just so happened that PNAC interlocked with another Zionist cabal of warmongers who in 1996 wrote A Clean Break which named...Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon as targets. And to add to this Zionis, Kristol would later form The Emergency Committee for Israel.

Obama was first elected in 2008. His first war was Libya, which was one of the targets named to Clark. Obama led from behind in that war.

By 2012 the war plan as revealed to Clark should have been all done. But there had only been 3 wars, and Israel managed to lose one of them, against Hezbollah. So the warmongers needed a true friend and warmonger in The White House. Mitt Romney was a good friend of Netanyahu's already. Romney loved Israel. And Romney loved Wall Street. The rumour at Bilderberg 2012 was that Romney was their choice. So to damage Obama the incident at Benghazi was organised. Obama was damaged, but Romney blew it. Petraeus and others were ousted in scandals. Petraeus now works for the ever-present-at-Bilderberg Kravis'. So, we have to ask, why would Petraeus be given such a cushy job by Bilderberg insiders Kravis' if what happened at Benghazi was not part of Bilderberg's plan?

The first half of 2013 was dominated by scandal after scandal, all implicating Obama, but without any solid evidence. In parallel there were naked attempts at trying to trick Obama into attacking Syria: Israel and the UK saying that they had solid evidence that Assad had crossed the red line that Obama had drawn in 2012. Erdogan tried to pull a fast one. So did Hague. So did Cameron. So did Hollande. The Bilderberg/Washington Post was twice a week in its editorials demanding war on Syria.

But Obama refused.

In June the Syrian Arab Army captured the important logistics hub of al Qusair from the rebels. Within days the rebels started to suffer defeat after defeat.

Then came the mother of all scandals : Obama was personally reading all our emails.

Snowden's revelations were sold to us in the following way : that Obama was personally reading all our emails, texts, tweets, blogs, facebooks. Obama knew everything, we were told. Does it seem odd that this spying was sold to us this way, and not that the NSA was reading all our emails, etc? And the outlet of these revelations, The Guardian, is one of THE flagship NATO media outlets. Now, why would a flagship NATO media outlet allow Ed Snowden to reveal all his information about NSA spying, which was then presented as Obama reads all our emails, for 2 months, just as the Syrian rebels began to collapse? When Obama was not falling for all the psychological pressure from previous scandals, and the tricks from Erdogan and Hague and Netanyahu and their twisted ilk?

Things got so bad for the rebels last summer that their paymaster, Prince Bandar, was forced to personally threaten Vladimir Putin: dump Assad or Bandar would unleash hell on earth in Syria. Putin refused. So on 21st August something terrible happened at Ghouta. We still don't know for sure what happened. But NATO media, including The Guardian, immediately and consistently accused Assad, willfully, unprofessionally and criminally ignoring all evidence that the rebels did it: they had chemical weapons; they had threatened to use them; they had filmed their experiments of using them on rabbits; and they needed a spectacular, as Bandar had promised, to provoke a large scale military intervention on their behalf.

But after all this, all the scandals, all the tricks, all the false flags, Obama still didn't bomb Syria, instead agreeing that Syria relinquish its chemical weapons.

And to top it all off, Obama is seeking peace with Iran, which is THE whole aim of the series of war, and thus 9/11.

And so the war plan, as revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after the inside Ziojob 9/11, gets more and more behind schedule...

I will not defend Obama on his drone policy, or his complete ignorance of what is really going on in Ukraine, or other policies, but if he is standing up to the Ziowarmongers, and and I believe that he is, then he should be commended.

But if Obama truly was The Peace President then he would stop the wars, and the meddling that risks war : drones, Syria, Ukraine.

Stop it all.


Thursday, May 29, 2014


At West Point Military Academy yesterday President Obama talked hammers and nails.

No. He was not talking about DIY.

He was talking about US foreign policy.

But haven't we heard this metaphor of hammers and nails regarding US foreign policy before?

YES!! General Wesley Clark used the exact same metaphor on 3rd October 2007 at the Commonwealth Club of California when he spoke of being told of the war plan after 9/11.

Although President Obama did not state that he was going to withdraw the US military from everywhere and become the isolationist America that caused The League of Nations to fail, Obama gave the impression that under his Presidency the USA was not going to rush into unnecessary wars unless there was a direct threat to the USA. But Obama stated that such a threat was very low, with the USA owning the most powerful military in the world.

So how has this gone down in the NATO media?

The following flagship NATO media newspapers are pretty pissed off:
The Guardian;
The Washington Post;
The New York Times.

The Guardian's editorial on this speech makes a plea for R2P.
The greatest failure so far of Mr Obama's foreign policy lies in Syria. His light touch has failed to stem the bloodshed. Over 160,000 people are dead, mostly at the hands of the regime, while radical jihadist groups have won territory at the expense of less well-armed moderates.

Humanitarian interventions aimed at preventing mass atrocities are among the toughest foreign policy calls a leader has to make. Intervening means being held accountable for everything that happens afterwards. That can present an ugly picture, as Libya is demonstrating. But those who stand on the sidelines cannot avoid accountability either. Many former US, British and French politicians are still haunted by the failure to act in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 90s. Bill Clinton has admitted that US intervention in Rwanda could have saved 300,000 lives. That is a lot to have on your conscience. In his West Point speech, Mr Obama showed that the Syrian dead are beginning to haunt him. The problem is: how to banish the ghosts.

[source : US foreign policy: principle and pragmatism, Editorial, The Guardian,, 29th May 2014]

Of course, The Guardian makes no reference whatsoever to the aforementioned plan revealed to General Wesley Clark, or The Redirection reported by Seymour Hersh which was a response to the war fatigue in the NATO populations for that war plan.

The Washington Post, unsurprisingly, goes further than The Guardian, showing its displeasure by referring to President Obama as Mr Obama (as does The Guardian):
Mr. Obama also pledged to “ramp up support” for the Syrian opposition. But he made the same promise last year and failed to follow through. Those U.S. allies who worry about Mr. Obama’s foreign policy retreat — and those who have exploited it — will be impressed by a change in U.S. behavior, not the president’s rhetoric.

[source : At West Point, President Obama binds America’s hands on foreign affairs, The Washington Post,, 29th May 2014]

The New York Times was far from impressed, despite praising Obama for not going to war on Syria last year:
President Obama and his aides heralded his commencement speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Wednesday as a big moment, when he would lay out his foreign policy vision for the remainder of his term and refute his critics. The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.

...But he provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years, and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world. Falling back on hackneyed phrases like America is the “indispensable nation” told us little.

...This was far from Mr. Obama’s big moment. But since he has no office left to run for, what matters ultimately is his record in the next two and a half years.

[source : President Obama Misses a Chance on Foreign Affairs, Editorial, The New York Times,, 29th May 2014]

But it say a lot when The Weekly Standard crew aren't impressed either!

I am just wondering what Bilderberg is cooking up...

Readers should by now understand:
1. Obama is not supposed to be in The White House. The self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe did 9/11 to kick off a series of wars, to at least grab natural resources in The Middle East but possibly to start WW3. The plan as revealed to General Wesley Clark is seriously behind schedule. Plan B of unleashing cutthroat Jihadis onto defenceless Syrian children was implemented due to this delay. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is a pair of lead boots to their warmongering soldier. They wanted pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-fascism Romney in The White House;
2. Due to this they ran the Benghazi incident to Carterise Obama and sink his election bid. But Romney blew it. Then DCIA Petraeus was ousted in a scandal, along with a few others, and is now at the Bilderberg meeting in Copenhagen with his new employers, the ever present Kravis';
3. After his inauguration Obama was embroiled in a series of scandals and several attempts by world leaders, such as Netanyahu, Cameron and Erdogan, were made to trick Obama into bombing Syria.
4. Due to this refusal by Obama to attack Syria the Syrian rebels faced total collapse, so Bandar threatened Putin: dump Assad or Bandar would create hell on earth in Syria to embarsass Putin into dumping Assad. Putin refused. So something happened on 21st August to trick us into bombing Syria. If there is one thing I can guarantee it is that neither Assad or the Syrian Arab Army were behind that horrific event. All evidence, willingly, unprofessionally and criminally ignored by the NATO media and its gimps, points to the rebels as the culprits;
5. As part of this operation to get Obama to attack Syria, The Washington Post was publishing twice-weekly editorials last summer demanding war on Syria;
6. Obama refused to attack Syria. He has also sought a peaceful solution to the non-crisis of Iran's peaceful civil nuclear power program.
7. As a response Bill Kristol's latest Zionist organisation the Emergency Committee for Israel virtually declared war on President Obama.

Since last summer the Syrian rebels have been suffering defeat after defeat. The end is nigh for them. the Syrians among the rebels have realised they were taken for fools and have returned home, leaving the fighting to the foreigners, some of whom are British and I assume were inspired to go to Syria by the killer of Lee Rigby, Michael Adebalajo, who was allowed to preach his anti-Assad Jihad while under surveillance by MFI MI5 because Jihad against Assad is current British foreign policy.

This puts yesterday's speech at West Point by President Obama into context.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014


Before last week's elections The Guardian made a passionate plea for voters to vote for Europe. Perhaps they knew something that most of us didn't.

But Bilderberg Project Europe, your boys took one hell of a beating!!

There has been some soul-searching, accusations of racism etc.

War criminal Tony Blair, perhaps fishing for the soon-to-be-vacant top seat in Europe, spoke of how the Eurocrats needs to look at the results and get their act together or the 'Eurodream' could become a 'Euronightmare' and collapse.

And now that The Guardian has had time to digest the rejection of their beloved Eurodream by the British and European electorate, it has become so desperate in looking for the new EuroHero to save Europe that it is now praising Blair for his recent aforementioned speech.
Tony Blair, another who once had a standing that he later squandered, offered a reminder on Tuesday. that it is possible to offer a more principled, positive and reassuring story about the complexity of the modern world than Mr Farage is capable of. The lesson of the last week is that Europe is crying out for more voices who can tell that sort of story – and be believed when they do.

[source : European elections: insecurity alert, Editorial, The Guardian,, 27th May 2014]

There is something fundamentally wrong and evil about Tony Blair. The man lied and lied and lied and lied in order to kill approaching one million Iraqis, children included. All for what? Israel? Oil? Naked megalomania? Since unleashing such slaughter Blair has been working for The Bank of Satan, J P Morgan Chase (and his son now works there too), and he is carving out a career as the new Henry Kissinger.

Blair cannot be believed. On anything.

So when he says Europe should be reformed to be saved we can be sure that Europe is part of the agenda. And it is part of the agenda, for world government. Less local government, and more centralised world government. Bilderberg created this European branch of the world government apparatus. And Bilderberg was and still is run by criminals and Nazi collaborators and financiers.

So it should come as no surprise that The Guardian now praises war criminal Blair for trying to save the Eurodream of the Nazi collaborators and financiers, the Rockefellers, who Blair and his son now work for through J P Morgan Chase.


The usual human scum and traitors to the human race will be in Copenhagen to attend Bilderberg 2014 to discuss and agree on how to further enslave humanity. Such scum includes:
Henry Kissinger;
Josef Ackermann;
Carl Bildt;
Etienne Davignon;
George Osborne;
Peter Mandelson;
Mustafa Koç;
Richard Perle;
John Kerr;
Anders Fogh Rasmussen;
Peter Thiel;
The Kravis' and their latest star employee David Petraeus;
The Wallenbergs;
Larry Summers;
Peter Sutherland;
James Wolfensohn;
Robert Zoellick.

All human scum. All traitors to the human race.

But they will be accompanied by some guests which should raise some concern and a few eyebrows.

The first of these is Ed Balls. WTF is Balls doing attending...AGAIN!!

Then there is the head of MI6, John Sawers. Maybe we can get at Bilderberg through his attendance?

Philip Breedlove, the American/NATO Supreme Commander in Europe.

And this guy, Michael Gfoeller. Who is he? He is listed as 'Independent Consultant'. But he actually works for The Chertoff Group, founded by Michael Chertoff, former head of DHS, and suspect in 9/11. Gfoeller sits alongside Sir John Scarlett, former head of MI6, on the Board of Advisers for The Chertoff Group. Principals of The Chertoff Group include Michael Hayden (former DCIA) and John Reid, Blair's Enforcer.

There are two attendees from China(!?). Hmm.

But none from Russia.

And with the controversy over Syria's chemical weapons and false flags et., in mind, Ahmet Üzümcü, Director-General of The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, has been invited.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014


I am not sure what the answer that question is. Bankers? Ostracisers? Hmm. It's a toughie.

But remember the bankers? A few years ago the banks done us all like a kipper. They begged for bailouts and in return promised change.

But what do we get?
The head of the International Monetary Fund has warned that a persistent violation of ethics among bankers and rising inequality pose a major threat to growth and financial stability.

Christine Lagarde told an audience in London that six years on from the deep financial crisis that engulfed the global economy, banks were resisting reform and still too focused on excessive risk taking to secure their bonuses at the expense of public trust.

She said: "The behaviour of the financial sector has not changed fundamentally in a number of dimensions since the crisis. While some changes in behaviour are taking place, these are not deep or broad enough. The industry still prizes short-term profit over long-term prudence, today's bonus over tomorrow's relationship.

"Some prominent firms have even been mired in scandals that violate the most basic ethical norms - Libor and foreign exchange rigging, money laundering, illegal foreclosure."

[source : IMF chief says banks haven't changed since financial crisis, The ZioGuardian,, 27th May 2014]

A leopard never changes its spots.

A banker never changes.


Such God-like power should only be in the hands of a government body run for the general welfare of the people, not in the dirty, sweaty, bloody hands of a cabal of megalomaniac satanist weirdo freaks.

We don't need bankers. They need us.

F**K M!

ps quote : "today's bonus over tomorrow's relationship". They cannot be trusted.


World War 1 was supposed to be that, the war to end all war. A world government was supposed to be created, with Great Britain ruling behind the scenes using American military muscle to police the world and enforce the will of the world government. Once such a system could be established no other nation could threaten The British Empire because it would be against international law.

That was the plan.

But it didn't turn out that way. Not initially, anyway. But it has now. Sort of. But it took a second world war to get to this state of affairs. That is because the USA voted to stay out of The League of Nations.

So the war to end all war, World War 1, didn't work in that respect.

But there is one war that could end all war.

Can you guess what it is?

It is the one war that I am in favour of.

Because it would end all war.

And that is to fly all warmongers to a designated time and place and have them fight each other to the death.

As Harry Patch so eloquently said:
"War is organised murder and nothing else....politicians who took us to war should have been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves, instead of organising nothing better than legalised mass murder"

With the warmongers dead who would be left to monger war?


In 1969 Dr Richard Day, an employee of the Rockefeller empire, predicted the future to a select audience. A lot of what Day predicted has come true. One of those predictions was that sex would be promoted but in parallel with abortion on demand to control population, and that to also control population homosexuality would be encouraged too. Anything goes, was the phrase Day used. This explains why The Daily Mail now shows in such high frequency the sort of photographs of scantily clad women in bikinis on its website that 40 years ago could only be found in smutty magazines sold in sleazy adult shops in Soho.

We see this Anything Goes culture in the attacks on Russia. Russia recently introduced a law to stop homosexuality being introduced to children. NATO media went berserk. The nation's favourite homosexual, Stephen Fry, was roused enough to write to David Cameron warning of a homosexual holocaust and that the streets of Moscow would be covered in the ashes of cremated homosexuals. Fry demanded that the winter olympics be moved elsewhere. During the recent Eurovision Song Contest, the Russian singers were booed. Yet it is Russia opposing the cutthroat Jihadis in Syria, who if they came to power would be executing homosexuals for fun! And even today, the gay Lord Browne of BP has suggested that gay employees be sent to Russia.

So it would appear from this that homosexuals are far more concerned with being able to get up to whatever they want rather than discover and propagate the truth about why cutthroat Jihadis, sponsored by the homosexual-executing kingdom of Saudi Arabia, have been unleashed onto Syria to slit the throats of defenceless Syrian children.

It is this obsession with sex rather than truth that apparently took control of Rodger.

And so it is with great irony that, of all British newspapers, it is The Daily Mail, with its cleavage column, that has taken upon itself the task of dredging Rodger's life in an attempt to explain why Rodger did what he did.

From my understanding of Rodger, from reading media reports, he was a spoiled rich kid who had become isolated from the human race by wealth, with brand new BMWs etc. But this material wealth was not enough for him. He also wanted women, beautiful much so that he was prepared to kill.

He was the manifestation of this movement that Day predicted in 1969; if you aren't getting it then there is something wrong with you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the vast majority don't seem to care. My personal experience of trying to get the truth across is that when I tell people what is really going on, they aren't that bothered and carry on with their daily lives and apparently don't want to change things. But at least I can still talk to and have a few pints with them. In one case I was ostracised! I have no idea what it will take for them to see the truth, but I just have to keep at it.

When I walk around town and city centres on a Saturday afternoon, very few people engage with what I consider to be very important issues: Palestine, NHS. But they will stand and gaze at American Indians, or tut and laugh at pro-Palestine activists handing out leaflets exposing Israel's barbaric treatment of Palestine.

But, and I sincerely believe this, if sex was banned then there would be bloody mayhem. Riots. Arson. Looting. Police helicopters shot out of the sky.

Elliot Rodger was the manifestation of this obsession with sex, this anything goes culture.

But, this is the scary bit, there is possibly something of Rodger in a lot of the British population.

Why was Rodger so obsessed with sex? With all that wealth he could have done some good: donated to charity; financed some sort of fund for poor children to give them access to education; even given himself an education as to why the world is the shit hole that it is. Something other than be obsessed with sex.

But so it is, I think, with the majority of the people of Britain.

A lot of people are going to have to make a lot of hard decisions...and very soon.

This is not Satan's playground. It should be a fantastic, fun-filled playground for the children of this world, with their laughter our priority. Instead we give them poverty and bombs. And those that have some wealth, like Rodger, just abuse it and kill, like an American Psycho.

Are you addicted to this Freemason/Bohemian Grove/NATO way of life?


Monday, May 26, 2014


On Saturday The Bilderberg Washington Post published its latest whinge on America's policy regarding Syria. The editorial board of The Bilderberg Washington Post loves war, but only when they are not fighting it themselves (like most cowardly warmongers such as NATO politicians).

Last year was a very telling year for operations regarding Syria and the USA. President Obama was elected, but he was not supposed to win in 2012. His Nobel Peace Prize is like a pair of lead boots to the warmongers. The pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-fascism Romney was supposed to win. It is surprising that the politics of America today is still dominated by 9/11, but it is. The plan for war on seven nations in five years is seriously, seriously behind schedule, and as time goes by 9/11, which was executed to kick off that series of wars, becomes a distant memory and loses its usefulness as a casus belli for war. Romney would have bombed Syria last August. Obama wisely didn't. Romney would have bombed Iran too. Obama is seeking a diplomatic solution to Iran's peaceful civil nuclear power program. Hence The Emergency Committee for Israel, founded and run by the PNAC founder Bill Kristol, produced a video virtually declaring war on President Obama.

The editorial definitely calls for the rebels to be given shoulder-fired missiles, and states that these should be kept out of the hands of extremists, but does not state how this could be done. There is also a suggestion that a safe zone be established inside Syria.

So the editorial board of The Bilderberg Washington Post still want more and more military action on and interference in Syria, but do not ask that they be sent over there personally with a uniform, a pair of boots, a helmet and a rifle, to join up with the cutthroat Jihadis and fight the indefatigable, mighty Syrian Arab Army in the hell on earth that is Syria thanks to their support for the series of Ziowars kicked off by the inside job 9/11.

But the three little but significant things that I take from this editorial are:
1. Syria is referred to as a hell on earth;
2. Obama is referred to as President Obama;
3. mathematical vocabulary is present in calculus.

Regarding 1., this phrase "hell on earth" was used by this blog to describe what Prince Bandar was going to create in Syria if Putin didn't dump Assad.

Regarding 2., a few weeks ago this blog highlighted that the editorials of The Bilderberg Washington Post referred to Obama as Mister, not President.

And regarding 3., this blog suggested that there should be more mathematics in geopolitics.

Are the editorial board of The Bilderberg Washington Post reading TTS?

Is President Obama?

President Putin?

Sunday, May 25, 2014


Nearly every report that I have read that was not written by someone from the Democratic Party criticises the Freedom Act as allowing the NSA to do what it was doing illegally beforehand legally, either explicitly in the text or through loopholes. This act was driven by the revelations of Ed Snowden, reported by Glenn Greenwald, and first published in The anti-Russia, anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-NATO, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-Ukraine neo-Nazi Guardian.

Here is another such report:
On Thursday, the United States House of Representatives passed the “USA Freedom Act,” a piece of legislation that has been presented as a National Security Agency (NSA) “reform” bill. In reality, the bill, which was modified after the intervention of the Obama administration, would allow for the continued bulk collection of telephone records, while doing nothing to address other illegal NSA spy programs.

...The USA Freedom Act, in line with “reforms” proposed by Obama earlier this year, seeks to assuage widespread opposition while ensuring that the spying continues. It requires the NSA to obtain specific permission from the FISC for records that would be kept by telecommunications companies rather than the agencies themselves.

...The new language is so broad that it essentially allows for bulk data collection. Harley Geiger, a senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the New York Times that the language would allow for the collection of vast amounts of data as long as there were any limiting criteria. “The government has shown remarkable capacity to creatively interpret terms that appeared clear, like ‘relevant,’ and this definition is ambiguous enough that it allows, if not entire-population-scale collection, large-scale collection,” he noted.

In addition, the amended bill allows the NSA to collect data for anyone found to be two degrees away from the suspected target. This would enable the agency to indefinitely surveil potentially thousands or even millions of people with just a single warrant.

The bill was amended so significantly that many of its original backers have come out in opposition. A collection of telecommunications companies issued a statement that the language created an “unacceptable loophole that could enable the bulk collection of internet users’ data.”

[source : NSA “reform” bill would continue to allow for bulk phone record collection, WSWS,, 24th May 2014]

So, perhaps Glenn Greenwald can critique the bill and say exactly what has changed.

Because the view from here is that the general public are now aware that they are being spied on, but they couldn't give a toss because that dastardly al Qaeda is in Syria training British and American Jihadis to kill us all upon their return. Meanwhile, Greenwald is doing bugger all to expose the long term plan for the series of wars revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after 9/11, while he sits surveying his new multi-million dollar media empire which he runs with another dodgy ****** called Jeremy Scahill. Scahill believes that somehow a bunch of Muslims were able to hijack several passenger planes and fly them unimpeded around the most protected airspace in the world for nearly 2 hours before flying them into The WTC and even...can you believe this...THE PENTAGON!! When this was precisely what people like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted!! Scahill would then go onto be so vain as to think that Stop The War could be bullied into dumping Mother Agnes Mariam from their conference last year. Sadly he was right!

There is definitely something not right with this dynamic duo, Greenwald and Scahill.

And sadly there is something not right with Stop The War either. They allowed themselves to be bullied by Scahill, and their semi-official publication on the origins of World War 1 misses several key pieces of evidence that point to that horrific war being a British/Freemasonic conspiracy rather than something that was going to happen anyway. My critique of this document showed that, although its thesis was Marxist in pushing this competing empire theory, a lot of the evidence it provided agreed with the LPAC/EIR thesis which is that nations like Germany and Russia and the USA had adopted The American System of Economics in opposition to British Free Trade, which was propelling Germany and the USA to overtaking Great Britain as the dominant economic powers in the world. Thus Great Britain conspired to engineer a war in which Germany would be surrounded (this was done by Prince later King Edward VII while he was Grand Master of The United Grand Lodge of England), Freemasons assassinated Ferdinand, King George V told Kaiser Wilhelm that Great Britain would stay out of any war, Sir Edward Grey was very vague about Great Britain's position, but as soon as Germany invaded Belgium Grey demanded war. Nations on the continent mutually destroyed each other so that Europe could then be molded into whatever Great Britain wanted.

I could go on that because the USA voted out of The League of Nations both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were created by Wall Street and The City of London for a longer, bloodier and more destructive world war : Ordo Ab Chao.

PS the NATO media loved Jeremy Scahill last year, with fawning articles published in The Guardian (of course) and The Independent. I wonder why...

Saturday, May 24, 2014


In an interview today President Putin Russia spoke of the name-calling by our Prince Charles, who recently likened Putin to Hitler.

But first, let's get a few things straight:
1. Russia is not invading Europe with a Wehrmacht made in Wall Street and The City of London;
2. Russia's monarchy did not ally with the Nazis, like ours did, the alliance so deep that the King was forced to abdicate and banished to the corner of the Empire where he still conspired and conspired and conspired with the Nazis;
3. Russia is opposing the violent neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine, whose supporters recently burned approximately 50 people alive, while nearly every NATO Government including that of The Disunited Fascist Queendom does support such bloody violence.

Putin is quoted as saying:
"He has been to our country more than once, if he made such a comparison, it is unacceptable and I am sure he understands that as a man of manners," Putin said. "I met him personally, as well as other members of the Royal Family. This is not what monarchs do.”

Putin is right.

This is not what British monarchs do.


Friday, May 23, 2014


The video for this is fantastic, but I think uses the wrong mix.

the style council the lodgers lyrics

(PS Note the reference to Essex)

The above video should instead be used with this mix.

The Lodgers The Style Council Feat Dee C.Lee

No peace for the wicked only war on the poor
They're batting on pickets trying to even the score
It's all inclusive and the dirt comes free
And you can be all that you want to be

Oh, an equal chance and an equal say
But equally there's no equal pay
There's room on top if you tow the line
And if you believe all this you must be out of your mind

There's only room for those the same
Those who play the leeches game
Don't get settled in this place
The lodgers terms are in disgrace

An equal chance, an equal say
But equally there's no equal pay

Getcha brains blown out in the captain's mess
Stand for the Queen if you can stand the test
It's all thrown in and the lies come free
And you can be all that they want you to be

There's only room for those the same
Those who play the leeches game
Don't get settled in this place
The lodgers terms are in disgrace

Oh, if you work hard you can be the boss
But if you don't work at all then that's nobody's loss
There's room on top if you dig in low
The idea is what they reap you sow

With an old school tie and a reference
You can cover up crimes in their defence
It's all thrown in and the lies come free
And you can be all that they want you to be

There's only room for those the same
Those who play the leeches game
Don't get settled in this place
The lodgers terms are in disgrace

Only room for those the same
Those who play the leeches game
Don't get settled in this place
The lodgers terms are in disgrace

Only room for those the same
Those who play the leeches game
Don't get settled in this place
The lodgers terms are in disgrace


So Charles likens Putin and Russia's 'actions' in Ukraine to Hitler and the Nazis.

Putin and Russia via RT reply by highlighting Charles' immediate family's love of the Nazis, in particular that treasonous relationship with and fondness that Edward VIII had for the Nazis.

But there is a third party to complete this bizarre love triangle; Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Last August I pointed the finger at Bandar as the culprit behind the events at al Ghouta. I even named Bandar before the event. Last summer Bandar threatened Putin. But Putin rejected Bandar's advances. So Bandar unleashed hell in Syria, as he had promised Putin.

But who is Bandar, and what are his intimate links to Charles?

EIR is running a two part expose of the relationship between Bandar and Charles.

The first is at The British Monarchy, Saudi Arabia, and 9/11

Thursday, May 22, 2014


The anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine neo-Nazi Guardian has today asked the silliest of questions:

Is it morally sound, western countries must ask, to prolong a conflict, one that is killing people every day, when we no longer expect the side we have favoured to win? Or is some continued support defensible because it could provide leverage in the bargaining that sooner or later may help wind down the war?

[source : Syria: the war crimes record, Editorial, The Guardian,, 21st May 2014]

So, why is this the silliest of questions?

Well, if you read the quote again, the question is essentially asking, should a war be continued to help wind down that war?

Say what?

I repeat : should a war be continued to help wind down that war?

The war in Syria could very easily be stopped if this Disunited Fascist Queendom stopped pushing the USA, Saudi Arabia and The Friends of Syria Group into arming and financing the rebels.

It really is that simple.

So why doesn't this happen?

Because this DFQ believes that it can interfere in the internal affairs of every nation on earth, and will do so.

The war in Syria is just one of several in a plan for war on seven nations in five years as revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after the inside Ziojob 9/11. Clark is on Youtube stating this.

Here is Clark stating this:

But does The anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine neo-Nazi Guardian publish or make reference to this video?


Clark was told there would initially only be a war on Iraq. A short time after he was told the list of targets would be:

Most of these are enemies of Israel, and were named in two Ziowarmongering documents, A Clean Break and Rebuilding America's Defenses, both written before the inside Ziojob 9/11.

And most of those seven nations have experienced some form of major international intrigue since 9/11:
Iraq invaded in 2003 based on an astronomical pack of lies;
Lebanon in 2006 after Israel engineered a war against Hezbollah;
Libya in 2011 based on a large pack of lies;
Syria since 2011 has suffered an illegal invasion of cutthroat Jihadis supported by this DFQ and financed by that utopia of freedom, democracy and human rights, The medieval Kingdom (repeat Kingdom) of Saudi Arabia.

But The anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine neo-Nazi Guardian doesn't tell you this. NO. Instead The anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine neo-Nazi Guardian glorifies the mass murderer who executed the tunnel bomb that killed tens of Shabiha!!

So when The anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine neo-Nazi Guardian ask the silliest of questions : should we continue a war to help wind down that war?


If you really, really, really, really, really want to stop the war in Syria, then stop supporting and financing the cutthroat Jihadis.


Wednesday, May 21, 2014


Last week in an interview with GQ, Greenwald was reported as promising bombshells on the scale of NSA snooping.

But instead we have the comical spectacle of Greenwald bending over for the NSA and acquiescing to their requests of withholding information for fear of causing violence, while the 9/11 gatekeeper Assange accuses Greenwald of censorship.

Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous?

Greenwald rose to fame last summer by publishing Snowden's revelations in the anti-Russia, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine neo-Nazi Guardian, yet Greenwald now praises The Guardian for being maverick (just for publishing his reports) while Greenwald twiddles his thumbs as he surveys his new multi-million dollar media empire, sitting on 'bombshell' information while spying laws are watered down, and now Greenwald is actually cooperating with the very organisation he is being paid millions to expose for fear of encouraging violence!! As if the USA never, ever, ever caused any violence anywhere!!

While Assange is a 9/11 gatekeeper and willingly releases 'leaks' to embarrass Russia and Syria and their allies and suppliers in the USA and Europe, even serving to distribute the idea that Osama bin Laden was alive and well in and living it up in Iran when Israel was looking for any reason to bomb Iran, while not releasing anything whatsoever of any 'bombshell' nature on NATO or its leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. Behold a psyop.


On 28th June 1914 Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated by Freemasons in a British/Freemasonic plot. This was the result of decades of manipulation by British and Freemasonic circles for a large war. The aim of the plot was to destroy the Central European powers to create a power vacuum. According to Christian Rakovsky, that vacuum was supposed to be filled by Trotsky exporting Communism from Russia, but Lenin and Stalin destroyed this plan when Trotsky fell seriously ill and Stalin seized power. The power vacuum in Central Europe was instead filled with the first attempt at world government, The League of Nations.

This has been erased from history.

100 years to the day of this assassination, 28th June 2014 is fast approaching, 5 weeks on Saturday.

Earlier this year I proposed a demo outside Freemason's Hall in Great Queen Street, London on 28th June. As this would be static there would be no need for permission. There appears to be a useful space for a static demo just across the road from the hall. And there is The Freemasons Arms just around the corner for a pint or two afterwards (or before).

But there may be a problem in that Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in his memoirs that he was told that it was The Grand Orient branch of Freemasonry wot dunnit, not The United Grand Lodge of England. And to make things more murky, at the time of the assassination UGLE and Grand Orient had a schism (though how real or superficial this was is up for debate). But before this, Giuseppe Mazzini, who is responsible for all the anarchy and terror in Europe in the middle to late 19th century, was a British Intelligence agent but also Grand Master of The Grand Orient. Mazzini created an umbrella of nationalist Young organisations, such as Young Russia and Young Germany, with the aim of destabilising empires other than the British Empire. The assassins of Arch Duke Ferdinand were Freemasons but also members of Young Bosnia.

If you want to demo then do so. I have just put the idea out there. But I am not yet sure whether it would be 100% valid (should the demo be outside a Grand Orient lodge instead?), or that well attended, from the responses (or non) I have received (or not).

But it could bring attention to the role of Freemasonry in World War 1.


How do you know when you are doing good in the world?

How can you tell?

An extra present from Santa on Christmas Day?

You find a pound coin from The Tooth Fairy under your pillow?


You know that you are doing good in the world when Prince Charles likens you to Hitler.

"He made the remark that now Putin is doing some of the same things that Hitler was doing."

"I agreed - you know, he is taking countries the same as Hitler did."

[source : Prince Charles 'compared Russian actions to Nazis', BBC,, 21st May 2014]


The anti-Russia, anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-NATO, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-Ukraine neo Nazi Guardian has today called for people to vote in the elections tomorrow.

But has it urged people to vote for a particular party?


So what has it done?

The anti-Russia, anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-NATO, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-Ukraine neo Nazi Guardian has called for people to vote for...internationalism!

Not a party but a policy; to stay in Europe.

It is on record that:
1. the EU was created by Bilderberg
2. the creators, financiers and supporters of Bilderberg were and still are the scum of the earth.

When we talk about Bilderberg we are talking about:
1. David Rockefeller - his family are quite literally Nazis, having sponsored Hitler's eugenics programs and giving free of charge very significant military technology to the Nazis, ignoring orders from the US Government;
2. Henry Kissinger - implicated in so many dastardly crimes, large and small;
3. Tony Blair - the less said about this slug the better.

David Rockefeller is also on record in his memoirs of proudly boasting of being an internationalist. He actually uses that word to describe himself!

So this is the kind of people that The anti-Russia, anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-NATO, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-Ukraine neo Nazi Guardian wants you to support.

Europe is their idea, their policy.

And like many other ideas and policies of Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc, The anti-Russia, anti-Putin, anti-Assad, anti-truth, pro-lies, pro-NATO, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-cutthroat Jihadi, pro-Ukraine neo Nazi Guardian supports it.



That general election matters. But so does Europe. For that reason, it is important, first of all, that people should actually vote. Europe's future is too important for a low UK turnout like the 35% last time. It is also important to shape that future. This newspaper is committed to Britain being part of Europe and part of a reform process. That means voting for internationalist parties that are positively engaged in Europe – like Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the nationalists. And it means voting with determination against parties that want to pull up the drawbridge (like Ukip) or that flirt with it (like the Conservatives). Our generation has a big responsibility. We need to put as much effort into sticking together as the other side does into separatism and isolationism. That effort should start on Thursday.

[source : European parliament elections: better together, Editorial, The Guardian,, 21st May 2014]

Tuesday, May 20, 2014



A year of revolution.

A year of...Masonism?

I wonder how the American Republic could become The American Military Empire?


In response to BLESSED ARE THE OSTRACISERS I have posted some comments of my own, but because David Icke recently posted that he was being intimidated by, he thinks, Freemasonry/Satanists I have posted some, repeat some, of what I have gone through and am going through as I try to make this world safe for the ostracisers of this Freemason/Bohemian Grove/NATO world.

Blessed are the ostracisers.
For they cannot be trusted,
Yet they shall inherit the Earth made safe for them and their children by others who risk everything for that purpose.

And everything includes:

And by life I mean:
brakes and wheels on my bicycle tampered with;
car bonnet unlocked but down;
zapped and zapped and zapped for years.

I'll tell you what, you start writing,not just reading, but writing about what I write and see what starts to happen.

And the above is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the harrassment that I suffer:
selected emails and texts not delivered or received, and when they are delivered or received they are days late;
post interfered with (e.g. my PhD certificate was twisted and bent and creased and folded) and frequently it is obvious that some post has been opened;
large shards of broken glass left on the doorstep.

So if you are left with some spare time after your addiction to the Freemason/Bohemian Grove/NATO way of life and shopping and shopping and shopping, you might start to understand why...

I was partly protecting you lot.

PS all your emails, texts, skypes, selfies, etc will have been intercepted...because of me.



What did you do last summer while I was trying to stop hundreds of Syrians being murdered by the Syrian rebels to trick us into bombing Syria?

Music Festival?

Nice weekend in The Lake District?

Trip to Paris?

Calling people names?


On economics:
The banksters cannot be let off the hook for their role in the current financial crisis. The **** **** demands that the banksters responsible for the catastrophe which has crippled the international banking system be held personally legally liable for their actions in terms of corporate governance laws. They should have to pay a personal price for the mess they have created, and not be rewarded with huge bonuses which have come from taxpayer-funded bailouts.

- The nurturing and encouragement of new and existing British industries;

- The protection of British companies from unfair foreign imports;

- The promotion of domestic competition;

- Increased taxes on companies which outsource work abroad;

- The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors.

On foreign affairs:
In reality, this means that Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interests — and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics.

Britain has no right to dictate the internal politics or social configuration of any other nation. We would also expect all other nations to grant this same right to Britain.

We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests.

...Maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country.

With regard to Europe, a *** *** government will:

- Resolutely oppose the single European currency;

- Support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures.

At the same time, a *** *** government will strive for the best possible relationship with our European neighbours. The nations of Europe should be free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial without being forced into a straightjacket of political and economic unification — which is neither desirable, ultimately practically unfeasible and which is guaranteed to create conflict rather than avoid it.

Accordingly, a *** *** government will withdraw from the European Union.

A clue is that the leader of this party was stitched up on BBC Question Time. A young Jew called Joel Weiner had applied to appear on BBC QT a year before his appearance but was rejected. However, just days before this party leader was due to appear on BBC QT Joel was surprised to receive a phone call from the BBC asking him if he wanted to appear on BBC QT to ask this leader a question about the holocaust.

The policies above are of the British National Party. They want to stop the warmongering and clamp down on The City of London. They want nationalisation of industries and repatriation of jobs sent abroad on the cheap.

But then they go and say something like this:
Reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be;

Excess population? How will this be determined? How will this be implemented and enforced. They have plenty other racist policies while calling other parties racist. And they seem very prepared to enforce their racist policies by using state resources.

But despite this overt racism, the BNP does have a lot of silent and not-so-silent support. Whether this is due to all their policies, or just some, I don't know. I am not, nor wish to be, a member, of the BNP.

But I know for a fact that they and parties like them, like UKIP, do have a lot of support, and that support is growing. Hence the demonisation of Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, etc.

The world government project is being exposed and rejected by the people.

Monday, May 19, 2014


Blessed are the ostracisers.
For they cannot be trusted,
Yet they shall inherit the Earth made safe for them and their children by others who risk everything for that purpose.

Sunday, May 18, 2014


In Red Symphony, Christian Rakovsky accuses FDR of wittingly being part of a conspiracy.
Although the power of money is political power, but before that it had only been used indirectly, but now the power of money was to be transformed into direct power. The man through whom they made use of such power was Franklin Roosevelt. Have you understood? Take note of the following: In that year 1929, the first year of the American revolution. In February Trotsky leaves Russia; the crash takes place in October… The financing of Hitler is agreed in July, 1929. You think that all this was by chance? The four years of the rule of Hoover were used for the preparation of the seizure of power in the United States and the USSR; there by means of a financial revolution, and here with the help of war and the defeat which was to follow. Could some good novel with great imagination be more obvious to you? You can understand that the execution of the plan on such a scale requires a special man, who can direct the executive power in the United States, who has been predetermined to be the organizing and deciding force. That man was Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. And permit me to say that this two-sexed being is not simply irony. He had to avoid any possible Delilah.

...I do not know if he is one of “Them,” or is only subject to “Them.” What more do you want? I think that he was conscious of his mission, but cannot assert whether he obeyed under duress of blackmail or he was one of those who rule; it is true that he carried out his mission, realized all the actions which had been assigned to him accurately. Do not ask me more, as I do not know any more.

I have ignored Red Symphony for a while, but am slowly beginning to look at it again. The information in Red Symphony does explain a lot; Trotsky's rapid rise; Trotsky's journey from the USA to Russia in 1917. There are one or two questions, but generally it is very interesting, and follows/supports the thesis that both Hitler and Stalin were created by Wall Street for a world war. However, whereas Rakovsky states that Hitler was supposed to only take out Stalin but had become a threat due to his monetary policies, I would suggest that both were deliberately created with the intention of enticing both into a world war in which the USA would be embroiled for longer than during World War 1 and from the chaos a world government would be implemented. The reason for this was because WW1 did not produce a world government controlled by the British/Freemasonry because the USA voted out of The League of Nations. Hence a longer, bloodier and more destructive world war would be required, one that the USA would be embroiled in from the start, to suffer many, many more casualties to convince or persuade Americans that they should sign up to a world government.

But regarding FDR, when he was first elected there was a definite coup attempt against him run by Wall Street, specifically Morgan and John J Raskob. FDR allowed Ferdinand Pecora to continue his commission's investigation into Wall Street.

But here is the curious thing about that and other related investigations: although Wall Street was found to be running a plot against FDR, nobody was arrested and charged for treason!

Rakovsky claimed to be high up in this conspiracy, high enough to:
1. be aware that such a conspiracy existed;
2. be entrusted with implementing a part of the conspiracy;

but not be high enough as to know who was in the inner circle.

And if he was high but not the highest then can we be sure that he knew the whole plan?

Rakovsky talks at length about implementing Communism worldwide. Stalin had become a threat to Rakovsky's masters because Stalin did not want to expand Communism across the globe. Lenin too was a threat because of the same reason. According to Rakovsky, after WW1 Trotsky was supposed to be leader of a Communist Russia and transport Communism into Germany, but both Lenin and Stalin got in the way.

But despite Stalin being such a threat he was still wooed by Wall Street, particularly Harriman, and after WW2 was entrusted with "the bomb".

FDR gave Stalin virtually everything he wanted in Lend-Lease. And FDR appointed George C Marshall as Chief of Staff of the US Army, over many Generals with much more experience. Marshall is seriously implicated in allowing the Pearl Harbour attack on 7th December 1941 to occur, and Marshall would go on to manipulate the Chinese Civil War so that Mao Tse Tung and the Communists would win.

Can all this be reconciled?

It would explain why FDR cooperated with Stalin so much, even calling Stalin "Uncle Joe".

Unless Red Symphony is British Intelligence bullshit. It was first published in 1952 and written by Josif Maksimovitch Landowsky. But who is he? The story of how the manuscripts were first written, found and translated is curious. Apparently they were found on a dead man, the author. So who can back up their origin?

But they do provide a lot of information, a lot of which seems credible in my view.

One thing that has changed my mind today is that Stalin did not implement a famine, the Holodomor, against Ukraine in 1933. I listened to Webster Tarpley's interview of French Historian Annie Lacroix-Riz on his World Crisis Radio.


David Icke has posted a good song entitled We Will Not Go Down by Michael Heart, about Operation Cast Lead, the immoral and outrageous attack on Gaza over the New Year of 2008/9, in which Israel killed approximately 1500 in response to rockets fired from Gaza killing, as I understand it, less than 5 Israeli civilians. So as Israel sees it, 5 dead Israelis means Israel can kill over 1500 Palestinians. That's what we are dealing with with Israel. The attack, like the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, was engineered by Israel. Some sort of peace deal had been reached between Hamas and Israel; Hamas would stop firing rockets into Israel if Israel lifted its economic blockade of Gaza, which was illegal anyway as a form of collective punishment. According to even the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rockets fired from Gaza had fallen to virtually zero, thus showing that Hamas had kept its side of the deal. But did Israel keep its side? NO CHANCE! On the day of the US Presidential election in 2008 several members of Hamas were killed by Israel as they tried to the run the illegal blockade that Israel should have lifted. This provoked someone, not necessarily but probably Hamas, to fire more rockets into Israel from Gaza.

Thus Israel had its excuse to bomb Gaza again.

And boy! Did Israel go to town!

Schools bombed. Phosphorus used. Many, many, many civilians dead.

Hague stood up in The Marsten House and accused Hamas of starting the war!!!

So that is the background to Heart's song. And yes, it is good.

But what about this, also from Heart?

Michael Heart - What About Us (Song for Syria)

You might think that, due to Heart's We Will Not Go Down, What About Us would be anti-Israel and pro-Assad for Assad being anti-Israel and supporting Palestinians.


It is pure R2P, and even suggests that Assad did Ghouta!

And to top it all off, the video ends with a flag of some sort fluttering in the breeze, with the word Freedom.

But the problem is that that flag used by Heart was used by Syria when Syria was under French mandate due to the imperialist Sykes-Picot Accord, i.e. when Syria was not independent. That flag has also been adopted by the treasonous SNC as they now openly discuss an alliance with Israel against Assad, having served as Israel's unwitting cannon fodder for 3 years in The Redirection reported by Seymour Hersh in 2007, which is Plan B to the Plan A of war on seven nations in five years as revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after the inside Ziojob 9/11!

And Heart is a Syrian American!

So does he work for anyone?

How can anyone be so emotional yet so ignorant of the true state of affairs in their home country?

Does Heart want Syria back under French rule?

This is the flag that Heart should have used.


In an English city yesterday, the happy happy humans were sunburned as they shopped and shopped and shopped.

The political activists I saw consisted of a small table run by The Socialist Workers Party focusing on saving the NHS, and a table with material and posters calling for smashing the fascist The British National Party. Nearby was a preacher, a young girl singing with an amp, and a group of what seemed to be native American Indians.

Nobody was interested in saving the NHS or smashing the fascist BNP, but quite a few were interested in the novelty of seeing several native American Indians in their classic headdress chant to music and playing pipes. David Icke used to post videos using the same kind of modernised native American Indian music they were producing yesterday, so I don't know what this indicates. That people are becoming interested in native American Indian music and traditions and spirituality? Or just the novelty of seeing them, like in Bill Cody's Wild West travelling show.

But it is an indication that nobody wanted to save the NHS or smash a party that, although it has one or two good policies such as stopping the warmongering and clamping down on The City of London, is simply a racist, fascist organisation. I did pass a group of men, half of whom were Islamic and the other half were white British debating something. I heard one of the British white men ask one of the Muslims, and in quite an aggressive tone, "OK. So what are you lot going to do about Anjem Choudry?"

But all this occured while the sunburned happy happy humans shopped and shopped and shopped in the glorious sunshine.

There were no protests about intrusive state surveillance.

There were no protests about Israel's policy towards Palestine.

There were no protests about stopping cutthroat Jihadis in Syria.

There were no protests about neo-Nazis burning 50 or so people alive in Ukraine.

Just sunburned happy happy people shopping and shopping and shopping, apparently not wanting to save the NHS while blissfully smiling at the novelty of native American Indians chanting and playing pipes.

My experience, and this is the truth, is that people don't want to talk about this kind of stuff, as if they don't want to know and don't care about not knowing it. Because if they did want to know they would be asking questions, like in a classroom when a child puts their hand up and asks, "Sir, how does this work?".

And when you do start to talk and tell them what is going on, they still don't want to know or talk about it, or help, and in one surprising and extremely disappointing case that I have experienced I have been ostracised.

This should not deter others from trying. It has not deterred, and will not deter, me from trying to get the information across, no matter what names they may call you and no matter how addicted they might be to the selfish soulless emptiness and decadence of the Freemason/Bohemian Grove/NATO way of life.

Just because I have been seriously let down does not give me the right to pack it all in.

But if and when it does occur it can be very demoralising (so thanks a lot for that!), so be prepared for it.

I am just relating my observations and experience.


Associated Press has reported that Norway's former Ambassador to the USA, Wegger Stroemmen, was given "a verbal lashing" by President Obama's then Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, when it was announced that Obama had won The Nobel Peace Prize.
A senior Norwegian diplomat says his country's former ambassador to the United States was given a verbal lashing by Barack Obama's chief of staff when the president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

Morten Wetland said Thursday the ambassador, Wegger Stroemmen, was approached by Rahm Emanuel, now Chicago's mayor, who accused Norway of "fawning" to the newly elected U.S. leader.

Wetland, the Norwegian ambassador to the United Nations at the time, told The Associated Press he did not witness the dressing down but said there was an air of embarrassment in Washington that Obama had been given the award so early in his presidency.

[source : Norway diplomat: Obama aide irked by peace prize, Yahoo,, 15th May 2014]

So we have to ask why would Emanuel be so furious at his boss being awarded The Nobel Peace Prize?

Emanuel is accused of being a Mossad agent, his father having served in the IDF, and Rahm was implicated in several espionage activities on Bill Clinton.

But it was during Clinton's presidency that Israel began to prepare the plans for the wars we have seen since 9/11.

In 1996 a cabal of rabid Zionists wrote A Clean Break suggesting "engaging", i.e. war on, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

In 1998 another cabal of rabid Zionists, very closely related to the A Clean Break cabal, formed The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). One of their first actions was to write to then President Bill Clinton to demand war on Iraq. Two years later PNAC published Rebuilding America's Defenses in which PNAC suggested:
1. Iraq and Iran were the most dangerous threats to US national security;
2. the USA should go on a global wamongering rampage to assert its hegemony;
3. to enable point 2., "a new Pearl Harbor" would be required to rouse support for this global warmongering rampage.

PNAC member, and signatory of the aforementioned PNAC letter to Clinton, Jeb Bush swung the 2000 Presidential election in favour of his brother George when, as Governor of Florida, he decided that the sunshine state, after initially voting for Gore, would instead support W.

On 9/11 several very, very powerful members of PNAC were in very, very powerful positions in the Bush administration, such as VP and numbers 1 and 2 in the Department of Defense, as very, very suspiciously, W was in Florida reading a book, upside down, about a pet goat, as the US military was AWOL while 4 alleged passenger planes were hijacked to fly unimpeded for nearly 2 hours before flying into the WTC and even...can you believe this...THE PENTAGON?!

Shortly after this blatant, in-your-face, slap-you-in-the-face-with-a-wet-haddock, kick-you-in-the-nuts inside job, General Wesley Clark was told of a plan for war on seven nations in five years. Four of those nations were named in A Clean Break. The other 3 were Libya, Sudan and Somalia. Clark believes that after 9/11 there was a US foreign policy coup, and the names he mentioned were all high ranking members of PNAC: VP Cheney; and numbers 1 and 2 in the Department of Defense, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

Note that of these 7 nations named to Clark;
1. Clark was initially told that only Iraq was going to be attacked, and this was at a time when evidence on Iraq's guilt was very, very thin, it if existed at all. So how did the other 6 become targets?;
2. no evidence to incriminate any of the other 6 nations has ever been put forward, except Iran, and even then the case was laughed out of court.

Since 9/11 we have seen wars on :
1. Afghanistan - but that was to kick out the Taliban who had demanded too much for transit fees for fossil fuels being transported across their turf, but who had also committed the ultimate sin of eradicating opium farming...but NATO has gradually restored opium harvests to record levels. Osama bin Laden died around New Year 2002 from Marfan Syndrome;
2. Iraq - the war on Afghanistan gave the warmongers time to build a case and a coalition for war on Iraq. The main lies were that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had WMDs aimed at all our backyard barbecues.
3. Lebanon - Israel engineered this war in 2006 by sending IDF into areas known to be controlled by Hezbollah. The IDF were killed, and Israel knew this but pretended not to and demanded the return of the soldiers. Israel then began war on Hezbollah.

There was then a lull in war. The general public were sick of wars, so a Plan B was enabled which involved Saudi Arabia, with the green light from the USA and Israel, which also implicates the UK, unleashing cutthroat Jihadis onto some of the nations named to Clark. But to give them cover as 'freedom fighters' The Arab Spring was engineered by the CIA/US State Department.

4. Libya - in 2011 the UN began to accuse Gaddafi of killing protesters. But who were these 'protesters'? They were al Qaeda-types, veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq against the USA! One of their leaders was actually renditioned and tortured! You could not make this stuff up! So the UN passed UN SCR 1973 to stop Gaddafi killing these 'protesters', but this quickly turned into a Get-Gadaffi campaign, urged on by even The Guardian. British Special Forces assisted the Jihadis on the ground while NATO temporarily became the Al Qaeda Air Force.
5. After Libya, the Jihadis and weapons looted from Libya's arsenal were smuggled into Syria. But before this, former French foreign minister Roland Dumas was asked in 2009 by the UK to draw up a plan to smuggle Jihadis into Syria.

And during this time frame, Francesco Cossiga stated in November 2007 in Corriere Della Sera that virtually all the world's intelligence agencies know that Israel did 9/11.

And The Truth Serum Report of the Year 2012 stated that President Obama, General Dempsey and other powerful Americans were considering going public on 9/11.

In summer last year we saw the very worst of humanity. Due to the Syrian rebels losing the important logistics hub of al Qusair, they began to suffer defeat after defeat after defeat. In response to these defeats they began to exact bloody revenge on the Syrian people. One notable atrocity was at al Duvair. Prince Bandar threatened Putin to dump Assad or Bandar would unleash hell on earth in Syria. Putin rejected this lovely, heartwarming offer. And so, on 21st August news began to come through that thousands of people, including many children, had been massacred by Assad at al Ghouta by chemical weapons. NATO media went berserk and accused Assad. But Assad was easily winning with conventional weapons, UN inspectors were just down the road, and using chemical weapons was exactly what the rebels and their backers wanted. But, the rebels needed the massacre, had chemical weapons, and had threatened to use them to get what they wanted. And Bandar had threatened such a massacre just weeks before! We nearly went to war. But Ed Miliband stopped it. As a consequence Miliband and his late father were attacked in the NATO media.

Due to the Marsten House not voting for war, President Obama couldn't go it alone, so there was no war on Syria.

President Obama has also worked for a diplomatic solution to Iran's peaceful nuclear power program, over the warmongering cries and propaganda from Israel

Due to Obama backing out of war on Syria, and seeking peace with Iran, The Emergency Committee for Israel released a video attacking President Obama.

PNAC was established by Bill Kristol.

But so was the ECI!

This reported tirade by Emanuel adds one more piece of evidence to support the thesis that it was Israel that did 9/11 to implement the plan for war revealed to General Wesley Clark. The last thing the warmongers needed was Obama being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. And Obama couldn't really not accept it.

But by this time The Redirection had been agreed, and training for The Arab Spring was just being arranged.

So this also shows that the plan was to instigate Jihadi uprisings in particular Arab nations and for NATO to act as their air force, bombing nation after nation in a series of 'humanitarian' interventions.

But in Syria the warmongers have been defeated.

Saturday, May 17, 2014


I won't turn around
You won't turn around
We won't turn around
Keep growing stronger.

Ann Marie Smith - Stronger (Joey Musaphia's Classic Anthem Mix)


Why is it that after 3 years of an alleged 'civil war' in Syria, President Bashar al Assad is still in power?

Is it because this 'civil war' is not a 'civil war', but is instead an illegal invasion of NATO proxy cutthroat Jihadis as part of an amended plan of wars in North Africa and the Middle East which the inside Ziojob 9/11 was designed to kick off?

Is it because the real true people of Syria support Assad?

The Washington Post has been very quiet on Syria for the last few months. During the summer of 2013 there were at least 2 editorials per week literally demanding war on Syria. But now such editorials appear about once a month, if that. The latest editorial demanding war on Syria cites evidence from the totally unbiased and reliable intelligence agencies of the USA, France and the UK before suggesting war.
...Meanwhile, British, French and U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that Syria is probably hiding part of its arsenal that it failed to declare, including stocks of sarin and mustard gas, according to news reports . State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed last week that the United States has been skeptical about whether Assad has revealed the extent of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile.

...There are, of course, many actions Mr. Obama could take to punish Syria for its use of chemical weapons and to prevent their further deployment. He could begin by granting the opposition’s request for antiaircraft missiles to use against the helicopters that are dropping chlorine bombs. He could revive his plan to launch U.S. military strikes against Syrian infrastructure that supports those attacks.

In reality, Mr. Assad is being allowed to disregard his chemical weapons commitment with impunity not because there’s nothing the United States can do but because Mr. Obama chooses to do nothing.

[source : Mr. Obama is choosing not to act on Syria, Editorial, The Washington Post,, 16th May 2014]

NB the use of Mr., not the more respectful President.

I still firmly believe that President Obama is not supposed to be in The White House. The pro-Israel, pro-fascism, pro-war Mitt Romney is. President Obama's Nobel peace prize is a pair of lead boots to the warmongers. They did 9/11. They want Totaler Krieg. But they can't get it. Hence dastardly tricks like whatever really happened at Ghouta in August last year. And before that there was Khan al Assal. And before that al Houla. And before that there was...take your pick.

The rebels need large scale overt military assistance. But they ain't gonna get it with President Obama.

Homs was finally liberated last week. Aleppo is under siege by the rebels, but the NATO media is reporting it like Assad would willfully and deliberately cease all water supply to the city of Aleppo, thus risking the lives of millions of Syrians, and potentially losing all the support that he has from the true Syrian people!


Anyway, there is not long to go now in Syria. I hope I played a part in stopping war on Syria last year.

Victory to Syria against the warmongering weirdo satanist Bohemian Grove/NATO/IMF/Wall Street/City of London creepy fascist scum, who use our tax for their megalomaniac aims!