Monday, August 31, 2015


Why did Freemasonry condemn Archduke Ferdinand to death?

Well, Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in his memoirs that he was told by a distinguished German Freemason that Freemasonry had engineered the war to destroy the powers of Central Europe and create a power vacuum.

So what role did Ferdinand play in this?

From a book I had forgotten about, Scarlet and the Beast:
What was Ferdinand's terrible crime? The Scottish Rite New Age magazine, September 1952, these many years later, revealed that information in an editorial from which we quote:
[The First World] War was precipitated by a "secret treaty" between the Vatican and Serbia, which would have annexed Serbia to the Vatican State and imposed canon law on that non-Catholic country. When the treaty became known, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, "Roman Catholic heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, known to be a secret party to the policy embodied in the treaty," was assassinated by Gavrilo Princep.
Archduke Ferdinand had committed - to the Masons - the unpardonable sin of turning a non-Catholic country into a Catholic domain.

Not sure I believe that.

However, the same chapter contains the following:
The plotting began sometime in 1910 in Swiss, French, Hungarian, Serbian and Italian Grand Orient Lodges. A traveling peddler, Karl Kothner of the Grand Lodge of Berlin, heard parts of the conspiracy in Lodges he frequented throughout Europe. Greatly disturbed, he returned to Berlin and delivered the information to Count Dohna Schlodien, his Grand Master. Kothner recorded in his diary the words he uttered to the Count on October 28, 1911 at 11:15 A.M.:
Being, at first, frank and credulous I made some discoveries during the year in the lodges of other towns abroad, which disturbed me greatly. I came by chance upon proofs that Freemasonry was preparing something terrible against Germany. I overheard certain imprudent remarks which gave me a glimpse of a plan to assassinate the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand, of starting a world war to cause the fall of thrones and altars.

The following year Ferdinand was condemned to death by the Freemasons (nice chaps!).

So what was this aforementioned "secret treaty" (if it existed)? And when was it agreed?


In The Sleepwalkers : How Europe Went to War in 1914, Professor Christopher Clark writes:
Exactly why Apis pressed for the assassination of the archduke is difficult to establish, since he left no straightforward account of his motivations....It should be emphasised that the archduke was not targeted on account of any alleged hostility to the Slavic minorities in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but, on the contrary, because, to borrow the words of the assassin, Gavrilo Princip, 'as future Sovereign he would have prevented our union by carrying through certain reforms'...The targeting of the archduke thus exemplified one abiding strand in the logic of terrorist movements, namely that reformers and moderates are more to be feared than outright enemies and hardliners.


So I ask again: why did Freemasonry condemn Ferdinand to death?

Were they so concerned about Slav unity?

Or was it because he was a voice of peace and an obstacle to war?


Bethmann Hollweg kept Serbia's response to Austria-Hungary from Wilhelm until it was too late.
His all-highest Majesty, Kaiser Wilhelm II of the German Empire, rose early on the 28th to go for a ride outside the Neues Palace at Potsdam. When he returned to his desk he turned his attention to the Serbian response to Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum. Belgrade’s reply, which had been immediately rejected by Vienna in the latter’s determination to go to war, had only been received in Berlin the night before. In a bid to keep their master from intervening before Austria-Hungary could declare war at Noon Tuesday, Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and Foreign Secretary Jagow had neglected to wake the Kaiser and show him the reply. Their concern is entirely justified when the Kaiser reads it, as Sean McMeekin writes in July 1914:
While he already suspected that the tone of the reply would be reasonably conciliatory, Wilhelm was floored when he read it. “A brilliant achievement in a time limit of only forty-eight hours!” he scribbled, declaring Serbia’s near-total compliance “more than one could have expected!” and “a great moral success for Vienna.” With Prime Minister Pasic’s reply, he deduced, “all reason for war is gone, and Giesl [the Austrian ambassador to Serbia] ought to have quietly stayed on in Belgrade!” Receiving such a reply, he wrote, “I should never have ordered mobilization.”
The Kaiser immediately writes and dispatches a formal note to Jagow, requesting that Germany ask Austria-Hungary to negotiate with Serbia on the basis of their reply to the ultimatum. This is precisely what British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey had proposed to the German ambassador to Britain the day before, although Wilhelm was probably unaware of this that morning. In order to make sure the Serbs agreed to negotiate the Kaiser proposed the Austrian army temporarily occupy Belgrade, thus satisfying Austrian “honor” for revenging his friend Franz Ferdinand’s murder, until agreement was reached. “[Should that happen] I am ready to mediate for peace in Austria,” the Kaiser wrote to Jagow. He dispatches his note at 10AM, Berlin time.

That Wilhelm was a highly erratic, impulsive egotist who frequently posed as a belligerent warrior-king, which in turn undermined his country’s foreign policy and heightened tensions in pre-1914 Europe, underlines his personal responsibility for commencing the crisis by issuing Vienna its “blank check” earlier that month. Yet it is also true that, as an autocrat, he had the power in theory to decide whether his country went to war. On July 28th Wilhelm believed that theory to be fact, part of his divine right to rule his empire as he saw fit. The next week would open his eyes to the reality of his position and power.

As it is the Kaiser’s memo to Jagow comes too late to stop Vienna from officially declaring war. The Kaiser’s unease with using the relatively newfangled telephone installed in the Neues Palace means that his order is not received immediately in Berlin, but by courier nearly 2 hours later. For his part Jagow chooses not to include the Kaiser’s mediation offer in informing his Austrian counterpart, Count Berchtold of his master’s message later that day. Jagow, Bethmann and their government counterparts have been urging Vienna to declare war that Tuesday in order to short-circuit any 11th hour diplomatic intervention. Field Marshall Moltke joins them in this by putting pressure on his counterpart, General Conrad. Getting Austria-Hungary to initiate the conflict is only 1 battle of a prolonged, personal war the Kaiser’s ministers will wage with their master in the week ahead.

Bethmann scores one more victory for the war party before the day is out. Aware of the potential for mass strikes led by the Social Democratic Party – part of the 2nd International’s policy of a European-wide strike to block a European war from happening – Bethmann meets with the SDP’s leaders in Berlin. Concerned about the much-dreaded Russian military plowing its way into Prussia and sowing death and destruction in its wake en route to Berlin, the SDP agrees to support the government if Russia declares war on Germany.

[source : Countdown to World War I: July 28, 1914, Daily Kos,

The official communication from Wilhelm to Foreign Minister Jagow (a co-warmonger of Bethmann-Hollweg) is:
AH ought to be satisfied with S reaction provided real guarantees obtained eg partial occupation and payment of three sets of mobilisation costs.

So not only does Bethmann-Hollweg:
1. send Wilhelm to Norway;
2. then keep Wilhlem out of the loop while Austria-Hungary, with Germany's cooperation, develop the ultimatum to Serbia and then deliver it;
3. then encourages Austria-Hungary to go to war on Serbia on 26th July while Wilhelm is on his way back to Berlin to sort out the mess that Bethmann-Hollweg had created,

he then keeps the Serbian reply from Wilhelm so that Austria-Hungary can declare war on Serbia before Wilhelm can sympathise with Serbia and restrain Austria-Hungary?!


Why did Wilhelm put up with Bethmann-Hollweg? Could Wilhelm have sacked Bethmann-Hollweg?

But then how can this warmongering by Bethmann-Hollweg be reconciled with that speech he gave on 2nd December 1914 in which he blamed Great Britain for the war?

And why didn't they just use the phone?


In an interview with Press TV programme The Agenda shortly after Osama bin Laden had allegedly been assassinated, Jeremy Corbyn said a few things which some of us have asked:
1. why was Osama bin Laden assassinated rather than arrested?
2. why was he allegedly very quickly buried at sea?

The NATO media are spinning this, particularly The Sun, as Corbyn calling bin Laden's death a "tragedy", thus portraying Corbyn as sympathetic to al Qaeda, when Corbyn actually said that bin Laden's death was a tragedy because instead he should have been arrested, interrogated, and if there was the evidence, to put him on trial.

Remember that shortly after 9/11 Colin Powell stated that the USA would provide a dossier on bin Laden's guilt, but no such dossier was ever provided by the USA. The UK produced one, but also admitted that the evidence provided in their report would be laughed out of court. The FBI never explicitly listed 9/11 as a crime for which bin Laden was wanted, even though much lesser crimes were explicitly listed in his FBI file. And bin Laden denied that he was responsible for 9/11, suggesting that America look closer to home for the culprits.

During the summer of 2001 bin Laden was on his death bed, suffering from Marfan Syndrome and requiring frequent kidney dialysis. He reportedly died around Christmas time 2001, which is why fake bin Ladens started to appear in videos claiming to be him, and is why he was allegedly able to evade the most powerful military and intelligence team in the world for 10 years while dragging a kidney dialysis machine behind him as he escaped from cave to cave in the remote Afghan mountains.

However, 9/11 gave the warmongers the "new Pearl Harbor" they wanted and had written about just a year earlier.

After 9/11 NATO went into Afghanistan to restore the opium harvests (which the Taliban had all but destroyed).

And as General Wesley Clark has revealed, 9/11 was used to kick off a series of wars on seven countries in five years, all of whom had sweet FA to do with 9/11. We still feel the shockwaves of 9/11 in Syria today.

In that interview with The Agenda, Corbyn also made a prediction: Colonel Gaddafi would be assassinated. A few months after that interview Colonel Gaddafi was assassinated, but only after British Special Forces had assisted the international cutthroat Jihadis on the ground, and NATO had acted as their air force by twisting UN SCR 1973 into a Get-Gaddafi campaign when they were only allowed to protect civilians from possible attack.


From Collision Course by Jan G Beaver:

It was not that the heir was so beloved of his uncle or his future subjects that a great outpouring of grief and anger propelled Vienna toward war in the aftermath of the Sarajevo assassination. On the contrary, neither emperor nor populace cared much for troublesome and tragically misunderstood Franz Ferdinand... The Sarajevo assassination radically altered the balance of decision-making power within the Vienna government. The physical removal of Franz Ferdinand from the councils of government eliminated the strongest and most steadfast voice for peace, decisively tipping the balance in favor of war.

Who sent Arch Duke Ferdinand to, or allowed him to go to, Sarajevo?

Was Ferdinand sent to Sarajevo much like JFK was sent past The Texas Book Depository?

And how about this?

As the appointed day drew closer, Dimitrijevic apparently got cold feet about allowing such rank amateurs to attempt a grand action. He thought it better to employ some of Serbia's hardened guerrilla fighters, the famous comatadjis, to pull off the assassination. To his surprise and chagrin, Princip refused to abandon the project.

So was Princip receiving orders from someone else other than Dimitrijevic? Who was the leader of the group?

Whatever, Ferdinand's death was welcomed by the war parties in many countries and empires.


Reading extracts from a book For God and Kaiser : The Imperial Austrian Army by Richard Bassett. There is a section exposing just how much cooperation there was between Germany and The Black Hand.

The printing presses for Pijemont were supplied and paid for by German 'well wishers'. Dedijer quotes the evidence that German 'Freemasons' had supplied the presses for the editor, Jovanovic Cup, a well-known Serbian Freemason.

Germany was courting The Black Hand and The Black Hand were courting Germany: they both wanted Russian influence out of Serbia.

And Franz Ferdinand was apparently hated in Germany too:
It is clear from just these few quotes that, for many Germans, Franz Ferdinand's policies were a direct threat not only to Magyar hegemony but also to the ambitions of German financiers, soldiers and statesmen. His removal would be far more in the interests of Germany or Hungary than of Serbia. Indeed, the death of Franz Ferdinand removed the most formidable obstacle to the realisation of German plans.

This book looks at how Germany was looking to expand into Serbia in early 1914 following Serbia gaining new territory.

Franz Ferdinand had a friend in Kaiser Wilhelm II, but not in the rest of Germany, particularly the financiers of Germany.


This is why Churchill went to the beach while the German Ambassador to Great Britain never left London and worked to keep Britain out of the war, even offering Grey that Germany would respect Belgian neutrality (which Grey rejected) just as Grey was about to deliver his momentous speech to Parliament on 3rd August 1914, which was delivered after King George V had ordered Grey that Grey had to get Great Britain into the war.

Churchill sent the following telegram to his wife late on 28th July 1914:
My darling One and beautiful – Everything tends towards catastrophe, & collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy.

Churchill had earlier ordered the British Royal Navy to sail to its war base at Scapa Flow (without the consent of the PM or cabinet).

Churchill was putting on his butcher's apron.

So if on 28th July 1914 Churchill was confident (and happy) that Great Britain was going to war, allowing him time to go to the beach, was Grey feeling the same?

Why did the only 3 warmongers in the cabinet leave London for the weekend as things accelerated towards war, as Churchill knew?


Grey went fly-fishing. Churchill went to the beach. Asquith played golf.

But at the time these three men were the only members of the British Cabinet who were in favour of going to war.

Were they so confident that Great Britain would go to war that they went fishing/to the beach/playing golf?

Or were they so demoralised that their cabinet members were so anti-war?

And yet Grey is portrayed as seeking peace all the time?


She's nicked part of the tune from Joe Jackson's, It's Different for Girls, but this is pretty good.

Nerina Pallot - Everybody's gone to war

I've got a friend, he's a pure-bred killing machine
He says he's waited his whole damn life for this
I knew him well when he was seventeen
Now he's a man he'll be dead by Christmas

And so, everybody's going to war
But we don't know what we're fighting for
Don't tell me it's a worthy cause
No cause could be so worthy

If love is a drug, I guess we're all sober
If hope is a song, I guess it's all over
How to have faith, when faith is a crime?
I don't want to die
I'f God's on our side, then God is a joker
Asleep on the job, his children fall over
Running out through the door and straight to the sky
I don't want to die

For every man who wants to rule the world
There'll be a man who just wants to be free
What do we learn but what should not be learned?
Too late to find a cure for this disease

And so, everybody's going to war
But we don't know what we're fighting for
Don't tell me it's a worthy cause
No cause could be so worthy

If love is a drug, I guess we're all sober
If hope is a song, I guess it's all over
How to have faith, when faith is a crime?
I don't want to die
If God's on our side, then God is a joker
Asleep on the job, his children fall over
Running out through the door and straight to the sky
I don't want to die
I-I-I-I don't want to die
I-I don't want to die


Sunday, August 30, 2015


On 4th August 1914 Bethmann-Hollweg gave this short speech to the Reichstag:
Gentlemen, we are now in a state of necessity of self-preservation and necessity knows no law. Our troops have occupied Luxemburg and perhaps have already entered Belgian territory.

Gentlemen, that is a breach of international law. It is true that the French Government declared at Brussels that France would respect Belgian neutrality so long as her adversary respected it. WE knew, however, that France stood ready for an invasion. France could wait, we could not. A French attack on our flank on the lower Rhine might have been disastrous. So we were forced to ignore the rightful protests of the governments of Luxembourg and Belgium. The wrong – I speak openly – the wrong we thereby commit we will try to make good as soon as our military aims have been attained.

He who is menaced as we are and is fighting for his highest possessions can only consider how he is to hew his way through.

So after:
1. giving "blank cheque" support to Austria-Hungary, which encouraged Austria-Hungary to issue the ultimatum to and declaration of war on Serbia;
2. sending Kaiser Wilhelm to Norway and keeping him out of the loop over the drafting of the aforementioned ultimatum;
3. calling for Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia before Kaiser Wilhelm returned to Berlin (to sort out the mess that Bethmann-Hollweg had created);
4. manipulating offers of mediation.

Bethmann-Hollweg then openly admits that Germany was in the wrong invading Belgium, thus painting Germany as the villain in the eyes of the world, and thus letting Great Britain off the hook.

But then on 2nd December 1914, Bethmann-Hollweg gave this speech at the Reichstag, which seems to be from a different man and not too far from the truth:
Where the responsibility in this greatest of all wars lies is quite evident to us.

Outwardly responsible are the men in Russia who planned and carried into effect the general mobilization of the Russian army.

But in reality and truth the British Government is responsible.

The London Cabinet could have made war impossible if they had unequivocally told Petersburg that England was not willing to let a continental war of the Great Powers result from the Austro-Hungarian conflict with Serbia.

Such words would have compelled France to use all her energy to keep Russia away from every warlike measure.

Then our good offices and mediation between Vienna and Petersburg would have been successful, and there would have been no war!

But England has chosen to act otherwise. She knew that the clique of powerful and partly irresponsible men surrounding the Czar were spoiling for war and intriguing to bring it about.

England saw that the wheel was set a-rolling, but she did not think of stopping it. While openly professing sentiments of peace, London secretly gave St. Petersburg to understand that England stood by France and therefore by Russia too.

This has been clearly and irrefutably shown by the official publications which in the meantime have come out, more particularly by the Blue Book edited by the British Government.

Then St. Petersburg could no longer be restrained. In proof of this we possess the testimony of the Belgian Charge d'Affaires at St. Petersburg, a witness who is surely beyond every suspicion.

He reported (you know his words, but I will repeat them now), he reported to his Government on July 30th that:

England commenced by making it understood that she would not let herself be drawn into a conflict. Sir George Buchanan said this openly. To-day, however, everybody in St. Petersburg is quite convinced - one has actually received the assurance - that England will stand by France.

This support is of enormous weight and has contributed largely toward giving the war-party the upper hand.

Up to this summer English statesmen have assured their Parliament that no treaty or agreement existed influencing England's independence of action, should a war break out, England was free to decide whether she would participate in a European war or not.

Hence, there was no treaty obligation, no compulsion, no menace of the homeland which induced the English statesmen to originate the war and then at once to take part in it.

The only conclusion left is that the London Cabinet allowed this European war, this monstrous world war, because they thought it was an opportune moment with the aid of England's political confederates, to destroy the vital nerve of her greatest European competitors in the markets of the world.

Therefore, England, together with Russia (I have spoken about Russia on the 4th of August), is answerable before God and man for this catastrophe which has come over Europe and over mankind.

The Belgian neutrality which England pretended she was bound to shield, is but a mask.

On the 2nd of August, 7 p.m., we informed Brussels that France's plan of campaign was known to us and that it compelled us, for reasons of self-preservation, to march through Belgium, but as early as the afternoon of the same day, August 2nd, that is to say, before anything was known and could be known of this step, the British Government promised unconditional aid to France in case the German navy attacked the French coastline.

Not a word was said of Belgian neutrality. This fact is established by the declaration made by Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons on the 3rd of August.

The declaration was communicated to me on August 4th, but not in full, because of the difficulties experienced at that time in the transmission of telegrams. Besides the very Blue Book issued by the British Government confirms that fact.

How, then, can England allege that she drew the sword because we violated Belgian neutrality? How could British statesmen, who accurately knew the past, talk at all of Belgian neutrality?

When on the 4th of August I referred to the wrong which we were doing in marching through Belgium, it was not yet known for certain whether the Brussels Government in the hour of need would not decide after all to spare the country and to retire to Antwerp under protest.

You remember that, after the occupation of Liege, at the request of our army leaders, I repeated the offer to the Belgian Government.

For military reasons it was absolutely imperative that at the time, about the 4th of August, the possibility for such a development was being kept open. Even then the guilt of the Belgian Government was apparent from many a sign, although I had not yet any positive documentary proofs at my disposal.

But the English statesmen were perfectly familiar with these proofs. The documents which in the meantime have been found in Brussels, and which have been given publicity by me, prove and establish in what way and to what degree Belgium has surrendered her neutrality to England.

The whole world is now acquainted with two outstanding facts:

(1) In the night from the 3rd to the 4th of August, when our troops entered Belgian territory, they were not on neutral soil, but on the soil of a state that had long abandoned its neutrality.

(2) England has declared war on us, not for the sake of Belgian neutrality, which she herself had helped to undermine, but because she believed that she could overcome and master us with the help of two great military powers on the Continent.

Ever since the 2nd of August when England promised to back up the French in this war, she was no longer neutral, but actually in a state of war with us. On the 4th of August she declared war, the alleged reason being our violation of Belgian neutrality.

But that was only a sham motive and a spectacular scene intended to conceal the true war motive and thus to mislead both the English people and foreign neutral countries.

The military plans which England and Belgium had worked out to the minutest details now being unveiled, the policy of English statesmen is branded for all times of history to come. But English diplomacy still added to this. At its call, Japan snatched from us Kiautschau, so bravely defended, and thus violated Chinese neutrality.

Has England interfered with that breach of neutrality? Has she shown in this instance her scrupulous anxiety about the neutral states?

When, in 1910, I became Chancellor, the Triple Alliance had to reckon with a solid counter-combination of Powers. England had created the Triple Entente and knitted it firmly for the purpose of maintaining the "balance of power."

For centuries it had been a fundamental tenet of British policy to turn against that Continental Power which was strongest, and this principle was to find its most efficient instrument in the Triple Entente.

Thus, whilst the Triple Alliance was of a strictly defensive character, the nature of the Triple Entente was offensive from the beginning. In this lay all the elements of a terrific explosion.

A nation as great and efficient as the Germans are does not allow its free and pacific development to be thwarted. In the face of this aggressive combination the course of German policy was clear. We had to try to come to a separate understanding with each member of the Triple Entente in order to dispel the clouds of war, and at the same time we had to increase our armaments so as to be ready if war actually broke out.

Gentlemen, you know that we have done both. In France we encountered, again and again, sentiments of revenge. These sentiments being fed and fostered by ambitious politicians proved stronger than the wish, undoubtedly cherished by a part of the French people, to live with us, as neighbours should, on friendly terms.

We made, indeed, some specific agreements with Russia, but her close alliance with France, her opposition to our Austro-Hungarian ally and an anti-German feeling, born and bred of the Panslavistic craving for power, made agreements impossible which would have averted all dangers of war in the case of a political crisis.

Freer than France and Russia was England. I have already reminded you how British statesmen in parliament, again and again, proudly affirmed Great Britain's absolutely unrestricted right to steer her own course. The attempt to come to an understanding, which would have safeguarded the peace of the world, was easiest to make with England.

On these lines I had to act and I did act. I well knew that it was a narrow road, not easy to tread. In the course of centuries, the English insular way of thinking had evolved the political maxim that England had a right to an "arbitrium mundi," which she could only uphold by an unrivalled supremacy on sea and by the maintenance of the balance of power on the Continent. I never had any hopes that my persuasion could break that old English maxim.

What I did hope and thought possible was that the growth of German power and the increase of the risks of a war might open England's eyes to the fact that her old-fashioned maxim had become untenable and impracticable, and that an amicable settlement with Germany was preferable.

But that old doctrine of hers more than once stood in the way of a peaceful understanding. The crisis of 1911 gave a new impetus to the negotiations. The English people suddenly realized that they had stood at the brink of a European war.

Popular sentiment forced the British Government to a rapprochement with Germany. After long and arduous negotiations we finally arrived at an understanding on various disputed questions of an economic character, regarding Africa and Asia Minor. This understanding was to lessen every possible political friction. The world is wide. There is room enough for both nations to measure their strength in peaceful rivalry as long as our national strength is allowed free scope for development.

German policy always stood up for that principle. But during the negotiations England was indefatigable in her endeavours to enter into ever closer relations with France and Russia. The decisive point was that beyond the political sphere of action one military agreement after the other was made in view of a possible continental war.

England kept these negotiations as secret as possible. When something about them would percolate, it was declared, both in the press and in Parliament, to be perfectly harmless. But things could not be concealed, as you know from the official papers that were published by me.

The general situation was this: England was indeed ready to come to an understanding on single items, but the first and foremost principle of her policy was the "balance of power" as a means of checking German strength in its free development.

This forms the border-line of England's amicable relations with Germany; and the purpose was the utmost strengthening of the Triple Entente. When the Allies demanded military assurances in return, England was at once ready to give them. The circle was closed. The English were sure of the following of France and hence of Russia.

But they, too, had to abandon their free-will. As the jingoes of France and Russia found their strongest support in the military accommodation promised by her, England, as soon as either of the two Allies began the war, was morally bound to support them.

And all this was done to what purpose? Because Germany was to be kept down. We have not been remiss in warning the British Government. As late as the beginning of last July I gave them to understand that their secret negotiations with Russia about a naval agreement were well known to me. I called their attention to the grave danger which such policy implied for the peace of the world. As soon as a fortnight afterward my predictions came true.

We have taken the consequences of the general situation. In quick succession I have laid before you the hugest war bill which history ever recorded, and you, gentlemen, fully recognizing the country's danger, have gladly made the sacrifice and have granted what was necessary for our national self-defence.

And when war broke out, England dropped the mask of hypocrisy. Loudly and openly she declares her determination to fight until Germany is laid prostrate both in an economic and military sense. Anti-German Panslavism joins its jubilant notes, France with the full strength of an old warlike nation hopes to redeem the humiliation inflicted on her in 1870.

Our only answer to our enemies is Germany does not allow herself to be crushed!

The first sound like it is from a broken man.

The second could be from a stronger, more confident man.

Bethmann-Hollweg's decisions played a crucial role in driving the world to war in 1914.

Were these decisions conspiratorial?

Why did he openly admit that Germany was in the wrong by invading Belgium?

Bethmann-Hollweg was a cousin of the Rothschilds of London. Tarpley describes him thus:
The German chancellor from 1909 to 1917, Dr. Theobald von Bethmann- Hollweg, was an anglophile and a crony of the Kaiser’s student days, anxious to make concessions to London in order to secure peace. Sir Edward Grey declared in 1912 that any differences between England and Germany would never assume dangerous proportions “so long as German policy was directed by” Bethmann- Hollweg.

...If Sir Edward Grey had sincerely wished to avoid war, he could have pursued one of two courses of action. The first would have been to warn Germany early in the crisis that in case of general war, Britain would fight on the side of France and Russia. This would have propelled the Kaiser and Bethmann into the strongest efforts to restrain the Vienna madmen, probably forcing them to back down. The other course would have been to warn Paris and especially St. Petersburg that Britain had no intention of being embroiled in world war over the Balkan squabble, and would remain neutral. This would have undercut the St. Petersburg militarists, and would have motivated Paris to act as a restraining influence.

[source : Webster Tarpley, King Edward VII of Great Britain: Evil Demiurge of the Triple Entente and World War 1,

So was Bethmann-Hollweg a British Trojan Horse inside the German government?

Or was he just mentally unstable after the death of his wife just a few months before Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated?


After hearing of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia only on 25th July, and FROM A NORWEGIAN NEWSPAPER, while on holiday in Norway, Wilhelm set off to return to Berlin.

But before he arrived in Berlin, on 26th July 1914 Germany, under Bethmann-Hollweg, tried to push Serbia into declaring war on Serbia that very day!!

The Austria-Hungary military said that it would be a further 17 days, on 12th August, before it would be completely prepared for a declaration of war on Serbia.

Yet Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia just 2 days later.


But more importantly, rather than wait for Kaiser Wilhelm to return to Berlin and seek peace, why did Bethmann-Hollweg try to push Austria-Hungary into declaring war on Serbia while Kaiser Wilhelm was in transit between Norway and Berlin?

Did Wilhelm order this push to war? Or was he made aware of it while in transit?


As the July Crisis developed in late July 1914, what did Grey, Churchill and Asquith do?

Grey went fly-fishing. Churchill went to the beach. Asquith went to play golf.

How thoroughly British!

Just about to start a world war and they go fly-fishing, go to the beach, and play golf.

You couldn't make it up.

Meanwhile, the German Ambassador to Great Britain remained in London desperate to avoid war. British foreign policy at a time of major crisis was in the hands of Sir Arthur Nicolson, the Permanent Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.


We don't fully know, do we?

Even though no information has emerged concerning the specific nature of the Pope’s diplomatic activity from June 28, 1914 to August 4, 1914, the day on which the British issued an ultimatum that brought about war with Germany, it is clear from what is know that the Pope’s only desire was for the war not to happen at all. Even though he obviously appreciated the service that Austria had given to the Catholic Church against the Protestants to the North and the Schismatics to the East, from the contents of the interview between the Austrian ambassador and the Pope on July 28th, it is clear that he did not at all approve of Austria’s decision to go to war in order to resolve the Serbian problem. In fact, there have been some witnesses who say that the Pope wrote a letter to Emperor Franz Josef, imploring him to avoid a war. But, Cardinal Merry del Val himself said that he had no knowledge of this letter; there is no trace of it in the Austrian or Roman archives.

...There seemed to be no overt hostility to Wilhelm II from St. Pius X. It is known that Wilhelm, from the House of Hohenzollern (whose senior branch is Catholic in religion), was not overtly hostile to the Catholic Church. He was the one who dismissed Otto von Bismark, the “Iron Chancellor” of the anti-Catholic Kulturkampf, he very much enjoyed trips to visit the pope in the Vatican, and was instrumental in allowing the Jesuits back into Germany after Bismark’s rule. The House of Hohenzollern, of course, allowed the Jesuits to exist in Prussia even after they were disbanded in the rest of Europe due to the Hohenzollern’s gratitude for a critical Jesuit intervention in the beginning of the 18th century, which allowed the Dukes of Prussia to receive a royal crown from the Holy Roman Emperor.

[source : Pope Saint Pius X: Prophet of the Great War, Articles by Dr. Peter Chojnowski,, 31st October 2006]

So from this the Pope said something to the Austrian Ambassador, but maybe he could have done more?

And the Wilhelm/Jesuit link is interesting...


For some years I've been wondering why Freemasonry would condemn Arch Duke Ferdinand to death. Now I have two very good reasons:
1. Ferdinand had stopped many wars on Serbia by Austria-Hungary before his assassination;
2. Ferdinand and Kaiser Wilhelm II were apparently very good friends.

Regarding reason 1, with Ferdinand out of the way, his anti-war presence was absent during July. If the Black Hand/Freemasonry had assassinated anyone else then he may well have wanted to, and been able to, stop any war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. This is why Rasputin was assassinated by British agents Oswald Rayner and John Scales, to remove his strong anti-war presence and influence over Tsar Nicholas.

And regarding reason 2, although upon hearing the news of Ferdinand's death Wilhelm, who was on a yacht at the time, raced back to Berlin to try to keep the peace. But could Ferdinand's death have provoked some kind of wish for revenge within Wilhelm, just enough to open him up to war? Why did Wilhelm race back to Berlin to keep the peace yet give Austria-Hungary the "blank cheque" support, allegedly hoping that Austria-Hungary would react very quickly, before Russia could mobilise?

But what happened was:
1. Wilhelm gave the "blank cheque" support, expecting/hoping Austria-Hungary to do something about Serbia very quickly;
2. Bethmann-Hollweg then persuaded Wilhelm to go on holiday in Norway;
3. Bethmann-Hollweg then kept Wilhelm out of the loop while Austria-Hungary slowly prepared an ultimatum, with Bethmann-Hollweg's full knowledge;
4. as the weeks went by, while Wilhelm was in Norway lacking intelligence on developments, Russia was able to get into a position to mobilise;
5. Austria-Hungary issued its ultimatum to Serbia on 23rd July, 18 days after the "blank cheque" support had been given;
6. Wilhelm only found out about the ultimatum on 25th July, and from a newspaper, and immediately started back to Berlin, where upon his arrival Bethmann-Hollweg was admonished by Wilhelm for allowing the situation to develop thus.

Wilhelm had previously backed down from possible wars, leading to von Moltke calling Wilhelm "timid".

So what was different about this war?

It was possibly personal.

Just enough to drive Wilhelm into war.

And Grey's offer of British neutrality on 1st August (which led to Wilhelm getting the champagne out and declaring war on Russia) and then withdrawing the offer of neutrality claiming that it was a 'misunderstanding' was just another ploy to drive Wilhelm into war when he was known for backing out of potential war.


Is it, or is it not, just a huge coincidence that the man whose assassination, Arch Duke Ferdinand, caused a world war, when Ferdinand had stopped Austria-Hungary going to war against Serbia many times?

Is that why Freemasonry condemned Arch Duke Ferdinand to death? Because if their Serbian stooges assassinated anyone else from Austria-Hungary then, with Ferdinand alive, he may well have wanted, and been able, to stop any possible resulting war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia?

Just a thought for t'day...


Saturday, August 29, 2015


Where would we be without history?


The following information is on the Wikipedia entry for Bethmann-Hollweg:
Following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, Bethmann Hollweg and his foreign minister Gottlieb von Jagow were instrumental in assuring Austria of Germany's unconditional support regardless of Austria's actions against Serbia. While Sir Edward Grey was suggesting a mediation between the Austrians and the Serbs, Bethmann Hollweg is known to have been manipulating the British message—in order to forestall any chance that the Austrians would refrain from attacking Serbia—by deleting the last line of the letter, which read:

"Also, the whole world here is convinced, and I hear from my colleagues that the key to the situation lies in Berlin, and that if Berlin seriously wants peace, it will prevent Vienna from following a foolhardy policy."

Kaiser Wilhelm was persuaded to go on holiday by Bethmann-Hollweg, but only after he had also encouraged Kaiser Wilhelm to give Austria-Hungary "blank cheque" support.

After sending Wilhelm away to Norway, Bethmann-Hollweg then kept Wilhelm out of the loop. Wilhelm later wrote in his memoirs that he only learned about developments in Europe from Norwegian newspapers.

But was he asking for information from Berlin while he was on Norway? Or did he trust Bethmann-Hollweg that much?

Anyway, on 23rd July Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia, accusing the Serbian government of assassinating Arch Duke Ferdinand.

At this time Wilhelm was still in Norway and out of the loop, but still receiving some intelligence not official direct from Berlin.

Upon hearing news of this ultimatum, Sir Edward Grey proposes a 4 power conference:
Lichnowsky to Jagow. Spoke Grey. He suggests GB, F, D and I should mediate between AH and R if dangerous tension arose between them and would join with D in urging an extension to the time limit.

But apparently Germany was aware of what Austria-Hungary would issue to Serbia. Vienna sent Berlin a copy of the ultimatum on 19th July, and postponed the ultimatum due to Germany!

So was Kaiser Wilhelm aware of this on his yacht in Norway? And if so then did he acquiesce?

I don't think so, because of his almost fury at reading the news of the ultimatum in the Norwegian newspaper and his anger at Bethmann-Hollweg for allowing the situation to develop so.

So what of this manipulation by Bethmann-Hollweg of offers for mediation from Grey?

I have not been able to properly source this but apparently Bethmann-Hollweg was informed of a plan for mediation by Germany over Austria-Hungary proposed by Grey, which Bethmann-Hollweg:
1. manipulated by removing the final sentence (see above);
2. sent the manipulated version to the German Ambassador in Vienna, telling the Ambassador to not pass it on to the Austro-Hungarians, and to keep it secret from German diplomatic staff in Vienna;
3. passed the manipulated version onto Kaiser Wilhelm;
4. replied to Grey that the proposal had been passed onto Vienna in full.

If this is the case then Rothschild cousin Bethmann-Hollweg bares a significant amount of responsibility for WW1.

This manipulation by Rothschild cousin Bethmann-Hollweg and the manipulations by Sir Edward Grey, proposing that Great Britain would remain neutral when Germany was about to declare war on Russia, were stepping stones to war.

But it was the assassination of Ferdinand which kicked it off.

And as we know:
1. C H Norman in Some Secret Influences behind the War writes that the Grand Orient lodge was involved in assassinating Ferdinand;
2. Kaiser Wilhelm wrote in his memoirs that he was told by distinguished German freemason that the Grand Orient lodge had engineered the war to create a power vacuum in Central Europe.
3. Freemasonry had condemned Ferdinand to death, and he knew it;
4. At their trial the assassins of Ferdinand stated that they had received the material from freemasons abroad and knew that Freemasonry had condemned Ferdinand to death.

My question is: was Bethmann-Hollweg the freemason who told Wilhelm about the freemasonic plan to create a power vacuum in Central Europe?


On 4th August 1914 Bethmann-Hollweg apparently gave a speech which contained this paragraph:
As for Great Britain's attitude, the statements made by Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons yesterday show the standpoint assumed by the British Government. We have informed the British Government that, as long as Great Britain remains neutral, our fleet will not attack the northern coast of France, and that we will not violate the territorial integrity and independence of Belgium. These assurances I now repeat before the world, and I may add that, as long as Great Britain remains neutral, we would also be willing, upon reciprocity being assured, to take no warlike measures against French commercial shipping.

[source : The German White Book : Germany's Reasons for War with Russia,]

So was this a lie?

Or did Great Britain do something that made it appear to Germany that Great Britain was not remaining neutral?


After the destabilisation of Europe by the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted to remain in Germany to help to stabilise the situation.

But guess who persuaded Wilhelm to go on holiday in Norway, which he did on 6th July, but only after offering Austria-Hungary "blank cheque" support?

Yep. Rothschild cousin Bethmann-Hollweg.

And guess who also supported and sent the "blank cheque" offer to Austria-Hungary?

Yep. Rothschild cousin Bethmann-Hollweg.

Wilhelm was basically kept out of the loop during this holiday, learning from Norwegian newspapers, not directly from Berlin, what was happening in Europe. In fact he claims to have learned of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia delivered on 23rd July from a Norwegian newspaper, which made him return to Berlin arriving on 26th July, when Bethmann-Hollweg offered his resignation for, wittingly or unwittingly, creating such a diplomatic mess.

After the arrival of the news of the assassination of my friend, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, I gave up going to Kiel for the regatta week and went back home, since I intended to go to Vienna for his funeral. But I was asked from there to give up this plan. Later I heard that one of the reasons for this was consideration for my personal safety; to this I naturally would have paid no attention.

Greatly worried on account of the turn which matters might now take, I decided to give up my intended journey to Norway and remain at home. The Imperial Chancellor and the Foreign Office held a view contrary to mine and wished me to undertake the journey, as they considered that it would have a quieting effect on all Europe. For a long time I argued against going away from my country at a time when the future was so unsettled, but Imperial Chancellor von Bethmann told me, in short and concise terms, that if I were now to give up my travel plans, which were already widely known, this would make the situation appear more serious than it had been up to that moment and possibly lead to the outbreak of war, for which I might be held responsible; that the whole world was merely waiting to be put out of suspense by the news that I, in spite of the situation had quietly gone on my trip.

Thereupon I consulted the Chief of the General Staff, and, when he also proved to be calm and unworried regarding the state of affairs and himself asked for a summer leave of absence to go to Carlsbad, I decided, though with a heavy heart, upon my departure.

...But when, after that, I learned from the Norwegian newspapers -- not from Berlin -- about the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia, and, immediately thereafter, about the Serbian note to Austria, I started without further ado upon my return journey and commanded the fleet to repair to Wilhelmshaven

[source : Kaiser Wilhelm II's Account of Events, July, 1914. From his Memoirs,

So Bethmann-Hollweg:
1. encourages Kaiser Wilhelm to send "blank cheque" to support from Germany to Austria-Hungary;
2. then sends Kaiser Wilhelm off on holiday, against Wilhelm's instincts;
3. then fucks it all up so that Austria-Hungary issues Serbia an ultimatum;
4. keeps Wilhelm out of the loop, so that Wilhelm only learns of this ultimatum from a Norwegian newspaper, not directly from Berlin, forcing Wilhelm to cut short his holiday and set off immediately to return to Berlin;
5. offers his resignation to Wilhelm, but Wilhelm rejects this offer instead ordering Bethmann-Hollweg to get Germany out of "this stew" (which of course he doesn't, or can't thanks to Grey's deceptions).


I believe that this 'misunderstanding' of 1st August was a trick to give Germany confidence that Great Britain would stay out of the war (King George had told Prince Henry on 26th July that he hoped Great Britain would remain neutral) so that when the ultimatum that Germany gave to Russia on the 31st July expired on 1st August Germany would indeed declare war on Russia.

Here is how Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador to Great Britain, describes this 'misunderstanding':
Sir W. Tyrrell called on me on the morning of the 1st August to tell me that his chief still hoped to find a way out. Would we remain neutral if France did? I understood that we should then agree to spare France, but he had meant that we should remain altogether neutral-towards Russia also. That was the well-known ''misunderstanding.r Sir Edward had asked me to call in the afternoon. As he was at a meeting of the cabinet, he called me up on the telephone, Sir W. Tyrrell having hurried to him at once. In the afternoon, however, he talked about Belgian neutrality and the possibility that we and France might face one another in arms without attacking. This was thus not a proposal at all, but a question without any binding force, as our interview, as I had already reported, was to take place soon afterwards. Berlin, however, without waiting for the interview, made this report the foundation for far-reaching measures.

It's that question: "Would we remain neutral if France did?"

If Tyrrell/Grey meant towards Russia too then why didn't they explicitly mention Russia?

Because Russia was not mentioned by Tyrrell, Lichnowsky didn't mention Russia in his telegram to Berlin. The offer/question of neutrality of Great Britain sent Berlin into wild joy (for why would Great Britain ask such a question if it didn't mean it?), and so when the ultimatum to Russia expired Germany, given some confidence that Great Britain was going to remain neutral due to this offer/question of 1st August (and King George V had told Prince Henry that he hoped Great Britain would remain neutral), declared war on Russia.



Friday, August 28, 2015


Grey's proposals to Lichnowsky on 1st August 1914 were called a 'misunderstanding' by King George V in a telegram to Kaiser Wilhelm II in the evening of 1st August 1914.


A 'misunderstanding'?!

Germany had issued a 24 hour ultimatum to Russia the previous day and therefore could declare war on Russia on 1st August, but, here is the crucial fact, had not yet done so.

So in the morning of 1st August Grey makes 2 proposals to Germany:
1. if Germany didn't attack France then both France and Great Britain would remain neutral (France had not been consulted on this);
2. 3 hours later Grey proposed that Great Britain would remain neutral even if Germany did declare war on France!!!

WTF was Grey doing?

And yet King George V claimed this was a 'misunderstanding'?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

For further details of times and telegrams etc., and an attempt to whitewash this trick by Great Britain into giving Germany the impression that Great Britain would remain neutral so that Germany would declare war on Russia, which would leave France no alternative but to prepare for war and thus provoke Germany into invading Belgium (as Grey learned would happen in the afternoon of 1st August), see UNDERSTANDING THE 'MISUNDERSTANDING' OF 1 AUGUST 1914 by K M Wilson.

Yo! Grey! If you can hear us in Hell...!


One Track Mind feat. Angie Brown - Good For You


I have just read a very interesting paper on the diplomacy (or warmongering) of Sir Edward Grey on 1st August 1914.

The paper is entitled "There Must Be Some Misunderstanding": Sir Edward Grey's Diplomacy of August 1, 1914 by Stephen J. Valone.

By 1st August Germany had not declared war on anyone.

On the previous day Germany had issued a 24 hour ultimatum to Russia to stop mobilisation or there would be war, but as yet no official declaration of war.

So what does Grey do?

On the morning of 1st August he makes two proposals to Germany:
1. the first proposal, which was dispatched to Berlin at 1114 (London time), was that as long as Germany did not attack France then Great Britain and France would remain neutral (Grey did this without consulting France!);
2. the second proposal, made 3 hours later, was that Great Britain would remain neutral even if Germany was at war with France.

Apparently this was received in Berlin with great joy and champagne.

At 1530 (London time) Grey met with the German Ambassador to Great Britain, Lichnowsky, at which Grey withdrew his suggestions of neutrality made a few hours before, but by then these offers had been sent to Berlin by Lichnowsky.

At 1900 (Berlin time) Germany declared war on Russia.

Shortly after 2020 (London time) a telegram was received in London from Kaiser Wilhelm II in which Wilhelm accepted the terms of neutrality!!!!!!!

And very soon after this telegram was received, Grey was summoned to Buckingham Palace to meet with King George V. George repeated the same offers of neutrality that Grey had withdrew during the meeting with Lichnowsky.

But here is the killer: Berlin did not receive the notice of withdrawal of neutrality until 2200!

So let's put this into a rough timeline:
1. on 31st July Germany had not declared war on Russia but had issued an ultimatum to stop mobilisation within 24 hours;
2. on the morning of 1st August at 1114 Grey proposes to Germany that Great Britain and France would remain neutral if Germany did not attack France (this was made without consulting France);
3. 3 hours later Grey then makes another proposal that Great Britain would remain neutral even if Germany did start a war on France;
4. at 1530 Grey then withdraws both of these offers of neutrality;
5. at 1900 (Berlin time) Germany declares war on Russia;
6. at about 2030 (London time) a telegram is received in London from Kaiser Wilhelm accepting the terms of neutrality;
7. Grey is summoned to Buckingham Palace, but King George repeats the offers of neutrality;
8. at 2200 (Berlin time) Berlin is finally updated that the two offers of neutrality made by Grey earlier that day had been withdrawn.

So it could be argued that Grey made these offers of neutrality, particularly the second one, to encourage Germany into declaring war on Russia, given that Germany had given a 24 hour ultimatum that was due to expire that day.

It looks like Germany declared war on Russia under the impression that Great Britain was going to remain neutral, thanks to Grey's 'diplomacy' earlier on 1st August, because Berlin did not receive the information that Grey had withdrawn the offers until several hours AFTER Germany had declared war on Russia, whereas a telegram was sent from Berlin to London at about 2030 (London time) agreeing to the terms of neutrality.

So why did Grey withdraw these offers?

At 1500 (London time) Grey was told that the military attache in Berlin was confident that Germany would invade Belgium.


Theobold von Bethmann-Hollweg was Chancellor of Germany as the July Crisis occured in July 1914.

He had developed a good relationship with Great Britain, so much so that Kaiser Wilhelm II went for a holiday in Norway on 6th July, leaving Germany in Bethmann-Hollweg's hands and not expecting any trouble with Great Britain.

However, on 23rd July Austria-Hungary delivered their ultimatum to Serbia.

How did Bethmann-Hollweg allow this to happen?

Well, some blame falls on Bethmann-Hollweg and the Kaiser for earlier giving Austria-Hungary "blank cheque" support, but this could be due to Great Britain giving the appearance of neutrality (when it was them who had planned the war for decades).

Wilhelm cut short his Norwegian holiday on 25th July to return to Berlin, arriving late on 26th July.

Earlier on 26th July, King George V told Wilhelm's brother Henry that George hoped that Great Britain would remain neutral. Sir Edward Grey had also proposed a conference between England, France, Italy, and Germany.

Germany rejected this proposal.


Webster Tarpley describes Bethmann-Hollweg:
The German chancellor from 1909 to 1917, Dr. Theobald von Bethmann- Hollweg, was an anglophile and a crony of the Kaiser’s student days, anxious to make concessions to London in order to secure peace. Sir Edward Grey declared in 1912 that any differences between England and Germany would never assume dangerous proportions “so long as German policy was directed by” Bethmann- Hollweg.

During the Balkan Wars and the Liman von Sanders affair of 1913, Grey cultivated the illusion of good relations with Germany. By mid-1914, Anglo- German relations were judged by Sir Edward Goschen, the British ambassador to Berlin, as “more friendly and cordial than they had been in years.”

[source : King Edward VII of Great Britain: Evil Demiurge of the Triple Entente and World War 1, Tarpley,]

Perhaps this apparent friendliness between Great Britain and Germany was due to this, but also to Bethmann-Hollweg being a cousin of the Rothschilds.

Of this rejection by Bethmann-Hollweg, Tarpley says:
On July 26, Grey proposed a conference of ambassadors from England, France, Italy, and Germany, which was declined by Germany for various reasons.

On Wikipedia you can currently read this about how Kaiser Wilhelm felt about the situation upon his return from Norway:
When Wilhelm arrived at the Potsdam station late in the evening of July 26, he was met by a pale, agitated, and somewhat fearful Chancellor. Bethmann Hollweg's apprehension stemmed not from the dangers of the looming war, but rather from his fear of the Kaiser's wrath when the extent of his deceptions were revealed. The Kaiser's first words to him were suitably brusque: "How did it all happen?" Rather than attempt to explain, the Chancellor offered his resignation by way of apology. Wilhelm refused to accept it, muttering furiously, "You've made this stew, now you're going to eat it!"

So how and/or why did Bethmann-Hollweg fuck it up?

Bethmann-Hollweg also decided to send Lenin into Russia...without telling Wilhelm!

I have been looking for a confirmation that Bethmann-Hollweg was a freemason, but could only find one website, and that was a Nazi website. I'm wondering who this "high ranking freemason" is that Kaiser Wilhelm refers to in his memoirs who told Wilhelm that Freemasonry engineered the war to create a power vacuum in Central Europe.



Donald Trump, who recently ordered a Mexican journalist out of a press conference, will jointly host a rally against the deal over Iran's nuclear program. Trump has declared himself the de facto candidate for Israel when he stated that he was the most pro-Israel candidate of them all.

This goes some way to proving that:
Though they’re rivals on the campaign trail, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are teaming up for a joint attack on President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The Texas GOP senator’s campaign announced Thursday that he’s invited Trump to join a rally planned at the Capitol soon to pressure lawmakers on opposing the nuclear agreement. The rally is sponsored by Tea Party Patriots, Center for Security Policy, and the Zionist Organization of America.

... Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said the rally is tentatively slated for Sept. 9. He said he welcomed Trump’s involvement and the attention he would bring to the Iran agreement’s opposition.

“Anybody who’s in public life and opposed to the deal, it’s useful to have them speak out and oppose this catastrophe,” Klein said. “It’s not a bad deal, it’s a catastrophe. Every American should be freaking out about arming and funding the Hitler of the day.”

[source : Cruz, Trump to hold anti-Iran deal rally in D.C., Politico,, 27th August 2015]

Hitler of the day?

Iran has not been in any wars in the last few decades, has it? Meanwhile Israel has reduced Gaza to rubble and killed over 10000 Palestinians since 1987.

Thursday, August 27, 2015


On 26th July 1914 Sir Edward Grey sent the following telegram to the British embassies in France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Germany and Italy, requesting that they ask the foreign ministers of those nations to request that their ambassadors to Great Britain join a conference in London asap.

Ask Foreign Minister if his ambassador here may join a conference here, at once.

(TGM D. 3.00 pm.)

[source : Edward Rawes, A Chronology of the Mediation Attempts in July 1914,]

The following telegram was sent by Sir Edward Grey on 27th July 1914 to Sir George Buchanan, the British Ambassador to Russia.
Benckendorff here says D and AH think we will stand aside whatever happens. Reminded him that British fleet had not dispersed after manoeuvres but also that we do not promise anything more than diplomatic action. Also said that we keep hearing from D and AH that R will do nothing if no Serbian territory is taken and it would be absurd if we appeared at Berlin and Vienna to be more Serbian than the Russians.

(TGM D. 3.30pm)

Benckendorff was Alexander Benckendorff, the Russian Ambassador to Great Britain.

So here we have evidence that Grey was told that both Germany and Austria-Hungary thought that Great Britain would remain neutral, "whatever happens".

This was stated on 27th July 1914.

The day before, King George V had told Kaiser Wilhelm's brother, Prince Henry, that George hoped that Great Britain would remain neutral.

But shortly after that telegram was sent the following telegram was sent by the German Ambassador to Austria-Hungary to the German Foreign Minister Jagow:
AH has decided to declare war tomorrow or latest day after mainly to cut the ground from any intervention attempts.

So here we have evidence that on 27th July 1914 both Germany and Austria-Hungary thought Great Britain would remain neutral, whatever happens, and believing this to be the case Austria-Hungary decided to declare war on Serbia.

The next day, 28th July 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.

But also on the 28th July Prince Henry told Wilhelm of King George's statement of hopeful neutrality.

This declaration of war by Austria-Hungary provoked Russia into mobilising, which provoked Germany into declaring war on Russia and France.

And all the while Sir Edward Grey did not state what Great Britain would do, he just allowed Europe to declare war on each other before implementing the Triple Entente via an unnecessary declaration to enforce the Treaty of London 1839.

Sazonov asked Great Britain to declare their intent to enforce the Triple Entente, but they refused.

King George V told Wilhelm's brother that he hoped to remain neutral.

Grey knew that Germany and Austria-Hungary thought Great Britain would remain neutral, whatever happened, which led to Austria-Hungary, with blank cheque support from Germany, declaring war on Serbia, which provoked Russia into mobilising, which provoked Germany, still believing that Great Britain would remain neutral, into declaring war on Russia and France.

And when Germany invades Belgium, King George V tells Grey that he must Great Britain into the war!!!

Come on Britons!!

Who is guilty?

Yes, you could say that Germany was careless and belligerent in some ways, but all that Great Britain had to do to avoid war was to declare that it would side with France and Russia in the Triple Entente, as Sazonov had requested.

But Perfide Albion pretended to remain neutral, pretended to mediate, and once hostilities began, then and only then did Great Britain declare war on Germany.

Germany was surrounded...just as King Edward VII had planned.


Have you seen these figures released today about the number of sick and disabled benefit claimants who died shortly after being found fit for work between December 2011 and February 2014?


2650 in just over 2 years!!

This truly is a national scandal.

The Bedroom Tax and sanctions were unfair and outrageous.

But is this murder?

And adds to the toll from those murdered by the LCP?

And all to save money to bail out the bankers.

More than 2,500 sick and disabled benefit claimants have died after being found 'fit for work' in just two years, shock figures reveal today.

The Tories have finally released the total - burying it under immigration figures - after 250,000 furious people signed a petition calling on them to end the cover-up.

Iain Duncan Smith's officials tried to stop them being released in full, mounting a legal challenge to publish only 'age-standardised' figures instead.

The stand-off saw him launch a blistering attack on Labour MPs including Debbie Abrahams, who've been demanding the figures for months.

But he's now performed a U-turn and issued the devastating figures today.

They show 2,650 benefit claimants died shortly after being found 'fit for work' between December 2011 and February 2014.

[source : More than 2,500 benefit claimants die after being found fit for work in just two years, Daily Mirror,, 27th August 2015]


Chilcot knows what is going on regarding the grand geopolitical policy being implemented in North Africa and the Middle East. I told him. He has a lot to cover up and gloss over.

But he could be helped by The Guardian.

An editorial in The Guardian today moans about but sort of understands the delayed release of the report, instead hoping that when the report is finally released it restores trust in politics.

This report is more than an academic exercise in how government works; it goes beyond even the psychology of leadership, although both will be part of it. In the end it has a much harder, more symbolic and weightier function. It has to provide a degree of closure – for the families, of course, but for the country too. The effects of the Iraq war in the region are still being played out. It severely damaged trust in politics. It is asking too much of any single inquiry to make good the harm. But it could play a vital role in restoring the health of democracy. Every day of delay undermines its chance of success.

[source : The Guardian view on the Chilcot delays: undermining his own work, The Guardian,, 26th August 2015]

The Guardian was not against the war on Iraq and supported the reelection of Blair (see The Iraq War Was Not A Media Failure).
The Guardian demanded war on Libya in 2011 and suggested that NATO become the CJAF (Cutthroat Jihadi Air Force).
The Guardian demanded war on Syria.
The Guardian was ecstatic when Syria agreed to relinquish its chemical weapons and did not once demand the same of Israel, which has a much more powerful and destructive arsenal.

In other words, The Guardian is establishment.

It supported and continues to support the drive for war.

The Guardian could help Chilcot out by publishing an editorial on the plan for war and regime change in seven countries in five years that was revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after 9/11.

But we will have to wait until Hell freezes over for that!


Wednesday, August 26, 2015


Dubstar - Stars

Destroy those reports now, you fake fuckers!


These are the words spoken to Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov to British Ambassador to Russia Sir George Buchanan:
Austria would not have acted so aggressively without the consent of Germany. I hope the British government will declare itself on the side of France and Russia without delay.

This is of course referring to the Triple Entente proposed by Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England King Edward VII and finalised by Sir Edward Grey.

Instead King George V told Germany that Great Britain hoped to stay out of the war while demanding that Sir Edward Grey get Great Britain into any war, leading to Grey doing a U-turn over Belgium, having shown little or no concern over Belgium until Germany invaded.

We have to look at the power of Great Britain at the time. It was the largest empire/empah on the planet at the time, though economically less powerful than Germany and the USA, which was the reason why Great Britain engineered the war in a bid to create a world government that it would control.

What if the most powerful empah on the planet had immediately declared itself on the side of France and Russia, as requested above?

Would Germany have backed down?

Russia mobilised on 31st July.

Germany declared war on Russia the next day.

Why did Russia mobilise? Because Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28th July.

And Germany had indeed given "blank cheque" support to Austro-Hungary.

So why did Great Britain not declare itself, as the Triple Entente proposed, on the side of France and Russia and thus deter Germany from supporting Austro-Hungary who would then not have declared war on Serbia on 28th July thus provoking Russian mobilisation?


He's taking the limeade.


Last Sunday I contacted the MH17 JIT and informed them of the Lysenko press conference of 17th July 2014 at which Lysenko admitted that Ukraine had a video of a BUK travelling through Luhansk. I also asked the JIT to check with Ukraine if that video is the same as the one that Ukraine released saying that it was filmed at 0500 on 18th July 2014 (even though Naida said that the BUK that allegedly shot down MH17 was back in Russia by 0200 on 18th July) and was used in their video call for witnesses issued in March this year.

From the response I got from the JIT it sounded like that they were unaware of this possible falsification of evidence and would look into it. And if so then Bellingcat have not informed the JIT of this doubt over their centrepiece...

But now Sergei Kaplin, a member of the ruling party in Ukraine, has asked the Prosecutor General in Ukraine to investigate why Ukraine did not shut down its airspace knowing that BUKs were in the area on 14th July 2014.

Kaplin has sent a letter to Prosecutor General of Ukraine Viktor Socino and the head of the NSDC Oleksandr Turchynov stating the Ukraine goverment was aware surface to air missile systems capable of reaching 14km to 18km altitude were deployed in Eastern Ukraine at July 14.

Civil servants were aware of the danger for civil aviation but refused to close the airspace because closure would mean they did not receive money from the airlines anymore.

Their greed could have resulted in the death of 298 persons.

This news was publised by various Russian news agencies like here in English. Sputnik news published an article in German language on August 25. Ria Novosti published in Russian language here.

Only a very few Ukraine websites published the story. For example here.

Western media did not report about the remarkable initiative of the member of Parliament.

[source : Member of Ukraine ruling party requests prosecutor to investigate failure to close airspace, What happened to flight MH17?,, 26th August 2015]



I don't understand this.

We know Islamic extremists are controlled by NATO/Zio intelligence services.

And bashing Islam alone serves the Israeli agenda to demonise Iran, and almost everyone else that Israel hates.

And it is Israel that has killed far more people than Islam since WW2.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015


WND has posted an exclusive article about Satanism and abortion, giving some insight into the abortion industry, and the potential reason for why female viagra was developed: to drive women into having more sex; becoming pregnant; then aborting the child.

But is this all in the name of Satan?

All you have to do is look at the USA today: War! War! War!

“I had just turned 14, and they told me there was going to be a sex party in someone’s house and all the males in the coven were going to sleep with this woman,” recalls King, now 47 and a pro-life activist living in Florida.

“And the purpose of the party was to get her pregnant, and then nine months later we were going to be doing an abortion,” he said.

...“As a high wizard, your job was to get your hands bloody while saying a spell, regardless of whether that’s the baby’s blood or the mother’s blood,” he said. “My left hand guided the way, and the right hand had a scalpel. The woman never winced or anything. Both hands were bloody. I participated in 141 abortions. I doubt my actions actually killed any children, but I was still there.”

...“In satanism, killing something or the death of something is the most effective way of getting your spell accomplished,” he said. “As far as trying to get Satan’s approval, to give you something that you want, killing something is the best way to go. Killing something is the ultimate offering to Satan, and if you can kill an unborn, that is his ultimate goal.”

...“The occult believers are the ‘core’ of the pro-abortion movement, just as the born-again Christians are the ‘core’ of the pro-life movement,” she told Life Site News. “I see no harm in striking at its heart, and informing ‘pro-choice’ people (particularly the well-meaning but misguided Christians) of who and what they are truly associating themselves with.”

..."Yes for years. We've interviewed a few people here. It was about 1992 or 93, and we had a girl who came from Missouri and she claimed to be involved in the same sort of thing (that King talks about)," he said. "Women getting pregnant with the intent to kill their babies and women being told they could make themselves holy by offering up their baby as a sacrifice.

"She described situations where they would extract babies and do spells and satanic rituals."

..."It's about the people who work in abortion clinics. We do a lot of undercover stuff, so we do have a lot of contact with these people, and I can tell you a lot of them are screwed up," he said.

"Were they normal and then got involved in the abortion industry and got screwed up, or were they already demented souls and that's why they ended up in the abortion industry? I don't know," he continued. "But this idea that you're going to create a sacrament of abortion is pretty crazy, and you're going to make your baby holy by making him like Jesus, you're pretty screwed up."

[source : Ex-Satanist: Babies ritually aborted for devil, WND,, 25th August 2015]/

Two things:
1. I am not Christian, nor am I a follower of any religion, so I am not posting this from a religious point of view, only to express that I believe that other people believe in this stuff, and as a result society is being corrupted into slaughtering thousands of babies of a day in this way, which totally disgusts me;
2. WND is Christian Zionist, heavily biased towards Israel, so do not take this as an endorsement of WND, even though Israel kills far less than the abortionists do.



This channel's got some smoooooooooth tunes.

Hott 22 - Make Up Your Mind


How smooth is this?

Yogi feat. Briohny Thomas - Sumtin (You Gimme That) (Original Mix)


Satire warning:

All this time and we thought it was the bankers, when it was actually the migrants (who we created from our wars) that caused the crash and the austerity!!

Silly billies!!

We should therefore divert all our attacks on to the migrants, and apologise to the bankers, giving them more and more and more. In fact, why not just give the bankers everything? That's the least we could do by way of an apology for us blaming them for causing the crash and the austerity.


According to the numbers given on Israeli–Palestinian conflict , Israel killed nearly 8000 Palestinians between 1987 and 2011, while 1500 Israelis were killed in the same period. But if we add the deaths from the Gaza wars in 2012 and 2014 then the number of deaths of Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis is well over 10000 while the number of dead Israelis increases just slightly.

The page List of Islamist terrorist attacks lists a lot of Islamic terrorist attacks. I started to count the number of deaths but there are just too many of them. 9/11 is listed among them, which we know was an inside job, so that can be discounted. And we know that there was, and I believe still is, a Covenant of Security between NATO intelligence services and the Islamic terrorists. Deaths at the hands of Islamic State are also counted. The number of deaths in each attack is small, with the odd one in the hundreds. I doubt that the total number of deaths from Islamic terrorists is anywhere near that of the number of Palestinians killed by Israel. And NATO intelligence services share some guilt in the deaths from Islamic terrorist attacks.

So this #ReligionOfPeace is just a plain NATO/Zio twitter psyop.

Each of the major religions is genocidal in one form or another.


Well of course it bleedin' is!!

I only posted an infographic on this yesterday, and have been stating that NATO reneged on a gentleman's agreement to not expand one inch east after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But despite this, Russia has been cooperating with NATO, giving NATO transit across Russia to access Afghanistan.

But when Putin told the NATO summit at Bucharest in April 2008 that Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO would be a red line, what did NATO do? One of their stooges, Saakashvili provoked a war with Russia by shelling civilians of South Ossetia as they slept in their beds. He is now provocatively the Governor of Odessa, where neo-Nazis burned at least 50 anti-Kiev protestors alive in May 2014.

And now we have the trouble in Ukraine. NATO pissed on the graves of all those who died fighting the Nazis in WW2, and also pissed on its own founding principles by supporting violent neo-Nazis as they razed Kiev and chased out a legitimately elected government by provoking riots through shooting both protestors and police from buildings in and around Maidan. The US then hand-picked their NATO/Wall Street stooge Yatsenyuk to be the new unelected PM. He packed his junta with the violent neo-Nazis, and then they started bombing and shelling the civilians of East Ukraine, killing 7000 of them, who rebelled against the Kiev Nazis.


Yvette Cooper, the wife of Bilderberger Ed Balls, has the backing of the establishment warmongering paper The Guardian.

She now has the backing of Bilderberger Gordon Brown.

The establishment are letting it be known who they want...and it is obviously not Jeremy Corbyn.

Gordon Brown has voted for Yvette Cooper as his first preference in the Labour leadership contest.

The former prime minister's office confirmed he believed Ms Cooper was the best of the four contenders to succeed Ed Miliband.

His second preference was Andy Burnham with Liz Kendall his third choice.

Mr Brown recently made a speech warning against Labour becoming a "party of protest," which was seen as a swipe at left-wing frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn.

[source : Labour leadership: Gordon Brown backs Yvette Cooper, BBC,, 25th August 2015]

Monday, August 24, 2015


This is the trouble with Twitter.

If someone retweets a tweet is it because they support the sentiment of that tweet, or are anti that tweet, or are retweeting just for interest, or pleasure, or for some other motive?

Perhaps Twitter could add a category for each retweet, or the retweeters be forced to add emoticons...

Anyway, Higgins has retweeted this:


Perhaps Higgins could explain himself.

The author of the original tweet is the website , and the photo comes from this post: Jeremy Corbyn and antisemites

There seems to be some disrespect here because Hezbollah are dying fighting Islamic State!!

Which is ironic because in March 2007 Seymour Hersh predicted that the nastiest international cutthroat Jihadis would be unleashed onto Syria, Lebanon and Iran by the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia!!!!!!!!!!!

It is more than bleedin' obvious that Israel had some part to play in 9/11 and the subsequent wars:
1. A Clean Break was written for Netanyahu in 1996 stating that Israel should 'engage' Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon;
2. 2 years later Zionists formed The Project for a New American Century,and their first action was to write to then POTUS Bill Clinton demanding war on Iraq;
3. 2 years after that, in 2000, PNAC published Rebuilding America's Defenses declaring Iraq and Iran as the greatest threats to US national security,also suggesting that the USA should go on a bloody warmongering rampage but recognising the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" to shock the dumbed down American public int supporting those wars;
4. on 9/11 senior and founding members of PNAC were in control of the US military as it went AWOL, allowing alleged hijacked planes to fly into the WTC and even the freakin' Pentagon!;
5. shortly after 9/11 General Wesley Clark was told of a plan for war and regime change in seven countries in five years, those countries being Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon, along with Libya, Sudan and Somalia;
6. but by 2007 that plan was moribund so the plan revealed by Hersh has been implemented, which would explain why Israel has such a cosy relationship with the cutthroats, giving them medical assistance, providing air support and bombing Syrian military positions at the drop of a hat.

Anyway, Hezbollah are out in the field fighting Islamic State, while from the safety of his own sofa Higgins accumulates 'evidence' from Youtube to prosecute for war crimes those fighting Islamic State.


With the warning from Damian McBride to stock up on water, tinned food and cash, we can now look back and wonder what clues were placed in front of us that something big was a comin'.

But first let us recall what happened just after the last crash. We bailed the gambling banks out and are now suffering austerity. There was then some soul-searching among the banks, and they promised they would never do it again, so we watered down legislation enforcing Glass-Steagall measures.

Will we be able to bail them out again?

Here is what McBride says:

Twenty times worse?!

So we won't be able to bail the banks out with national credit.

But what about your money? Yes. That deposit account for little Johnny? That savings account for a rainy day? The banks can't have that to bail them out, can they?

For the answer to that please read YES SOMETHING IS AFOOT : THE BAIL IN posted last October.


I warned you all to split your money into much smaller deposits, e.g. split £50k into 5 x £10k, and with as much easy access as possible.


You didn't ask any questions.

Yet you will not provide any answers.



The TTS Infographic of the Day is this showing how NATO has expanded and expanded and expanded east, towards Russia's border, with Ukraine and Georgia now close to also becoming full members.

The Washington Treaty Articles 4 and 5 state:
Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Things are more likely to happen between Russia and NATO if members of NATO share a border with Russia.


Corbyn will demand debt-free money from the Bank of England for infrastructure development!!


So the Corbyn checklist so far:
1. stop the fucking wars;
2. implement real and actual Glass-Steagall policies;
3. debt-free money for infrastructure development.


So just as China devalues its currency and causes a global financial panic, North Korea starts some kind of trouble with South Korea?



Steve Arrington - Feel So Real

Feel, feel, feel

Feel so real
I feel so real
I feel so real
And I owe it all to you

Oh, I feel so nice
With you here by my side
If I just do the best that I can do
It seems that's enough for you

The little things mean so much
A smile or a joyful touch
That push that keeps me going strong
To know that I belong

And I feel so real
I feel so real
I feel so real
And I owe it all to you

Hey, feel so real
I feel so real
Oh, I feel so real
And I owe it all to you

Love is such a wonderful thing
The angels sing when freedom reigns
Freedom from the chains
That hold us back from harmony

I'm right here on my knees
To thank you for the air that I breathe
I thank you for the life that you have saved
That's why I've got to say

Feel so real
I feel so real
Oh, I feel so real
And I owe it all to you, you

Hey, feel so real
I feel so real
I feel so real
And I owe it all to you

Feel so real
Feel so real
Feel so real

Feel so real
Feel so real
Feel so real